Mr. Jackson feels safe in the boys’ bathroom at school
“The guys, they look at me like I’m some kind of freak, or they’re concerned or scared.”
****
I am certain that at times he may have felt uncomfortable in there if he were getting looks from other students who WERE JUST AS UNCOMFORTABLE.
First...he is choosing to go into a bathroom that may make him uncomfortable (even though he says earlier in the interview he is more comfortable with himself than ever before).
Secind....there still appears to be zero regard for the uncomfortable feelings of those he is around.
TheMeanDM wrote: Mr. Jackson feels safe in the boys’ bathroom at school
“The guys, they look at me like I’m some kind of freak, or they’re concerned or scared.”
****
I am certain that at times he may have felt uncomfortable in there if he were getting looks from other students who WERE JUST AS UNCOMFORTABLE.
First...he is choosing to go into a bathroom that may make him uncomfortable (even though he says earlier in the interview he is more comfortable with himself than ever before).
Secind....there still appears to be zero regard for the uncomfortable feelings of those he is around.
Because his discomfort is largely based on their discomfort. If their discomfort can be mitigated by dialogue then you break the cycle.
First...he is choosing to go into a bathroom that may make him uncomfortable (even though he says earlier in the interview he is more comfortable with himself than ever before).
Which potentially just means that he was more uncomfortable going into the girls toilet.
Or that he's someone who is uncomfortable in public restrooms.
Secind....there still appears to be zero regard for the uncomfortable feelings of those he is around.
Why should there be any regard for their feelings?
If they had complained that they were uncomfortable with black kids using their bathroom, would we be having this discussion?
Or would we just be telling them to get over it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So they are to blame for feeling uncomfortablr when their space is invaded......is that what you are saying?
Yes, they are to blame for feeling uncomfortable that someone else is going to the toilet.
TheMeanDM wrote: So they are to blame for feeling uncomfortablr when their space is invaded......is that what you are saying?
No one is to blame, there is no need to assign blame here.
The cis-boys in this story would, however, benefit from understanding that just because someone is born a girl, doesn't mean they will stay a girl, that the equipment issued isn't always the correct set.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I am not sure if we touched on the fact that there are six neutral gender bathrooms on their campus...
It's mentioned. It was also mentioned that those bathrooms are not conveniently located. When your school barely gives you enough time to sprint to your next class walking over to the other side of campus to find one of the few bathrooms you're allowed to use isn't always an option.
Because his discomfort is largely based on their discomfort. If their discomfort can be mitigated by dialogue then you break the cycle.
I could probably argue that AJ is well aware of many of the crimes perpetrated against trans people in restrooms, and probably has that in the back of his mind. I know I'd be very uncomfortable having to piss or gak or whatever, walk in seeing others in there with the thought, "is today the day they all decide to beat the gak out of me?" It just does not make for a very comfortable time.
I think the sad thing about this story is that, at least with most of the trans people that I know, the beginning of their opening up/transformation began also with moving to a completely new place. Because they were in a new place, new city, school or whatever, they were surrounded by strangers who's only interactions are with them as they are, there are no memories of how they were.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I am not sure if we touched on the fact that there are six neutral gender bathrooms on their campus...
It's mentioned. It was also mentioned that those bathrooms are not conveniently located. When your school barely gives you enough time to sprint to your next class walking over to the other side of campus to find one of the few bathrooms you're allowed to use isn't always an option.
Gee, you could always go to the bathroom gasp during a class! Such an inconceivable method of finding a way to not encounter anyone is completely unheard of! Only if this was thought of before we used the boys bathroom.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Gee, you could always go to the bathroom gasp during a class! Such an inconceivable method of finding a way to not encounter anyone is completely unheard of! Only if this was thought of before we used the boys bathroom.
I was in high school from 00-04, and it was a royal pain in the arse, I cannot believe that it has gotten any easier or better since then.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Gee, you could always go to the bathroom gasp during a class! Such an inconceivable method of finding a way to not encounter anyone is completely unheard of! Only if this was thought of before we used the boys bathroom.
I was in high school from 00-04, and it was a royal pain in the arse, I cannot believe that it has gotten any easier or better since then.
I'm sure if you were transgender and your teachers understood your plight, going to the bathroom during class would be a common feat.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I'm sure if you were transgender and your teachers understood your plight, going to the bathroom during class would be a common feat.
Lol, perhaps... but at least at my school, administrators in that day were worried about students using "i have to go to the bathroom" as an excuse to ditch class.... So every classroom had a sign in-out sheet attached to the "hall pass" and some administrator's job was to go through those logs to ensure students weren't missing class. We had one girl on the volleyball team get sent to detention because that admin person had determined that she had missed "too much" class with bathroom breaks.
And trans or not, administrators like that don't have a sympathetic bone in their bodies, so I doubt they'd care or make an exception.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I'm sure if you were transgender and your teachers understood your plight, going to the bathroom during class would be a common feat.
Lol, perhaps... but at least at my school, administrators in that day were worried about students using "i have to go to the bathroom" as an excuse to ditch class.... So every classroom had a sign in-out sheet attached to the "hall pass" and some administrator's job was to go through those logs to ensure students weren't missing class. We had one girl on the volleyball team get sent to detention because that admin person had determined that she had missed "too much" class with bathroom breaks.
And trans or not, administrators like that don't have a sympathetic bone in their bodies, so I doubt they'd care or make an exception.
And anyone is going to think the trans-kid is going to skip class? Not like Mr. Jackson could get far... with a lettuce wrap on his head.
Gee, you could always go to the bathroom gasp during a class! Such an inconceivable method of finding a way to not encounter anyone is completely unheard of! Only if this was thought of before we used the boys bathroom.
Or they could go to the next logical option, and set up a roster, with scheduled bathroom times for trans kids, for black kids, for Latino kids, for that kid with the really massive dental attachment, for the redheads, for the kids with any sort of physical disfigurement, for skinny kids, for kids who stutter, and for the foreign exchange students, so that nobody ever has to encounter anybody in the bathroom who doesn't fit their mental image of 'normal'...
Tactical_Spam wrote: I'm sure if you were transgender and your teachers understood your plight, going to the bathroom during class would be a common feat.
Lol, perhaps... but at least at my school, administrators in that day were worried about students using "i have to go to the bathroom" as an excuse to ditch class.... So every classroom had a sign in-out sheet attached to the "hall pass" and some administrator's job was to go through those logs to ensure students weren't missing class. We had one girl on the volleyball team get sent to detention because that admin person had determined that she had missed "too much" class with bathroom breaks.
And trans or not, administrators like that don't have a sympathetic bone in their bodies, so I doubt they'd care or make an exception.
And anyone is going to think the trans-kid is going to skip class? Not like Mr. Jackson could get far... with a lettuce wrap on his head.
There will always be some...ahem..."answer"...as to why they just cannot do, try, or think of something else.
Gee, you could always go to the bathroom gasp during a class! Such an inconceivable method of finding a way to not encounter anyone is completely unheard of! Only if this was thought of before we used the boys bathroom.
Or they could go to the next logical option, and set up a roster, with scheduled bathroom times for trans kids, for black kids, for Latino kids, for that kid with the really massive dental attachment, for the redheads, for the kids with any sort of physical disfigurement, for skinny kids, for kids who stutter, and for the foreign exchange students, so that nobody ever has to encounter anybody in the bathroom who doesn't fit their mental image of 'normal'...
Aside from the fact that Mr. Jackson is transgendered, I don't think he'd fit any definition of normal anyway. When you hair is the same color and emits light like a glow stick and I can fit my thumb through your earlobe, I think we can classify you as "not the everyday normal."
Also, are we saying people of color are not normal? Isn't that a bit rac- wait, I see what you did there. Sneaky Insaniak, very sneaky.
I hardly think encouraging kids to skip ~5 minutes to go to the toilet is a good message or idea. They could miss some pretty important stuff for their assessment.
If bigots being uncomfortable is reason enough to have bathroom segregation, then should we put the transgender bathrooms and drinking fountains next to the ones for black people?
Tactical_Spam wrote: I am not sure if we touched on the fact that there are six neutral gender bathrooms on their campus...
It's mentioned. It was also mentioned that those bathrooms are not conveniently located. When your school barely gives you enough time to sprint to your next class walking over to the other side of campus to find one of the few bathrooms you're allowed to use isn't always an option.
Gee, you could always go to the bathroom gasp during a class! Such an inconceivable method of finding a way to not encounter anyone is completely unheard of! Only if this was thought of before we used the boys bathroom.
So a student should miss out on class and parts of their education to use the bathroom? I know there are times when this is necessary, and I know there are times when you'd want to.
Also asking and leaving during a class is a lot more noticeable than just slipping in when everyone's at lunch. The entire class has to watch you leave and speculate upon why.
At my school, unless you had a medical reason or female reason, you were expected to go during breaks. Classes were 45minutes which was a reasonable time, had you gone in breaks allowed.
Tactical_Spam wrote: I am not sure if we touched on the fact that there are six neutral gender bathrooms on their campus...
It's mentioned. It was also mentioned that those bathrooms are not conveniently located. When your school barely gives you enough time to sprint to your next class walking over to the other side of campus to find one of the few bathrooms you're allowed to use isn't always an option.
Gee, you could always go to the bathroom gasp during a class! Such an inconceivable method of finding a way to not encounter anyone is completely unheard of! Only if this was thought of before we used the boys bathroom.
So a student should miss out on class and parts of their education to use the bathroom? I know there are times when this is necessary, and I know there are times when you'd want to. Also asking and leaving during a class is a lot more noticeable than just slipping in when everyone's at lunch. The entire class has to watch you leave and speculate upon why.
At my school, unless you had a medical reason or female reason, you were expected to go during breaks. Classes were 45minutes which was a reasonable time, had you gone in breaks allowed.
This. I had a medical reason and could go to the bathroom whenever I wanted/felt I needed to (though the flip side of that medical condition is that I can literally not go all day unless I'm guzzling litres of water ). I still chose to go during breaks and lunch because sticking your hand up in the middle of the class and being allowed to go to the toilet when everyone else is told to hold it or that they should have gone at lunch/break is a great way of pointing out to everybody in that class that there is something different about you. And too often in schools being different to the "norm" is the first step to being bullied as it is basically free ammunition.
TheMeanDM wrote: So they are to blame for feeling uncomfortablr when their space is invaded......is that what you are saying?
That is only valid if we accept your statement that the lavatory is "their space" and someone else using can be considered an "invasion". This clearly is the key point of contention in the whole town.
However, just feeling "uncomfortable" is not necessarily good cause for denying someone else their rights.
Of course you don't agree it's the transexual's right to go into the place where they want.
I feel uncomfortable knowing that their are people could be carrying concealed weapons around me all the time. Therefore, we should get rid of Conceal and carry.
That is essentially the argument we are being presented about Transgender Bathrooms by Righties of all people! My how Conservatives have changed!
Easy E wrote: I feel uncomfortable knowing that their are people could be carrying concealed weapons around me all the time. Therefore, we should get rid of Conceal and carry.
That is essentially the argument we are being presented about Transgender Bathrooms by Righties of all people! My how Conservatives have changed!
You laugh, but I would actually be all over this. Nothing funner than pissing at a urinal and seeing the guy next to you is armed.
That is because they want them in the MEN's room where they can give them the lockerroom justice they know they deserve.
They get mad if a FemaletoMale person who dresses based upon her gender identity (female) is in the women's room.
They get mad if a MaletoFemale person who dresses based upon her gender identity (male) is in the women's room (supposedly where they want them to be).
They get mad if a Female who doesn't dress or look the way they want them to is in the women's room.
This is why this is so insane... Most of the transgender 'loooka like ah man' people in the women's bathroom are going to be pre-transition FtM or NOT transgender women... Meaning they ARE WHERE YOU TOLD THEM TO BE WITH YOUR LAWS. And yet they still get harassed and beaten. This is 100% about bigotry and violence against Transgender, and nothing about safety or 'think of the children'.
That is because they want them in the MEN's room where they can give them the lockerroom justice they know they deserve.
They get mad if a FemaletoMale person who dresses based upon her gender identity (female) is in the women's room.
They get mad if a MaletoFemale person who dresses based upon her gender identity (male) is in the women's room (supposedly where they want them to be).
They get mad if a Female who doesn't dress or look the way they want them to is in the women's room.
This is why this is so insane... Most of the transgender 'loooka like ah man' people in the women's bathroom are going to be pre-transition FtM or NOT transgender women... Meaning they ARE WHERE YOU TOLD THEM TO BE WITH YOUR LAWS. And yet they still get harassed and beaten. This is 100% about bigotry and violence against Transgender, and nothing about safety or 'think of the children'.
Hey! Straight people have never harassed or killed any....er...well....THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I got very embarrassed security called on me at the train station today. It was raining, so I was in a cap and had my hood up.
By the time I'd washed my hands, a member of staff had come in to escort me out.
Upon realising that I was "supposed" to be there, he went red, apologised and left.
My jimmies remain unrustled in a major way, but I'm hurt a little. Someone obviously had this entire issue on their mind due to media coverage. Rather than "you okay?" They went out and told the nearest staff.
I'm trying to just live my life, and keep under the radar. Feels like I can't do right.
But no, it went like:
Me: [Looks up from sink and sees uniformed guard watching] ...?
Guard: Um.
Me: ...?
Guard: There's um, been a complaint about a um, Buttery in the Non Buttery toilet.
Me: Do you really want to go through all this?
Guard: ...no
Me: Can I go?
Guard: Erm. Yes. Sorry. Really sorry.
Me: It's okay. You have to look if you're asked.
Guard: Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Having just skimmed past this on my Facebook, I'm curious... What does this mean for the average person? I don't have a great understanding what a bill is.
House Passes Bill That Lets Government Contractors Fire People For Being LGBT
WASHINGTON — The House passed a massive National Defense Authorization Act late Wednesday, and tucked inside of it, a provision that would allow federal contractors to fire employees for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
The House right now is pants on head crazy and trying to posture for their base. Don't worry. It won't go anywhere as it will never get past the Senate and Pres.
I'm afraid I don't really know what House, Senate, etc, are in terms of steps or hierarchy. I should probably read up on this.
Over here things are a lot simpler, as far as I'm aware.
But then there's a lot less of us to govern.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I'm afraid I don't really know what House, Senate, etc, are in terms of steps or hierarchy. I should probably read up on this. Over here things are a lot simpler, as far as I'm aware. But then there's a lot less of us to govern.
The House is 435 Representatives somewhat proportionally allocated by population.
The Senate is 100 Senators, where each states has 2.
The House generally creates appropriation bills to be voted/amended/re-voted etc...
The Senate takes up the House's bill and votes/amend/revote etc...
If the Senate makes some changes to House's bill, it goes back to the house to be 'reconciled'... ie, revoted.
Then it's sent to the President for signature.
As to the furor over this bill... A Democrat tried to insert an amendment that would have effectively nullified a provision in the defense authorization that the House passed late Wednesday night. That language embedded in the defense bill states that religious corporations, associations and institutions that receive federal contracts can't be discriminated against on the basis of religion.
Democrats are creating a ruckus that such provision "could potentially" allow discrimination against the LGBT community in the name of religious freedom.
Some serious derpage on both sides and gratituous awful messaging.
It's the Stray Voltage™ or Wedge Issue® theatre in action here.
TheMeanDM wrote: Mr. Jackson feels safe in the boys’ bathroom at school
“The guys, they look at me like I’m some kind of freak, or they’re concerned or scared.”
****
I am certain that at times he may have felt uncomfortable in there if he were getting looks from other students who WERE JUST AS UNCOMFORTABLE.
First...he is choosing to go into a bathroom that may make him uncomfortable (even though he says earlier in the interview he is more comfortable with himself than ever before).
Secind....there still appears to be zero regard for the uncomfortable feelings of those he is around.
TheMeanDM has invaded my space(dakka) and made me feel uncomfortable. Could I get a Mod to deal with this? Please take my feelings in to account, as they are precious to me.
Sounds like that lady needs to read matthew 5-29 through 30
I always feel the worst for the children. Like, protest and believe whatever crap you want, but does Timmy really need to be holding a sign saying "God hates gays"
Sounds like that lady needs to read matthew 5-29 through 30
I always feel the worst for the children. Like, protest and believe whatever crap you want, but does Timmy really need to be holding a sign saying "God hates gays"
Sounds like that lady needs to read matthew 5-29 through 30
I always feel the worst for the children. Like, protest and believe whatever crap you want, but does Timmy really need to be holding a sign saying "God hates gays"
How else would you indoctrinate the hate?
Take em into the rest rooms and spy on peoples chuffs and pee pees?
Honestly I feel like anyone who has more than say... 6 kids has some issues. I mean, I'm not saying everyone with that many kids are fundamentalist wackos, but if you make a venn diagram of fundamentalist wackos and people who have >6 kids, I suspect there is going to be some pretty significant overlap.
Ouze wrote: Honestly I feel like anyone who has more than say... 6 kids has some issues. I mean, I'm not saying everyone with that many kids are fundamentalist wackos, but if you make a venn diagram of fundamentalist wackos and people who have >6 kids, I suspect there is going to be some pretty significant overlap.
Google 'quiverfull'. I agree, anyone over 4 kids instantly draws my suspicion as dangerously irresponsible or dangerously ideological.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Couldnt that time be vetter served doing gods work, ynow, helping the poor and downtrodden? And why so many kids?
Because Christians in America don't really worship or follow Jesus Christ any more.... They much prefer to worship and follow Republican Jesus
There's a spooky amount of truth in that.
The problem is that moderates are not newsworthy.
I suspect that for every fundi wack-job, there are dozens, if not hundreds of good, honest Christians. It’s just being decent, honest people trying to help in your small way does not generate headlines.
The same could be said for most groups. Our main exposure is the fringe elements.
12 kids. That's 9 years of being preggers. That would make anyone derpy.
"It's a dangerous place."
It's true. In high school, as I was shoplifting condoms to have premarital sex, I tripped over a pregnancy test that was on the floor. Thankfully, the stack of porn (sear catalogs with lingerie section) broke my fall.
Ouze wrote: Honestly I feel like anyone who has more than say... 6 kids has some issues. I mean, I'm not saying everyone with that many kids are fundamentalist wackos, but if you make a venn diagram of fundamentalist wackos and people who have >6 kids, I suspect there is going to be some pretty significant overlap.
I think you'd also find a lot of sub 100 IQ's in that overlap as well. Possibly - the main motivating factor.
The problem I have is that I frankly don't believe that you can have 12 kids and have enough time to give each of them the amount of care they deserve. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line for being irresponsible, but 12 is way past it.
I read a Chinese document from the ming dynasty and there was a guy who had a daughter and he named her seventh daughter. Now this is rural ancient china but I think it gets the point across where the quality time with kids suffers the more you have
TheWaspinator wrote: The problem I have is that I frankly don't believe that you can have 12 kids and have enough time to give each of them the amount of care they deserve. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line for being irresponsible, but 12 is way past it.
Pretty Much how I feel, It gets too the point where its the kids raising the kids. and PArents dont do much because they have another kid.
My state is doing what my state does best, and they are currently working on a religious protection bill that would require schools to build a third bathroom, so that if a student or parent raises a religious objection to having to share a bathroom with someone that is transgender they can go to the separate "birth gender only" bathroom.
d-usa wrote: My state is doing what my state does best, and they are currently working on a religious protection bill that would require schools to build a third bathroom, so that if a student or parent raises a religious objection to having to share a bathroom with someone that is transgender they can go to the separate "birth gender only" bathroom.
I'm assuming this is the version of "they" that goes in the sentence "they are trans, make them use a different bathroom" rather than the version that goes in "They felt uncomfortable, so they used a birth gender only bathroom"?
d-usa wrote: My state is doing what my state does best, and they are currently working on a religious protection bill that would require schools to build a third bathroom, so that if a student or parent raises a religious objection to having to share a bathroom with someone that is transgender they can go to the separate "birth gender only" bathroom.
I'm assuming this is the version of "they" that goes in the sentence "they are trans, make them use a different bathroom" rather than the version that goes in "They felt uncomfortable, so they used a birth gender only bathroom"?
Nope, different bathrooms for birth-gender only folks to accommodate their religion.
Nevelon wrote: The problem is that moderates are not newsworthy.
I suspect that for every fundi wack-job, there are dozens, if not hundreds of good, honest Christians. It’s just being decent, honest people trying to help in your small way does not generate headlines.
The same could be said for most groups. Our main exposure is the fringe elements.
Except that, especially on THIS issue, we're seeing otherwise "moderate" people base arguments against the LGBT community because of their religion.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: So the solution to not being allowed to segregate others, is to segregate themselves?
Not through legal means... but yeah.... I mean, if the prospect of seeing an icky (opposite of whatever you have) is too much to bear simply "segregate yourself" and not use the facility that could potentially put you in that situation.
I mean, it seriously is as easy as "I always spend too much money at Costco, so before I go, I make sure I eat a huge meal, so that I'm not hungry when I'm in there"
I really dont care which toilets trans people use but I did have an experience running into one in a toilet once I can share.
I'd been out all day, shopping centre to shopping centre and I needed to go. So as I walked in the male toilets I see at the basins a transwoman applying her lipstick. I freeze on the spot. My first thought was that I'd walked into the womens toilets by accident until I looked to the right wall and seen the urinals. The trans woman glanced over at me still standing at the entrance while I looked around. I had an "Oh!" moment as I realised I was in the male toilets all along then went on my way to a cubicle. I didnt choose a cubicle over the urinal seeking privacy either, I just really really needed a crap that day.
I wasnt threatened or upset by a transperson being in the same toilets during any of it. I got on with my life as it was a nonissue.
Just remember women: be eternally terrified for yourselves and daughters of that male-to-female that's obviously a sexual predator and will "get you" in the supposed safety of your women's bathroom. You know, the one that because they identify as female probably has a somewhat high (obviously some still love women) likelyhood of having no interest in your gender as a sexual object, and is also probably really preoccupied with that poop they need to take.
It's not like there was previously some sort of barrier that stopped bad people from sneaking around and doing bad things, that this 'horrible' tolerance has suddenly destroyed.
Have there been any statistical studies done on the incidence of sexual predatory crimes by transgender people? I can think of several examples of trans people being the victims of various crimes, but I don't recall any stories like that where the trans person was the perpetrator.
I won't say there are none, but there are none that can be found by searching around.
And you'd think something like that would be extensively plastered everywhere.
Gitzbitah wrote: Have there been any statistical studies done on the incidence of sexual predatory crimes by transgender people? I can think of several examples of trans people being the victims of various crimes, but I don't recall any stories like that where the trans person was the perpetrator.
This isn't where the complaints are coming from, though. Once again, The actual complaints being made aren't that transgendered people will attack them. They are much more absurd: namely that non-Transgender sexual predators will use this law to justify walking into the Ladies room so that they can assault everybody's wives and daughters... because apparently they need a rule that allows them to do that...
Gitzbitah wrote: Have there been any statistical studies done on the incidence of sexual predatory crimes by transgender people? I can think of several examples of trans people being the victims of various crimes, but I don't recall any stories like that where the trans person was the perpetrator.
This isn't where the complaints are coming from, though. Once again, The actual complaints being made are much more absurd: namely that non-Transgender sexual predators will use this law to justify walking into the Ladies room so that they can assault everybody's wives and daughters... because apparently they need a rule that allows them to do that...
Yeah, that was more of what I was getting at. And apparently it's only us disgusting men that are eagerly awaiting the ability to dress up as women to accost unsupervised little girls or those hot women who are defenseless while peeing, in public restrooms where none of the tons of people in the store outside can come to their screams of help. Because no male sexual predator ever just stayed in the men's room and went after anyone in there, and never did a man skulk into the ladies room for that reason before right now. We have been waiting, and finally lawmakers have given us the opening to enact our dastardly plans.
Sorry to sound like I am against you ladies, but this smacks of the same moral outrage, narcissism, and creeping paranoia that led one of my mother's friends to put a security camera in her freaking GOAT BARN, to check in case someone dangerous was out there that could get her when she went out for chores. Honestly- it was not for any other sensible reason, like animals in trouble like going into labor, or sick, or just predators. Because obviously that's where sexual predators are-satisfying their uncontrollable urges by waiting for unassuming 50-something housewives to enter barns alone out in the middle of the boondocks.
This is about people who face tremendous hardships in their lives- regardless of whether you agree if they are making those choices or not- and throwing those people one. freaking. bone. so that they can feel a bit less stress when they have to poop in public. It is so not about us freaking "norms", no matter how narcissistic we are.
On Monday, the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education, located in North Carolina, voted to let students bring pepper spray on campus. Why the sudden rush to let students carry what the board calls “defensive sprays”? As board member Chuck Hughes explained while endorsing the proposal:
Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in.
Hughes was alluding to a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a federal ban on sex discrimination in education encompasses gender identity discrimination against trans students. The ruling is being appealed.
The Salisbury Post reports that at least one board member, Travis Allen, was concerned about the policy—not because it was motivated by anti-trans animus, but because pepper spray can be a dangerous weapon. His fears were ultimately assuaged, however, when he concluded that a bottle of Windex or a computer could do the same damage as a defensive spray. “I could do more damage with my laptop than I could with a bottle of pepper spray,” he declared.
At press time, the number of students who have been assaulted by predators who feign a trans identity to gain access to bathrooms is zero.
The feth, North Carolina? Who comes up with this gak?
On Monday, the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education, located in North Carolina, voted to let students bring pepper spray on campus. Why the sudden rush to let students carry what the board calls “defensive sprays”? As board member Chuck Hughes explained while endorsing the proposal:
Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in.
Hughes was alluding to a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a federal ban on sex discrimination in education encompasses gender identity discrimination against trans students. The ruling is being appealed.
The Salisbury Post reports that at least one board member, Travis Allen, was concerned about the policy—not because it was motivated by anti-trans animus, but because pepper spray can be a dangerous weapon. His fears were ultimately assuaged, however, when he concluded that a bottle of Windex or a computer could do the same damage as a defensive spray. “I could do more damage with my laptop than I could with a bottle of pepper spray,” he declared.
At press time, the number of students who have been assaulted by predators who feign a trans identity to gain access to bathrooms is zero.
The feth, North Carolina? Who comes up with this gak?
I am slowly losing my ability to care about whether or not I have a Trans in the bathroom with me. I am becoming increasingly worried about nut cases trying to defend the bathroom.
On Monday, the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education, located in North Carolina, voted to let students bring pepper spray on campus. Why the sudden rush to let students carry what the board calls “defensive sprays”? As board member Chuck Hughes explained while endorsing the proposal:
Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in.
Hughes was alluding to a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a federal ban on sex discrimination in education encompasses gender identity discrimination against trans students. The ruling is being appealed.
The Salisbury Post reports that at least one board member, Travis Allen, was concerned about the policy—not because it was motivated by anti-trans animus, but because pepper spray can be a dangerous weapon. His fears were ultimately assuaged, however, when he concluded that a bottle of Windex or a computer could do the same damage as a defensive spray. “I could do more damage with my laptop than I could with a bottle of pepper spray,” he declared.
At press time, the number of students who have been assaulted by predators who feign a trans identity to gain access to bathrooms is zero.
The feth, North Carolina? Who comes up with this gak?
I am slowly losing my ability to care about whether or not I have a Trans in the bathroom with me. I am becoming increasingly worried about nut cases trying to defend the bathroom.
Same here. We've all used the bathroom with a transgender person, and we've been fine. We didn't even know we had a transgender person in the bathroom with us.
Fear the fearful! Bring pepper spray for protection against 'accidental' triggerings.
This is really going to come back to bite them in the butt when they get referrals for kids pepper spraying each other, and the kids can point to an article where the administer says its less harmful than windex.
On Monday, the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education, located in North Carolina, voted to let students bring pepper spray on campus. Why the sudden rush to let students carry what the board calls “defensive sprays”? As board member Chuck Hughes explained while endorsing the proposal:
Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in.
Hughes was alluding to a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a federal ban on sex discrimination in education encompasses gender identity discrimination against trans students. The ruling is being appealed.
The Salisbury Post reports that at least one board member, Travis Allen, was concerned about the policy—not because it was motivated by anti-trans animus, but because pepper spray can be a dangerous weapon. His fears were ultimately assuaged, however, when he concluded that a bottle of Windex or a computer could do the same damage as a defensive spray. “I could do more damage with my laptop than I could with a bottle of pepper spray,” he declared.
At press time, the number of students who have been assaulted by predators who feign a trans identity to gain access to bathrooms is zero.
The feth, North Carolina? Who comes up with this gak?
I am slowly losing my ability to care about whether or not I have a Trans in the bathroom with me. I am becoming increasingly worried about nut cases trying to defend the bathroom.
Same here. We've all used the bathroom with a transgender person, and we've been fine. We didn't even know we had a transgender person in the bathroom with us.
Yes, but thanks to a few batgak crazy people on both sides of the problem, I have to storm a bloody Dwarvin Karak just to take a pee and just feth it for anybody who might look like the opposite gender. I bet it'd be easier for them to make themselves a bathroom.
I wish that the current news culture would freaking tone it down with giving everyone a constant sense of hysteria. Now, rape should be treated like attempted murder, in my mind, but it is complete bullgak that I, as a 34yo male with the approximate violent tendencies of a pre-spider bite Peter Parker, have to increasingly wonder if I am around a stranger that's female-especially if we are moderately alone-, is assessing me as:
Scanning....."Subject: Human Male. Caution: Presence of penis suggests probable predilection for rape. Take immediate precautionary measures."
People whose ability to be elected depends on convincing voters that they hate everyone the voters hate and who believe that violent self defense is a magic solution to (almost) every possible problem. This proposal accomplishes both goals: the image of people being pepper sprayed for being in the "wrong" bathroom appeals to the bloodthirsty mob, while simultaneously reassuring the pro-gun voters that they agree with the idea of using violence in self defense. It's an obviously stupid idea that can't survive even the most casual attempt at spotting flaws, but there are a lot of really stupid and hateful voters in NC.
AegisGrimm wrote: I wish that the current news culture would freaking tone it down with giving everyone a constant sense of hysteria. Now, rape should be treated like attempted murder, in my mind, but it is complete bullgak that I, as a 34yo male with the approximate violent tendencies of a pre-spider bite Peter Parker, have to increasingly wonder if I am around a stranger that's female-especially if we are moderately alone-, is assessing me as:
Scanning....."Subject: Human Male. Caution: Presence of penis suggests probable predilection for rape. Take immediate precautionary measures."
I have started doing stuff like asking if it's okay to sit in vacant seats next to people on busy trains, because a lot of women freeze up upon seeing Strange Man trying to sit with them. Showing that I'm aware I'm getting close, but still need to sit down often breaks the ice.
It's sad that I even need to. These days I usually just sit in the luggage rack if it's empty.
Anybody who thinks this should be common for trans-gender people really should re-think their life. Hell, it's a free fecking world, everybody should be able to do as they please and not get hassled for it (within reason, I don't mean prance around in public in the nude). This seems to be the only problem in our society, the Media's portrayal of 'normal' and 'correct'. Hell, this isn't even a damned argument. It's just the majority hating on a minority (I'm sorry I'm calling it this) because they can.
AegisGrimm wrote: I wish that the current news culture would freaking tone it down with giving everyone a constant sense of hysteria. Now, rape should be treated like attempted murder, in my mind, but it is complete bullgak that I, as a 34yo male with the approximate violent tendencies of a pre-spider bite Peter Parker, have to increasingly wonder if I am around a stranger that's female-especially if we are moderately alone-, is assessing me as:
Scanning....."Subject: Human Male. Caution: Presence of penis suggests probable predilection for rape. Take immediate precautionary measures."
I have started doing stuff like asking if it's okay to sit in vacant seats next to people on busy trains, because a lot of women freeze up upon seeing Strange Man trying to sit with them. Showing that I'm aware I'm getting close, but still need to sit down often breaks the ice.
It's sad that I even need to. These days I usually just sit in the luggage rack if it's empty.
First off, you sit in the luggage rack?! :O How do you even fit? :O
Secondly, I also do the thing with asking, but I don't think it's just women that freeze up. I know for a fact that it freaks me out if people sit next to me without asking for the go ahead beforehand.
Being a Londoner born and bred I'm completely used to people sitting next to me without asking permission. I would only ask permission if the seat has a bag on it, or in a cafe where you might want to share a table.
The luggage racks on a lot of trains in the Greate Western fleet are big enough to lie down on. Not the overhead ones, the ones near the doors for big suitcases and folding bikes and so on.
On Monday, the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education, located in North Carolina, voted to let students bring pepper spray on campus. Why the sudden rush to let students carry what the board calls “defensive sprays”? As board member Chuck Hughes explained while endorsing the proposal:
Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in.
Hughes was alluding to a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a federal ban on sex discrimination in education encompasses gender identity discrimination against trans students. The ruling is being appealed.
The Salisbury Post reports that at least one board member, Travis Allen, was concerned about the policy—not because it was motivated by anti-trans animus, but because pepper spray can be a dangerous weapon. His fears were ultimately assuaged, however, when he concluded that a bottle of Windex or a computer could do the same damage as a defensive spray. “I could do more damage with my laptop than I could with a bottle of pepper spray,” he declared.
At press time, the number of students who have been assaulted by predators who feign a trans identity to gain access to bathrooms is zero.
The feth, North Carolina? Who comes up with this gak?
Because using pepper spray in confined quarters is always a great idea
Because using pepper spray in confined quarters is always a great idea
I'm extremely onside with women having pepper spray and knowing how to use it. SWMBO, Genghis Connie, and The Boy have pepper spray. I carry the spray version in my hand when walking the mountain dog alone, or the big streamer version when walking both dogs, and I have used it. Eminently better than blasting speer gold dots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It could be worse. They could have authorised the use of cattle prods and tasers in the showers.
Why? thats just a motivational tool for them to hurry up.
I'm extremely onside with women having pepper spray and knowing how to use it.
The issue is a lot of people who carry it have no idea how to use it, and advocating for it to be given to children to use to combat a fake boogeyman means the result will be:
*Law is made for invisible transgender people to 'self-identify' when using bathrooms
*When Transgenders self-identify, targeted violence will happen against them
What better way to follow up passing a law all about violence than to give teenagers pepper spray?
I was pepper sprayed when I was young. I was walking to my car in the cold after buying christmas gifts for homeless (not joking) from the Burlington coat factory/toysRus. I was speed walking to my car and this woman was fidgeting. I didn't pay her much mind, but she wen to a car and I kept walking. She assumed I was following her or something and leapt out and pepper sprayed me in the face and then jumped in her car and sped off. Luckily, someone saw the whole thing and saw I had not done anything to provoke an attack.
I called the police, who said they found a woman who had become 'impaired' by her own pepper spray who hit another car and caused a major injury. She 'claimed' she had just been sexually assaulted in a parking lot. Of course, that means she was blaming me for everything, and in turn the cause of her accident and being liable for the damages. If I didn't have witnesses, I would have been screwed.
Luckily I did, police believed me, I pressed charges for assault which she was found guilty of and she lost both my civil suit and her accident claim (which was a huge medical issue for the person she injured) but if I didn't have a witness, I could easily have been in jail and financially liable for literally doing nothing because an ignorant person used pepper spray without training and for no valid reason.
I have serious issues with untrained people carrying *ANY* type of weapon for self defense as they are more likely going to harm themselves and put themselves at MORE RISK or escalate violence against an innocent bystander. Your best self defense is still grab-breaking techniques and physical techniques which are reactionary opposed to point-and-shoot weapons.
This whole thing is about having a transgender identify in a bathroom and then kids pepper spray the gak out of them out of 'feeling uncomfortable' and then having everyone stand around and say 'you deserved it'. It is a violent dangerous law intended to harass and cause harm to the LGBT community.
The issue is a lot of people who carry it have no idea how to use it, and advocating for it to be given to children to use to combat a fake boogeyman means the result will be:
*Law is made for invisible transgender people to 'self-identify' when using bathrooms
*When Transgenders self-identify, targeted violence will happen against them
What better way to follow up passing a law all about violence than to give teenagers pepper spray?
I agree that the reasoning is stupid (T's) but protecting from others is not.
Teenagers aren't children. Interesting, of GC's girl friends: 2/3rds already carried pepper spray or mace. They don't care about T's. They care about creepers.
I was pepper sprayed when I was young.
Big fething deal. I sprayed myself. I had pepper spray fights with my Boy and his friends when they were in high school. My mom and wife accidentally got blasted. its just pepper spray.
I was walking to my car in the cold after buying christmas gifts for homeless (not joking) from the Burlington coat factory/toysRus. I was speed walking to my car and this woman was fidgeting. I didn't pay her much mind, but she wen to a car and I kept walking. She assumed I was following her or something and leapt out and pepper sprayed me in the face and then jumped in her car and sped off. Luckily, someone saw the whole thing and saw I had not done anything to provoke an attack.
And? She could have kicked you, beat you with her purse, or wailed you with a plethora of items.
I called the police, who said they found a woman who had become 'impaired' by her own pepper spray who hit another car and caused a major injury. She 'claimed' she had just been sexually assaulted in a parking lot. Of course, that means she was blaming me for everything, and in turn the cause of her accident and being liable for the damages. If I didn't have witnesses, I would have been screwed.
So you're angry you ran into a crazy woman. It won't be the last time...
I have serious issues with untrained people carrying *ANY* type of weapon for self defense as they are more likely going to harm themselves and put themselves at MORE RISK or escalate violence against an innocent bystander.
We are in complete agreement.
Your best self defense is still grab-breaking techniques and physical techniques which are reactionary opposed to point-and-shoot weapons.
Then what? I used to train women in that. Thats just a part of it.
This whole thing is about having a transgender identify in a bathroom and then kids pepper spray the gak out of them out of 'feeling uncomfortable' and then having everyone stand around and say 'you deserved it'. It is a violent dangerous law intended to harass and cause harm to the LGBT community.
In the Real World (TM) thats not going to happen any more than now, because hey-its battery.
In the Real World (TM) thats not going to happen any more than now, because hey-its battery.
Not when people LIE about it... We already have people who claim 'self defense' in shootings. And in most self-defense techniques and classes, it relies on reaction, not proactive action. You actually have to want for someone to touch or attack you before you do things to them so pro-actively trying to pepper spray people from a distance and then lie about it shows the issue with it.
So teenagers now have bigoted parents telling them transgenders are an issue, now gives them pepper spray, and it is just waiting for someone to spray another student and claim 'self defense' (and you can't prove it wasn't) You really think the police in NC are going to treat it as battery in that politically charged environment?
People having weapons, being untrained and their heads full of 'boogeymen' is a recipe for disaster. That is what these laws amount to. First cause people to identify themselves, then give people authorization to be armed against 'danger' and wait. They know what they are doing and 'self defense' is the ultimate way to force violence on victims.
We have police in our area being fired and arrested for using pepper spray inappropriately because how dangerous it is, but yet they want to give it to teenagers to use in schools to protect them from transgender rapists. Good job NC.
Not when people LIE about it... We already have people who claim 'self defense' in shootings. And in most self-defense techniques and classes, it relies on reaction, not proactive action. You actually have to want for someone to touch or attack you before you do things to them so pro-actively trying to pepper spray people from a distance and then lie about it shows the issue with it.
That’s about the most godawful stupid thing I’ve heard all morning.
People having weapons, being untrained and their heads full of 'boogeymen' is a recipe for disaster.
One should always be familiar. Pepper spray is not a weapon though. An ax is a weapon. A Beretta is a weapon. Even a taser could be considered a weapon I guess. Pepper spray is not a weapon.
We have police in our area being fired and arrested for using pepper spray inappropriately because how dangerous it is, but yet they want to give it to teenagers to use in schools to protect them from transgender rapists. Good job NC.
While the reasoning for the law is stupid (and we are agreed that it is stupid), I welcome it as it allows women (including T’s) an additional tool to protect themselves. As I would consider T’s and lesbians at risk groups for increased violence (and gay males) I would think you would be for increased protection options. But we’re also coming at it from different viewpoints. When I was in school everyone had 30.30s or shotguns on gun racks in the school parking lot, and boys routinely had large pocket knives.
In the Real World (TM) thats not going to happen any more than now, because hey-its battery.
Not when people LIE about it... We already have people who claim 'self defense' in shootings. And in most self-defense techniques and classes, it relies on reaction, not proactive action. You actually have to want for someone to touch or attack you before you do things to them so pro-actively trying to pepper spray people from a distance and then lie about it shows the issue with it.
So teenagers now have bigoted parents telling them transgenders are an issue, now gives them pepper spray, and it is just waiting for someone to spray another student and claim 'self defense' (and you can't prove it wasn't) You really think the police in NC are going to treat it as battery in that politically charged environment?
People having weapons, being untrained and their heads full of 'boogeymen' is a recipe for disaster. That is what these laws amount to. First cause people to identify themselves, then give people authorization to be armed against 'danger' and wait. They know what they are doing and 'self defense' is the ultimate way to force violence on victims.
We have police in our area being fired and arrested for using pepper spray inappropriately because how dangerous it is, but yet they want to give it to teenagers to use in schools to protect them from transgender rapists. Good job NC.
You're wrong about self defense laws, at least in NC but it's true to greater or lesser degrees in every state. Here in NC, I do NOT have to wait for somebody to actually attack me in order to defend myself. The legal justification for self defense in NC is a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. If a person believes another person is about to cause him/her physical arm then that person has legal justification to act in self defense to prevent that harm from occuring. If you actually had to wait and let somebody attack you first then that would make self defense useless. The whole point of self defense laws is to prevent the harm from happening in the first place. You never have a legal obligation to let an aggressor hurt you.
There are only a few specific circumstances that remove your right to self defense here in NC, if the person you feel threatened by has already identifited himself/herself as law enforcement and the LEO is lawfully performing their duties, if the person who feels threatened is in the process of committing a crime or just committed a crime, or if the person who feels threatened was the instigator of the confrontation.
I personally don't have an issue with allowing teenagers to carry defensive sprays on school grounds but I agree that the school board is using specious reasoning in this instance. If students, faculty or other people wanted to attack students in the school bathrooms there certainly wasn't anything preventing them from doing so that isn't still in effect once trans students are allowed to use whatever bathroom they want. Were bathroom assaults occuring in the school prior to now? Are there even any students enrolled that are trans or whatever and want to use bathrooms that were previously not allowed for them to use?
I've yet to see any empirical evidence that supports the terrible nonsensival HB2 bathroom prevision that our state legislators felt was extremely important even though there was no public demand for it. All the bad things that an agressor would do in the instance of a bathroom assault are already illegal and we still have no security or attendants in public bathrooms so allowing the public to use the public bathrooms of their choice isn't creating any new dangers that don't already exist.
One should always be familiar. Pepper spray is not a weapon though. An ax is a weapon. A Beretta is a weapon. Even a taser could be considered a weapon I guess. Pepper spray is not a weapon.
How about this Frazz, spray yourself in the face with pepper spray, and then try and say it's not a weapon. It's not a deadly weapon, sure, but it's still a weapon.
Have you read HB2? I have not but one some other more liberal boards, there have been posts that parts of the law were actually put in place that are discriminatory toward G/L as well, which was the real purpose.
Have you heard that or have more informaiton on it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about this Frazz, spray yourself in the face with pepper spray, and then try and say it's not a weapon. It's not a deadly weapon, sure, but it's still a weapon.
I have. My boy and his friends had more than one pepper spray fight in the yard. I have also used it jokingly on my potatoes.
Its not a weapon. It leaves no injury except to your pride if you stupidly did it around your friends who now have it on youtube.
but I agree if you have it you should be very versed on how to use it and when-aka standard self defense rules.
[quote=Frazzled 688187 8672255 7c9b1f23c698e9434a766f2a131f3818.jpgI have. My boy and his friends had more than one pepper spray fight in the yard. I have also used it jokingly on my potatoes.
Its not a weapon. It leaves no injury except to your pride if you stupidly did it around your friends who now have it on youtube.
but I agree if you have it you should be very versed on how to use it and when-aka standard self defense rules.
It most defiantly is a weapon, and not something to be used lightly. It can cause permanent damage, or even death to those with repository problems. It's not something we should ever be encouraging kids to bring into schools. Especially since it's only a matter of time until some dumb kid uses to attack someone for no reason
Its not a weapon. It leaves no injury except to your pride if you stupidly did it around your friends who now have it on youtube.
.
Well, that... and death... Even pepper spray selling companies say it is a weapon and may cause death. Many jurisdictions classify it as a weapon and some even require registered carrying like firearms. If 'trained professionals with experience' end up killing people with it, then how is it not a weapon in the hands of the ignorant and untrained? DOJ says it is a weapon which carries a risk of death.
There are only a few specific circumstances that remove your right to self defense here in NC, if the person you feel threatened by has already identifited himself/herself as law enforcement and the LEO is lawfully performing their duties, if the person who feels threatened is in the process of committing a crime or just committed a crime, or if the person who feels threatened was the instigator of the confrontation.
So a transgender person in NC has no right to self defense in the bathroom looks like...
Its not a weapon. It leaves no injury except to your pride if you stupidly did it around your friends who now have it on youtube.
.
Well, that... and death... Even pepper spray selling companies say it is a weapon and may cause death. Many jurisdictions classify it as a weapon and some even require registered carrying like firearms. If 'trained professionals with experience' end up killing people with it, then how is it not a weapon in the hands of the ignorant and untrained? DOJ says it is a weapon which carries a risk of death.
Having been pepper sprayed (aunt kept it at her office in a non-closed drawer and I was a stupid 10 year old), it fething sucks and should be classified as a weapon. I could totally see it causing serious harm/death to someone.
It most defiantly is a weapon, and not something to be used lightly. It can cause permanent damage, or even death to those with repository problems. It's not something we should ever be encouraging kids to bring into schools. Especially since it's only a matter of time until some dumb kid uses to attack someone for no reason
Talk about generational differences. No wonder we went from beating Da Nazis to losing to a JV terrorist group. We've turned into a nation of wussy girls. Its not a weapon if it requires "the eggshell rule" to apply. Jeez. We had long guns at school and played with home made pipe bombs. Jezz kids these...hold on a sec "hey you! Yes you with the tricycle!@ Get off me lawn!" what was I saying oh yes, kids these days.
There are only a few specific circumstances that remove your right to self defense here in NC, if the person you feel threatened by has already identifited himself/herself as law enforcement and the LEO is lawfully performing their duties, if the person who feels threatened is in the process of committing a crime or just committed a crime, or if the person who feels threatened was the instigator of the confrontation.
So a transgender person in NC has no right to self defense in the bathroom looks like...
No they still do. The crime has to be at least a felony. HB2 doesn't make being in the wrong bathroom a felony so it doesn't take away anyone's right to self defense.
Its not a weapon. It leaves no injury except to your pride if you stupidly did it around your friends who now have it on youtube. .
Well, that... and death... Even pepper spray selling companies say it is a weapon and may cause death. Many jurisdictions classify it as a weapon and some even require registered carrying like firearms. If 'trained professionals with experience' end up killing people with it, then how is it not a weapon in the hands of the ignorant and untrained? DOJ says it is a weapon which carries a risk of death.
Thats just Yankee loser jurisdictions who gave up worrying about individual freedoms decades ago. Not like the enlightened regions of America where we say America Hurr and eat our Freedom Fries and are immune to pepper spray because we eat jalapenoes and jabaneoroes...for breakfast!
EDIT: THis is not especially germane to the topic, so we might let this drop or start a new topic on pepperspray: Lethal Weapon or Handy Spice Packet?
Frazzled wrote: Have you read HB2? I have not but one some other more liberal boards, there have been posts that parts of the law were actually put in place that are discriminatory toward G/L as well, which was the real purpose.
Have you heard that or have more informaiton on it?
Part 3 of the bill makes it state law that local/municipal governments cannot create protected classes because that ability resides solely with the state government. Since sexual orientation has never been listed as a protected class on the state level that provision of HB2 removes sexual orientation protected class status from any municipality that had enacted it. So cities like Asheville that had sexual orientation as a protected class are no longer allowed to have it. HB2 makes protected classes be either statewide or nonexistent.
It's a pretty fethed up interpretation of the principle of federalism and local jurisdictions but since most areas of NC never had LGBT as a protected class it hasn't had an impact on much of the state. I haven't seen any reports of the municipalities that did have LGBT as a protected class suddenly seeing incidents of discrimination against LGBT people simply because the municipal anti discrimination protection was struck down by HB2.
The argument is that all power is derived from the state level. Unless the state has granted the power (which depending on jurisdiction it might have) the local unit does not have the power.
That answers the question, they are pre-empting local anti-GL legislation.
AegisGrimm wrote: I wish that the current news culture would freaking tone it down with giving everyone a constant sense of hysteria. Now, rape should be treated like attempted murder, in my mind, but it is complete bullgak that I, as a 34yo male with the approximate violent tendencies of a pre-spider bite Peter Parker, have to increasingly wonder if I am around a stranger that's female-especially if we are moderately alone-, is assessing me as:
Scanning....."Subject: Human Male. Caution: Presence of penis suggests probable predilection for rape. Take immediate precautionary measures."
I have started doing stuff like asking if it's okay to sit in vacant seats next to people on busy trains, because a lot of women freeze up upon seeing Strange Man trying to sit with them. Showing that I'm aware I'm getting close, but still need to sit down often breaks the ice.
It's sad that I even need to. These days I usually just sit in the luggage rack if it's empty.
First off, you sit in the luggage rack?! :O How do you even fit? :O
Secondly, I also do the thing with asking, but I don't think it's just women that freeze up. I know for a fact that it freaks me out if people sit next to me without asking for the go ahead beforehand.
I suspect I'm not thinking of the same thing.
In the trains I use, there's a large area about the size of a single bed for suitcases, with a waist height second bed for more.
I sit in there when it's empty. The guards don't mind, and it means I don't scare anyone.
When I had literal rainbow hair, I sat next to a huge black guy in a business suit on the morning commute, thinking that he'd probably be fairly used to people staring at him, and understand in some way (in Derbyshire, you can go a few weeks before seeing anyone who's not Caucasian). I was in my own work shirt, suit jacket and tie. By the end of the trip, he was plastered against the window, with at least half of his seat empty, and had pulled his bag up off the floor away from me.
Gotta admit I got to work feeling like I was lower than filth that day. It's not the only time I've had people behave like that.
AegisGrimm wrote: I wish that the current news culture would freaking tone it down with giving everyone a constant sense of hysteria. Now, rape should be treated like attempted murder, in my mind, but it is complete bullgak that I, as a 34yo male with the approximate violent tendencies of a pre-spider bite Peter Parker, have to increasingly wonder if I am around a stranger that's female-especially if we are moderately alone-, is assessing me as:
Scanning....."Subject: Human Male. Caution: Presence of penis suggests probable predilection for rape. Take immediate precautionary measures."
I have started doing stuff like asking if it's okay to sit in vacant seats next to people on busy trains, because a lot of women freeze up upon seeing Strange Man trying to sit with them. Showing that I'm aware I'm getting close, but still need to sit down often breaks the ice.
It's sad that I even need to. These days I usually just sit in the luggage rack if it's empty.
First off, you sit in the luggage rack?! :O How do you even fit? :O
Secondly, I also do the thing with asking, but I don't think it's just women that freeze up. I know for a fact that it freaks me out if people sit next to me without asking for the go ahead beforehand.
I suspect I'm not thinking of the same thing.
In the trains I use, there's a large area about the size of a single bed for suitcases, with a waist height second bed for more.
I sit in there when it's empty. The guards don't mind, and it means I don't scare anyone.
When I had literal rainbow hair, I sat next to a huge black guy in a business suit on the morning commute, thinking that he'd probably be fairly used to people staring at him, and understand in some way (in Derbyshire, you can go a few weeks before seeing anyone who's not Caucasian). I was in my own work shirt, suit jacket and tie. By the end of the trip, he was plastered against the window, with at least half of his seat empty, and had pulled his bag up off the floor away from me.
Gotta admit I got to work feeling like I was lower than filth that day. It's not the only time I've had people behave like that.
That strikes me as an incredibly overblown reaction to sitting next to somebody with rainbow dyed hair. I've seen much stranger stuff on the subway in New York City that was pretty much accepted or ignored by every passenger. Unfortunately people sometimes get too caught up in their own personal world view to be able to be as accepting of the world as they could be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The argument is that all power is derived from the state level. Unless the state has granted the power (which depending on jurisdiction it might have) the local unit does not have the power.
That answers the question, they are pre-empting local anti-GL legislation.
They were municipal ordinances that didn't conflict with any state laws. Nobody was campaigning on this issue, nobody was holding rallies or protests on this issue, it wasn't mentioned this year in the media or by politicians until HB2 was passed. I'm not a fan of protected classes in principle but I also don't like the state prohibiting local governments from governing their localities either. This just reeks of a state legislature power grab and that contradicts the principle of federalism and local governments. The more concentrated political power becomes the harder it is for individuals to make their voices heard.
The Republican party says one thing but means something else.
They are all for cutting spending...Except on the Military.
They are for less invasive government and less regulations...Unless you're dealing with something they don't like (Abortion, Homosexuals, or Transexuals for instance).
They are for local control unless the local government does something they don't like (See above).
They were municipal ordinances that didn't conflict with any state laws. Nobody was campaigning on this issue, nobody was holding rallies or protests on this issue, it wasn't mentioned this year in the media or by politicians until HB2 was passed. I'm not a fan of protected classes in principle but I also don't like the state prohibiting local governments from governing their localities either. This just reeks of a state legislature power grab and that contradicts the principle of federalism and local governments. The more concentrated political power becomes the harder it is for individuals to make their voices heard.
You're not going to get disagreement from me.
Slightly different events in Houston. The city changed the law to add non-discrimination provisions without discussion. When some preachers spoke up, the city turned around and demanded copies of their sermons and membership lists. THEN the situation blew up big time with many many churches losing their minds (and rightly so as this violates two three portions of just the First Amendment and screams government oppression). Then the state got involved when politicians saw their chance to pander to a portion of their base.
Prior to the vote: (lesbian) mayor popular.
After the city tried to get the sermons and membership: mayor unpopular.
Way to be stupid.
The Republican party says one thing but means something else.
They are all for cutting spending...Except on the Military.
They are for less invasive government and less regulations...Unless you're dealing with something they don't like (Abortion, Homosexuals, or Transexuals for instance).
They are for local control unless the local government does something they don't like (See above).
I feel like I should disagree but can't find fault in your statement so...
Frazzled wrote: My boy and his friends had more than one pepper spray fight in the yard. I have also used it jokingly on my potatoes.
Its not a weapon. It leaves no injury except to your pride if you stupidly did it around your friends who now have it on youtube.
This rather seriously undermines your claim that pepper spray is a valid tool for self defense. And if it isn't a legitimate self defense weapon then the law really comes down to "go ahead and pepper spray anyone who doesn't look masculine/feminine enough for your bathroom".
You're grasping at straws. Even the Federales aren't stupid enough to try that. You're going to subpoena speeches and memberships from black churches that disagree with you? Wow thats screamingly unAmerican. Even Jim Crow didn't pull that crap.
pro-tip if the last guy who did it had a Godwin meme named after you, its probably a bad thing.
Thinking about it, there is no real good reason to ask for a member list...contents of the sermon should be fair game though assuming they heard it contained actionable material.
Of course the same goes for the Republicans that try to insist on getting membership lists for Muslim congregatiins or monitoribg mosques.
skyth wrote: Thinking about it, there is no real good reason to ask for a member list...contents of the sermon should be fair game though assuming they heard it contained actionable material.
Of course the same goes for the Republicans that try to insist on getting membership lists for Muslim congregatiins or monitoribg mosques.
Um...no. Its a private meeting. Unless you have a criminal warrant, in the words of immortal Budha: " you you er!!!!"
And yes, mosques have the same privilege. This obviously odes not apply to cat lovers, because we all know they're not even real people.
Again, good luck with that. You'll get your face kicked in legally, financially, politically, and morally. it was an intimidation move and it backfired big time.
Frazzled wrote: You're grasping at straws. Even the Federales aren't stupid enough to try that. You're going to subpoena speeches and memberships from black churches that disagree with you? Wow thats screamingly unAmerican. Even Jim Crow didn't pull that crap.
pro-tip if the last guy who did it had a Godwin meme named after you, its probably a bad thing.
Let me get this straight: attempting to collect information to enforce laws (which have a good reason to exist) is now equivalent to Hitler? Are you serious?
AegisGrimm wrote: I wish that the current news culture would freaking tone it down with giving everyone a constant sense of hysteria. Now, rape should be treated like attempted murder, in my mind, but it is complete bullgak that I, as a 34yo male with the approximate violent tendencies of a pre-spider bite Peter Parker, have to increasingly wonder if I am around a stranger that's female-especially if we are moderately alone-, is assessing me as:
Scanning....."Subject: Human Male. Caution: Presence of penis suggests probable predilection for rape. Take immediate precautionary measures."
I have started doing stuff like asking if it's okay to sit in vacant seats next to people on busy trains, because a lot of women freeze up upon seeing Strange Man trying to sit with them. Showing that I'm aware I'm getting close, but still need to sit down often breaks the ice.
It's sad that I even need to. These days I usually just sit in the luggage rack if it's empty.
First off, you sit in the luggage rack?! :O How do you even fit? :O
Secondly, I also do the thing with asking, but I don't think it's just women that freeze up. I know for a fact that it freaks me out if people sit next to me without asking for the go ahead beforehand.
I suspect I'm not thinking of the same thing.
In the trains I use, there's a large area about the size of a single bed for suitcases, with a waist height second bed for more.
I sit in there when it's empty. The guards don't mind, and it means I don't scare anyone.
When I had literal rainbow hair, I sat next to a huge black guy in a business suit on the morning commute, thinking that he'd probably be fairly used to people staring at him, and understand in some way (in Derbyshire, you can go a few weeks before seeing anyone who's not Caucasian). I was in my own work shirt, suit jacket and tie. By the end of the trip, he was plastered against the window, with at least half of his seat empty, and had pulled his bag up off the floor away from me.
Gotta admit I got to work feeling like I was lower than filth that day. It's not the only time I've had people behave like that.
That strikes me as an incredibly overblown reaction to sitting next to somebody with rainbow dyed hair. I've seen much stranger stuff on the subway in New York City that was pretty much accepted or ignored by every passenger. Unfortunately people sometimes get too caught up in their own personal world view to be able to be as accepting of the world as they could be.
It happened regardless of hair in some cases (I'm a fan of hats). A lot of people just read we weirdly, I guess.
It's very hard to tell which gender I am in work gear until I speak, so often it's fine until I have to talk to the conductor.
I'm not very aware of my surroundings or believing folk are out to get me, I'm talking genuine disgust, and in some cases folks moving seats.
The key to staying cheerful is good friends.
Frazzled wrote: You're grasping at straws. Even the Federales aren't stupid enough to try that. You're going to subpoena speeches and memberships from black churches that disagree with you? Wow thats screamingly unAmerican. Even Jim Crow didn't pull that crap.
pro-tip if the last guy who did it had a Godwin meme named after you, its probably a bad thing.
Let me get this straight: attempting to collect information to enforce laws (which have a good reason to exist) is now equivalent to Hitler? Are you serious?
What law is that again? And yes, any time the government is attempting to intimidate a group, thats... Trumpesque.
No...I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic. You stated that ANY time the government intimidates a group that there is a problem. I just took your argument to its logical conclusion.
skyth wrote: No...I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic. You stated that ANY time the government intimidates a group that there is a problem. I just took your argument to its logical conclusion.
Is ISIL a US church group or mosque? Is ISIL run by an American Imam? Is ISIL located in the US, or even that greatest of states Tennessee? Is ISIL governed by the laws, stare decisis and Constitution of the United States? No, then your comparison is gauche.
skyth wrote: Irrelevant to your original argument. If you wish to revise your argument feel free.
Nope, you brought up ISIL in a discussion about whether a city overstepped its bounds in seeking the sermons and membership of local churches. So sad. Its also sad you would defend such for any noncriminal reason. The right of free association is a central; tenet of this glorious myth of republic that we have, and fully protected by the First and greatest of the Bill of Rights.
When cyborg Roosevelt kicked in the door to Hitler's bunker, it wasn't a nitroglycerin soaked cookbook he threw in there. It was the Constitution. Mmmm....smell that. You'll never smell anything like that. Its the smell of...freedom.
skyth wrote: Problem is political speech is not allowed by non-profits I believe.
That depends.... Isn't "Citizens United" a non-profit?? (seriously asking, because I don't really know)...
And as most here on these forums know, CU was involved in a supreme court case over political speech.
Non-profits can have political speech
The limitation is on partisan political activities. Churches, and other 501(c)3's are allowed to do voter registration drives and general voter education activities, but they cannot support (or oppose) particular candidates or group of candidates. Citizens United is actually a 501(c)4 and as such it is allowed to participate in elections as long as it is related to their purpose and "social welfare". There is also Citizens United Foundation, which is a 501(c)3, but they were not involved in the court case.
The Citizens United case focused on laws against broadcast communications within certain time-frames of elections. Citizens United wanted to air commercials as well as the film itself within that time-frame and challenged the restrictions against having unions and corporations pay for such speech. The SCOTUS ruling really only said that corporations and unions are people and have the right to speech and cannot be restricted from political speech.
Edit: for some reason I thought this was the politics thread. Didn't mean to contribute to an off-topic conversation.
Frazzled wrote: You're grasping at straws. Even the Federales aren't stupid enough to try that. You're going to subpoena speeches and memberships from black churches that disagree with you? Wow thats screamingly unAmerican. Even Jim Crow didn't pull that crap.
pro-tip if the last guy who did it had a Godwin meme named after you, its probably a bad thing.
I agree. We get told to keep our religion to ourself, then the state, in this case, the lesbian mayor of Houston, turns around and tries to subpoena sermons.
What part of 'back on topic' wasn't clear? Hint: The Mayor of Houston investigating churches or whatever has nothing to do with "General Trans bathroom thread, incl. target, federal involvement and more". Back on topic doesn't mean 'go back to the last off topic tangent', it means 'back on topic'. Thanks
motyak wrote: What part of 'back on topic' wasn't clear? Hint: The Mayor of Houston investigating churches or whatever has nothing to do with "General Trans bathroom thread, incl. target, federal involvement and more". Back on topic doesn't mean 'go back to the last off topic tangent', it means 'back on topic'. Thanks
Actually, the churches disagreeing with her trying to open up the bathrooms to opposite sexes was part of what set her off.
Colleges around the country are adding facilities and adopting policies designed to help transgender students. May 24, 2016 By Ellen Wexler
To support its transgender students, Oregon State University has started handing out pink-and-blue-striped pins that read #IllGoWithYou. By wearing the pins, students offer to accompany their transgender peers to gender-exclusive spaces -- like bathrooms and locker rooms -- where they may feel unsafe.
“It shows support,” said Cindy Konrad, assistant director of LGBT Services and Outreach. “It shows there are people on campus who care.”
When the campaign began in the fall, it was months before North Carolina barred transgender people at public colleges from using bathrooms associated with their gender identities. And even now, as the ban continues to attract national attention, the controversy seems far away from Oregon State.
And in many ways, it is.
“It isn’t something that people are particularly worried about happening here,” Konrad said.
Oregon State already has 200 gender-neutral bathrooms on its 400-acre campus. Konrad thinks it’s a good start, but that it would be helpful to have more.
The #IllGoWithYou campaign started off slow. But by the winter, the university’s other cultural centers wanted to take part. “Now, we get six to 10 people coming in a day asking about the buttons,” Konrad said.
At the state policy level, Oregon’s climate is nothing like North Carolina’s. Earlier this month, the Oregon Department of Education released guidelines for supporting transgender students, including a recommendation to provide gender-neutral accommodations for students who request them.
But despite the 2,500 miles separating the states -- and the fact that, in many cases, efforts to support transgender students have been in motion for years -- the North Carolina law is changing the discussion’s tone.
“We’ve seen a real surge in interest around these issues,” Konrad said. “The situation in North Carolina is helping to spur conversations on all campuses.”
‘A Lack of Clear Policy’
In response to the North Carolina legislation, the Obama administration issued a letter earlier this month, directing public schools to allow transgender students to use services in a way that’s consistent with their gender identity. The administration has made clear that the letter applies to higher education as well. (Some colleges have obtained exemptions based on their religious views.)
For years, many colleges have been expanding services -- and not just bathrooms -- for transgender students and employees. Many others have not done much but have allowed transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice. The debate in North Carolina has led to more institutions announcing specific policies that protect the rights of these students.
Yale University announced this month, along with commencement information, that gender-neutral bathrooms will be available in 23 buildings. On its website, Yale details the bathrooms’ locations in an interactive map.
Additionally, Yale will now allow students to use the name they prefer, rather than the name on their birth certificate, on their diplomas. And many other colleges are adopting similar changes -- typically small ones -- that allow transgender students to complete everyday activities as their preferred gender.
“There’s just a lack of clear policy or options,” said Zooey Sophia Pook, coordinator of LGBT+ programs at New Mexico State University.
In many cases, she said, the problem isn’t discrimination. Rather, the problem is that the world isn’t already suited to meet transgender students’ needs. Simply expanding access to services for these students goes a long way, Pook said.
NMSU already has a number of gender-neutral bathrooms. While they’re harder to add to older buildings, most new buildings on campus have them. The university is also adding more housing options for transgender students, as well as an option for preferred names on class rosters.
“I completely understand the climate of the school,” said Pook, who is transgender. “I really wanted to push these things.”
States That Push Back
The guidance from the Education Department, while aimed at North Carolina, applies across the country. But that doesn’t mean that all states agree -- and now, some are pushing back.
In Louisiana, Attorney General Jeff Landry encouraged colleges to refuse the federal government’s guidance, and state legislators have also questioned whether President Obama’s actions were legal.
Louisiana State University did not respond to requests for comment, but the institution had already promised to add more gender-neutral bathrooms last March. “Everyone wants to be comfortable when taking care of a basic need, like using a restroom,” Derrick Rovaris, vice provost for diversity, told The Times-Picayune at the time. “The gender-neutral restroom gives everyone the opportunity to feel comfortable.”
In resisting states, sometimes it’s the colleges themselves that matter most. Even in North Carolina, private colleges -- which aren’t affected by the new legislation -- are working to show their support for their transgender students.
Last week, Duke University announced that it would turn some of its single-stall bathrooms into gender-neutral facilities. While the university isn’t building any new restrooms, the goal is to have one gender-neutral bathroom in every building that already has single-stall bathrooms.
At Duke, many are vocal opponents to the North Carolina legislation. A petition, started by Duke employees, got 600 signatures in the first day.
The new initiatives weren’t prompted by the state legislation, though they weren’t entirely unconnected, either. The gender-neutral bathrooms are part of an ongoing effort -- but the legislation prompted Duke to emphasize its commitment to equality, said Benjamin Reese, vice president of Duke’s Office for Institutional Equity.
“There are strong feelings about anything that the governor or the Legislature might do that might directly or indirectly infringe on equity or fairness,” he said.
last count was .3%
Now whether that includes people who are questioning, or have not transistioned or start to is up toguess.
but yeah, it is pretty low.
hotsauceman1 wrote: last count was .3%
Now whether that includes people who are questioning, or have not transistioned or start to is up toguess.
but yeah, it is pretty low.
That is close to 1 million people. And that is just the people who are willing to confront the stigma and pain opposed to just live a lie and suck it up for society expediency.
hotsauceman1 wrote: last count was .3%
Now whether that includes people who are questioning, or have not transistioned or start to is up toguess.
but yeah, it is pretty low.
That is close to 1 million people. And that is just the people who are willing to confront the stigma and pain opposed to just live a lie and suck it up for society expediency.
Not that easy to discount.
No, 0.3% of the population is incredibly easy to discount because it's a tiny fraction of the population.
That's the primary reason why this whole which bathroom transgendered people should use issue is a waste of time. Letting them use whichever bathroom they want is fine, it harms no one and chances are the vast majority of people will never be in a public bathroom with a trans person anyway and likely wouldn't even notice it if they were.
We never had trans bathroom usage laws before and I've yet to see any empirical evidence presented that shows we needed any now. Let the public use whichever public restrooms they want, everything bad you can do to another person in a restroom is already criminalized.
Every citizen is equal in the eyes of the law, letting the public, trans people included, use the bathrooms of their choice is a practical and reasonable way to do it. All these bathroom laws are overreactions to a nonexistent problem.
Earlier this month, the Medical University of Vienna issued a press release announcing that “the very personal gender identity of every human being is reflected and verifiable in the cross-links between brain regions,” with distinctions specifically in what’s known as brain “white matter.”
I have been to places which have signs which says 'children under 8 cannot be unaccompanied in the bathroom'. This means girls in the men's room and boys in the women's room.
I know that bigots were happy the transgender hate back-splashed on gays, but now it is back-splashing on children? Are people really attacking because they think they need to beat up a father to 'learn' him about letting his daughter possibly be transgender?
I take my nieces into the Men's room all the time as I have literally no other choice. I have also been places where the 'family' bathrooms were women only. (I was aggressively thrown out of a baby-care center once while holding a baby because they deemed it a women-only safe space, I changed the baby on the floor in the entrance of the place as the Men's room had no changing table.)
This is why vigilante bathroom inspectors is insane. If you have a personal problem with what is going on, *YOU* leave. Then you are safe.
nkelsch wrote: I have been to places which have signs which says 'children under 8 cannot be unaccompanied in the bathroom'. This means girls in the men's room and boys in the women's room.
I know that bigots were happy the transgender hate back-splashed on gays, but now it is back-splashing on children? Are people really attacking because they think they need to beat up a father to 'learn' him about letting his daughter possibly be transgender?
I take my nieces into the Men's room all the time as I have literally no other choice. I have also been places where the 'family' bathrooms were women only. (I was aggressively thrown out of a baby-care center once while holding a baby because they deemed it a women-only safe space, I changed the baby on the floor in the entrance of the place as the Men's room had no changing table.)
This is why vigilante bathroom inspectors is insane. If you have a personal problem with what is going on, *YOU* leave. Then you are safe.
I agree with you on this. Ever since I was a kid, people have taken extremely young children into opposite sex bathrooms. What's the alternative? Leave a child outside and alone? I'm happy the father was a bruiser who could take care of himself and his kids.
Frazzled wrote: I like that the guy is yelling at the construction dad (sounds coockoo but its Walmart) about the kid in there, but he's cussing in front of the kid.
nkelsch wrote: I have been to places which have signs which says 'children under 8 cannot be unaccompanied in the bathroom'. This means girls in the men's room and boys in the women's room.
I know that bigots were happy the transgender hate back-splashed on gays, but now it is back-splashing on children? Are people really attacking because they think they need to beat up a father to 'learn' him about letting his daughter possibly be transgender?
I take my nieces into the Men's room all the time as I have literally no other choice. I have also been places where the 'family' bathrooms were women only. (I was aggressively thrown out of a baby-care center once while holding a baby because they deemed it a women-only safe space, I changed the baby on the floor in the entrance of the place as the Men's room had no changing table.)
This is why vigilante bathroom inspectors is insane. If you have a personal problem with what is going on, *YOU* leave. Then you are safe.
I agree with you on this. Ever since I was a kid, people have taken extremely young children into opposite sex bathrooms. What's the alternative? Leave a child outside and alone? I'm happy the father was a bruiser who could take care of himself and his kids.
It also backfires on the child. When I was a kid I swam twice a week, but I went with a parent who wasn't my gender. Because it was a small town and quite conservative, I had to change alone or with a friend's parent who attended.
I remember the distinct loneliness that all of my friends were getting changed with their parent, and I was alone from this laughing and joking, and people talking about home and how excited they were to get their awards. I don't mean that I wanted my folks to get hands on, I was just acutely aware of another time children were bonding with folks, and I wasn't. At the time I just put it down to me being undeserving of my parents attention, because I didn't understand the reason.
Frazzled wrote: I like that the guy is yelling at the construction dad (sounds coockoo but its Walmart) about the kid in there, but he's cussing in front of the kid.
My wife does this all the time. She has also changed my son in the women's bathroom since, y'know, ever- because lots of the time I can't even find a men's bathroom with a changing table. It's just a thing you freaking do.
Just goes to show you it's not the supposed creeper men in dresses (or indeed legitimate trans women) that just, honorable women need to worry about raping them in the women's room. It's us guys (and trans men) needing to worry about the moronic rage-freaks attacking US in OUR restrooms.
It's tangential, but so is much discussion in this thread. Here's an example of the kind of thing trans people fear happening, and why trans women in particular are often frightened of going into isolated spaces with men.
This happened in a public area. Now you imagine how much this kind of violence may have escalated in somewhere closed off.
[...]The women told Young they were walking to the Five Points MARTA station when a group of men approached them and started yelling at them. They said the strangers followed them into the station and waited on the platform next to them while taking pictures. They said they believe the strangers targeted them because they are transgender.
“[They] just kept of asking us was we real,” said Janell Crosby. “Like really trying to get us. ‘Are you real?’ 'Are y’all this or that?’ Just trying to embarrass us.”
"They were trying to find out if we are men or women,” said Tyra Woods. “I shouldn’t have to disclose who I am to an innocent person who I’m not even interested in talking to.”
Crosby and Woods say they were harassed, attacked and embarrassed, and no one came to give them any help.
wikipedia wrote:TheBlaze is a multiplatform news and entertainment network available on television, radio and the Internet founded by conservative talk radio personality and entrepreneur Glenn Beck.
"How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”
As a point of fact, not all Trandgender individuals are homosexual.
"How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”
As a point of fact, not all Trandgender individuals are homosexual.
Clearly, the answer is plastic signs saying who can't be in a bathroom. Everyone knows child predators are terrified of signs. They make them melt, much like water to those aliens in that movie. What was it called?
Or, you know, attacking children and anyone else in a restroom is already illegal and having more people going in and out of a restroom is probably going to make it harder for predators to do anything and I don't recall hearing anything about unisex public restrooms being huge child-abduction magnets.
wikipedia wrote:TheBlaze is a multiplatform news and entertainment network available on television, radio and the Internet founded by conservative talk radio personality and entrepreneur Glenn Beck.
My work here is done.
You do realize that this has been reported in every news outlet everywhere in the world right?
"How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”
As a point of fact, not all Trandgender individuals are homosexual.
Clearly, the answer is plastic signs saying who can't be in a bathroom. Everyone knows child predators are terrified of signs. They make them melt, much like water to those aliens in that movie. What was it called?
Or, you know, attacking children and anyone else in a restroom is already illegal and having more people going in and out of a restroom is probably going to make it harder for predators to do anything and I don't recall hearing anything about unisex public restrooms being huge child-abduction magnets.
I am continually amazed at this OT forum. Instead of answering the question, the same rhetoric is spewed over and over again.
This is a legitimate question asked by the population at large. Minimizing it like you just did with dripping sarcasm only makes the problem worse.
Do you want to propose an actual solution or continue to argue the same point that isn't getting anyone anywhere?
The sad thing is that there are no laws of any kind protecting children from sexual predators in bathrooms that the predator is allowed to be in. If a man rapes a girl in a women's bathroom he can be stopped and charged because he's not allowed to be in there. But if a man is raping a boy in the men's bathroom then there is nothing the police can do about it because both have a penis and are in the correct bathroom.
"How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”
As a point of fact, not all Trandgender individuals are homosexual.
"How can I discriminate against these people without all my friends hating me?"
I am continually amazed at this OT forum. Instead of answering the question, the same rhetoric is spewed over and over again.
I know, right?
Okay, okay. So how DO we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms? I would say the best step would be making sure your young children don't go to a public restroom unsupervised.
Ooh! Hey! Guess what becomes more difficult when people get banned from bathrooms?
wikipedia wrote:TheBlaze is a multiplatform news and entertainment network available on television, radio and the Internet founded by conservative talk radio personality and entrepreneur Glenn Beck.
My work here is done.
You do realize that this has been reported in every news outlet everywhere in the world right?
"How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”
As a point of fact, not all Trandgender individuals are homosexual.
Clearly, the answer is plastic signs saying who can't be in a bathroom. Everyone knows child predators are terrified of signs. They make them melt, much like water to those aliens in that movie. What was it called?
Or, you know, attacking children and anyone else in a restroom is already illegal and having more people going in and out of a restroom is probably going to make it harder for predators to do anything and I don't recall hearing anything about unisex public restrooms being huge child-abduction magnets.
I am continually amazed at this OT forum. Instead of answering the question, the same rhetoric is spewed over and over again.
This is a legitimate question asked by the population at large. Minimizing it like you just did with dripping sarcasm only makes the problem worse.
Do you want to propose an actual solution or continue to argue the same point that isn't getting anyone anywhere?
OR, or or or, it's not a legitimate question because it's not a legitimate problem. How have Transgender individuals been using the bathroom before a big deal was made out of this?
jreilly89 wrote: OR, or or or, it's not a legitimate question...
Alternately, it's not a great question because guy asked this exact question on page 4, got all the same responses, and then just sort of kept repeating it for the length of the thread.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm still confused as how not letting transgender people use their bathroom of choice also stops sexual predators from doing their thing?
Other than their vampiresque reaction to gendered signs if they try and use the opposite genders bathroom.
Or is it a fear of not knowing that all the penises in a bathroom, may not be penises( and vice versa)?
for starters I don't use public bathrooms so I have no voice in this debate.
the problem is sick perverts been sneaking into the womens restrooms since time immortal, the problem with this new law is it just makes it easier for them, thats it, plain and simple, instead of skulking and hiding to get into the womens restroom they can walk right in like they own the place. remember this gender identity has nothing to do with what they wear. or even sexual preference, they just think they are a guy who should be a girl or a girl who should be a guy.
personally I think they should make all restrooms single occupancy, solves the problem all around.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm still confused as how not letting transgender people use their bathroom of choice also stops sexual predators from doing their thing?
Other than their vampiresque reaction to gendered signs if they try and use the opposite genders bathroom.
Or is it a fear of not knowing that all the penises in a bathroom, may not be penises( and vice versa)?
for starters I don't use public bathrooms so I have no voice in this debate.
the problem is sick perverts been sneaking into the womens restrooms since time immortal, the problem with this new law is it just makes it easier for them, thats it, plain and simple, instead of skulking and hiding to get into the womens restroom they can walk right in like they own the place. remember this gender identity has nothing to do with what they wear. or even sexual preference, they just think they are a guy who should be a girl or a girl who should be a guy.
personally I think they should make all restrooms single occupancy, solves the problem all around.
1) We haven't had restrooms since time immemorial.
2) That's a very interesting picture of how transgender people work/take a leak.
3) For someone who has no voice in the debate, you're saying quite a mouthful.
4) This sounds an awful lot like the argument that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, because something something fake marriages for insurance fraud. I don't think we're going to get a transgender bathroom issues-centered version of I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry, but there's no word from Sandler as of yet, so...
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm still confused as how not letting transgender people use their bathroom of choice also stops sexual predators from doing their thing?
Other than their vampiresque reaction to gendered signs if they try and use the opposite genders bathroom.
Or is it a fear of not knowing that all the penises in a bathroom, may not be penises( and vice versa)?
for starters I don't use public bathrooms so I have no voice in this debate.
the problem is sick perverts been sneaking into the womens restrooms since time immortal, the problem with this new law is it just makes it easier for them, thats it, plain and simple, instead of skulking and hiding to get into the womens restroom they can walk right in like they own the place. remember this gender identity has nothing to do with what they wear. or even sexual preference, they just think they are a guy who should be a girl or a girl who should be a guy.
personally I think they should make all restrooms single occupancy, solves the problem all around.
1) We haven't had restrooms since time immemorial.
2) That's a very interesting picture of how transgender people work/take a leak.
3) For someone who has no voice in the debate, you're saying quite a mouthful.
4) This sounds an awful lot like the argument that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, because something something fake marriages for insurance fraud. I don't think we're going to get a transgender bathroom issues-centered version of I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry, but there's no word from Sandler as of yet, so...
let me clarify something, when I say sick perverts i'm not talking about most if not all transgenders i'm talking about actual sick perverts.
"How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”
As a point of fact, not all Trandgender individuals are homosexual.
"How can I discriminate against these people without all my friends hating me?"
Yep. This is exactly the kind of useless rhetoric I'm talking about. Keep it up.
jreilly89 wrote: OR, or or or, it's not a legitimate question...
Alternately, it's not a great question because guy asked this exact question on page 4, got all the same responses, and then just sort of kept repeating it for the length of the thread.
Alternatively it's the question everyone in Politics and at home are asking. Except here. The "safe place".
We've already got laws telling people not to assault anyone in bathrooms. Or anywhere else. So that's the sick pervert demographic covered. Meanwhile, people who are actually affected by transgender bathroom laws include: male parents looking after female children in a public restroom (and vice versa), transgender people with full bladders who may or may not 'pass', and people who any nosy Walmart rando thinks 'don't look right'.
It's useless discriminatory harassment legislation - worse than useless, since it's actively making restrooms less safe - and there's a hell of a lot my state should be doing instead of pioneering it.
Spinner wrote: We've already got laws telling people not to assault anyone in bathrooms. Or anywhere else. So that's the sick pervert demographic covered. Meanwhile, people who are actually affected by transgender bathroom laws include: male parents looking after female children in a public restroom (and vice versa), transgender people with full bladders who may or may not 'pass', and people who any nosy Walmart rando thinks 'don't look right'.
It's useless discriminatory harassment legislation - worse than useless, since it's actively making restrooms less safe - and there's a hell of a lot my state should be doing instead of pioneering it.
Also butch lesbians and anyone who dresses androgynously!
"How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”
As a point of fact, not all Trandgender individuals are homosexual.
"How can I discriminate against these people without all my friends hating me?"
Yep. This is exactly the kind of useless rhetoric I'm talking about. Keep it up.
jreilly89 wrote: OR, or or or, it's not a legitimate question...
Alternately, it's not a great question because guy asked this exact question on page 4, got all the same responses, and then just sort of kept repeating it for the length of the thread.
Alternatively it's the question everyone in Politics and at home are asking. Except here. The "safe place".
Sorry, I'm trying to stay one step ahead of the useless rhetoric you keep spouting about sick perverts. See? I can use your words too. Also, since when has OT been a safe space? This is where most opinions collide.
Why LGBT Advocates Say Bathroom ‘Predators’ Argument Is a Red Herring It’s become a common refrain in recent months: Allowing transgender people to use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity will end up letting male sexual predators into women’s bathrooms.
From North Carolina to South Dakota, supporters of controversial bills seeking to limit transgender people’s use of public restrooms have repeatedly made that argument. There is little hard evidence to back up this assertion, but LGBT advocates and other opponents of the bills have had to develop a number of counter-arguments to refute it.
Here’s a breakdown of their arguments.
Several states and major cities have supported transgender people’s bathroom access for years. There are more than a dozen states and several cities that have non-discrimination laws that protect gender identity in public accommodations, which is a legalistic way of saying transgender people can use whatever bathrooms they want in public. This is the kind of affirmation that started the whole controversy in North Carolina. Charlotte passed such protections earlier this year, state lawmakers said there would be terrible effects and passed a countermeasure, HB2, that eliminated Charlotte’s protections and banned other cities from passing anything similar.
Fears about male predators have not been borne out in those places. New York City has banned discrimination based on gender identity for more than a decade. California has affirmed the rights of K-12 students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity for years. Advocates say that while there are some past examples of heterosexual men dressing up like women to gain access to women’s spaces, there’s no record of that behavior increasing when there’s an LGBT non-discrimination law on the books. “We have so many places that do prohibit discrimination where this has never come up,” says the Equality Federation’s Rebecca Isaacs. “This is a red herring.”
Police and school officials say they haven’t seen it either. Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog, has asked state leaders, law enforcement and school officials in places with these protections whether they’ve seen any increase in sexual assault or rape after passing these laws, and they have repeatedly said that they have not. “We have not seen that,” a Des Moines police department spokesman told the outlet in 2014. “I doubt that’s gonna encourage the behavior. If the behavior’s there, [sexual predators are] gonna behave as they’re gonna behave no matter what the laws are.”
The nation’s leading organizations dedicated to stopping violence against women signed a letter saying that this argument is a myth. “These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protecting transgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others,” the letter states. “As rape crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers who work each and every day to meet the needs of all survivors and reduce sexual assault and domestic violence throughout society, we speak from experience and expertise when we state that these claims are false.”
LGBT rights advocates emphasize that the signatories are not only the experts on what endangers women but that groups like the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence would be first out of the gate to oppose any law that did seem to endanger women. “All those arguments, to me, crash and burn,” says the Equality Federation’s Isaacs, “because this is everybody working on male predators.”
Sexual assault remains a crime no matter why someone claims they entered a women’s space. The predator argument is based on an assumption that men who prey on women will be inspired to dress as women and enter women’s spaces because they could falsely claim to be transgender and therefore allowed to stay. But, advocates emphasize, if a female alleges she was sexually assaulted, the gender identity of the perpetrator has no bearing on the criminality of the act. “If you are a man who dresses as a woman and goes into a bathroom and commits a crime,” says the Human Rights Campaign attorney Cathryn Oakley, “whether you have a non-discrimination protection on the basis of gender identity or not, that behavior is illegal and criminal and you could be arrested and go to jail.”
If male predators were waiting for alleged loopholes like this to pop up, they could be using the women’s bathrooms already. The North Carolina law mandates that people must use bathrooms based on their “biological sex,” defined as the sex on their birth certificate. Transgender men, who are likely to have a birth certificate with an “F” on it, are often indistinguishable from cisgender men, notes the Center for American Progress’ Sarah McBride. So a male predator could skip the trouble of dressing up and go into the women’s room in North Carolina today, pretending to be a transgender man. “We know that’s not going to happen,” she says, but the notion that the lack of a law protecting transgender people is all that’s stopping male predators from acting “is preposterous.”
Some of the arguments about bathrooms are just a cloak for prejudice. McBride, who is a transgender woman, recently went down to North Carolina and took a selfie in the women’s restroom that went viral. She says among her many critics, about half believed she was really a man and opposed her presence in the women’s room, telling her to kill herself, as well as threatening to gang rape or murder her. “The other half were people that said ‘I’m sure you’re a good person, but you need to know this isn’t about you, this is about people who would pretend to be transgender,’” she says.
For many people in the former camp, advocates say, emphasizing concern for women’s safety is simply a cloak for a less politically palatable position—one some people have openly expressed. “I don’t want men who think they are women in my bathrooms and locker rooms,” a Marylander testified in a debate over this issue. “I don’t want to be part of their make-believe delusion. Males are always males. They cannot change. I’m here to stand up for women, children and their safety.”
Similar “predator” arguments have been used and debunked in the past. “We are not the first people who have been called predators for political gain,” says Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality and a transgender woman. “Look most recently at Donald Trump saying Mexican immigrants were rapists. There’s a long, really horrifying history of demagogues and fundraisers saying, ‘Hey, those people over there, we have to hate them because we have to keep our women and children safe.’” Advocates have circulated old propaganda like videos saying “the homosexual” lurks in the bathroom waiting to prey on young boys. Arguments about bathrooms were used to justify segregation and helped doom the Equal Rights Amendment.
These arguments have been effective, advocates argue, because people tend to feel vulnerable in the bathroom, and women and children do have legitimate reason to fear assault in general. And they’re particularly effective against transgender people, they say, because for decades media portrayed transgender people as deceivers or deviants (think Silence of the Lambs or Ace Ventura: Pet Detective) and many people don’t have a personal relationship with someone who is transgender. A report from the Public Religion Research Institute found that while 65% of Americans say they have a close friend or family member who is gay, just 9% say the same thing about having a personal relationship with someone who is transgender.
Studies show transgender people are more likely to be victims. “What is really unacceptable,” says HRC’s Oakley, “is we’re pinning [these fears] on people who are, in fact, themselves incredibly vulnerable in bathrooms.” In a study from UCLA’s Williams Institute, nearly 70% of transgender people said they had experienced verbal harassment in a situation involving gender-segregated bathrooms, while nearly 10% reported physical assault. And, advocates argue, laws that force transgender people to use restrooms where they can look out of place makes them more likely targets.
While opponents have circulated photos that suggest transgender people are unmistakable, many transgender people can go about their day without anyone being aware of their gender status. “When you are aware that trans people exist but you don’t understand trans people … that does create this opportunity for fear-mongering to slip in,” says Oakley. “You’ve probably been using bathrooms next to trans people for a long time.”
doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it is a hot button issue that will cause controversy, that is why I say make all restrooms single occupancy, that way no one is offended or slighted or has a leg to stand on one way or the other.
already California has mandated all single occupancy bathrooms are gender neutral, and yet no one is arguing about that or fighting about that.
Asterios wrote: doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it is a hot button issue that will cause controversy, that is why I say make all restrooms single occupancy, that way no one is offended or slighted or has a leg to stand on one way or the other.
already California has mandated all single occupancy bathrooms are gender neutral, and yet no one is arguing about that or fighting about that.
The issue creates controversy because politicians and special interest groups keep lying, pandering, misconstruing and obfuscating the relevant facts. These laws aren't about protecting children or women or anyone because they literally don't provide any new protections whatsoever. It's just a social wedge issue to play to party bases and divide the electorate to use false perceptions of oppression to spur turnout.
The idea of converting all public bathrooms into single occupancy bathroom is entirely impractical. Where would the money for the renovations come from? And why would we want to decrease the number of bathrooms and the amount of people they can serve? Unless you spend even more money on new construction you can't fit enough single occupancy bathrooms in the same footprint as multi occupant public bathrooms and removing bathrooms is going to conflict with state building codes.
The solution is for people to not freak out over a made up nonexistent problem and for the public to use public restrooms as they see fit which will be done in a sane and appropriate manner in the vast majority of instances.
The govt doesn't always have to come up with a convoluted busy work solution to spend money on every problem real or imagined. People can just take some personal reaponsibility for behaving in a reasonable manner. Unfortunately politicians justify their existence and pander for votes by spending our money and passing laws so they always look for excuses to do both including making gak up.
Asterios wrote: doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it is a hot button issue that will cause controversy, that is why I say make all restrooms single occupancy, that way no one is offended or slighted or has a leg to stand on one way or the other.
already California has mandated all single occupancy bathrooms are gender neutral, and yet no one is arguing about that or fighting about that.
And California has gender=gender identity. So the bigots with irrational fears of transgender rapists can hide in single occupancy bathrooms while transgender people can use the public shared restroom they identify with.
It is when people want to force people with rights to use segregated bathrooms because they 'feel ooogy' about transgender people and lack legitimate justifications to deny them basic human rights. I like when bigots have to self-isolate themselves and avoid public places, the world is a better place that way.
And apparently being a female over 6 feet tall and a deep voice makes you transgender, even if there is no penis being shown. And any women who decide to dress masculine are also transgender... Basically anyone can accuse anyone who fits a horrible stereotype which sets off their fear boogeyman instantly becomes transgender regardless if they are or not. That is what makes all this bathroom vigilantism so absurd... Maybe people need to mind their own business and not try to play 'detective junk check' on every person who enters the bathroom?
Asterios wrote: instead of skulking and hiding to get into the womens restroom they can walk right in like they own the place.
And do what?
Seriously, what exactly is this terrifying thing that you think people are going to do that isn't already covered by existing laws? So a man walks into the women's restroom like he owns the place, what does he do next? Quietly do his business and leave, because anything else is going to attract police attention?
Asterios wrote: instead of skulking and hiding to get into the womens restroom they can walk right in like they own the place.
And do what?
Seriously, what exactly is this terrifying thing that you think people are going to do that isn't already covered by existing laws? So a man walks into the women's restroom like he owns the place, what does he do next? Quietly do his business and leave, because anything else is going to attract police attention?
Pfft... clearly the terrifying thing is that women will have to put up with a "man" peeing all over the seat in public, as well as at home!
Mr. Burning wrote: In this whole debate no one has even asked the opinion of those most affected by these changes...the sexual predators.
We really need to hear their voice and find out how changes to signage really affects their activities.
Do they skulk?
Have they been preying on family members or close friends only because there was no way they could counter the magic of restroom signs?
Will they start purchasing a myriad of disguises?
I think we need to hear from them.
I can tell you, if I was a sexual predator, I would totally be skulking. Like no tomorrow. I doubt there's even a point to being a sexual predator if it isn't for skulking. Sure as hell ain't the sexual predation, that gak will end you in jail.
Maybe I'm skulking now?! Who could tell? Better yet, who could stop me?!? Not them damn unisex bathrooms, I can tell ya!
Asterios wrote: instead of skulking and hiding to get into the womens restroom they can walk right in like they own the place.
And do what?
Seriously, what exactly is this terrifying thing that you think people are going to do that isn't already covered by existing laws? So a man walks into the women's restroom like he owns the place, what does he do next? Quietly do his business and leave, because anything else is going to attract police attention?
Pfft... clearly the terrifying thing is that women will have to put up with a "man" peeing all over the seat in public, as well as at home!
If you've ever cleaned a public women's restroom then you know that really won't be a problem.
If anything a refreshing shower of urine will spruce up many women's stalls.
If you've ever cleaned a public women's restroom then you know that really won't be a problem.
If anything a refreshing shower of urine will spruce up many women's stalls.
Growing up, my dad was a janitor for the church that we attended. On numerous occasions, I helped him clean up after events, particularly "revival services" and if what I saw in there is anything to go by, anything more public than that, I'm fething good.
no but it is disconcerting when I'm trying to use the facilities and the opposite sex comes rampaging in, I like my privacy, but on the other hand I don't care if gay males are in the same facilities I'm in, go figure.
no but it is disconcerting when I'm trying to use the facilities and the opposite sex comes rampaging in, I like my privacy, but on the other hand I don't care if gay males are in the same facilities I'm in, go figure.
no but it is disconcerting when I'm trying to use the facilities and the opposite sex comes rampaging in, I like my privacy, but on the other hand I don't care if gay males are in the same facilities I'm in, go figure.
Asterios wrote: I'm getting tired when i'm at a concert using the urinal in a men's restroom and a bunch of women rush into one of the stalls :p
happens more times then you would imagine.
When I was in college women would use the men's restroom all the time, including for showers, they basically just picked whichever one was closest to their dorm room. During my senior year the school even started allowing cohabitation in suites.
no but it is disconcerting when I'm trying to use the facilities and the opposite sex comes rampaging in, I like my privacy, but on the other hand I don't care if gay males are in the same facilities I'm in, go figure.
Asterios wrote: I'm getting tired when i'm at a concert using the urinal in a men's restroom and a bunch of women rush into one of the stalls :p
happens more times then you would imagine.
When I was in college women would use the men's restroom all the time, including for showers, they basically just picked whichever one was closest to their dorm room. During my senior year the school even started allowing cohabitation in suites.
well see that is the issue I have, i have no problem with men and women sharing the showers, but consider the bathroom different.
no but it is disconcerting when I'm trying to use the facilities and the opposite sex comes rampaging in, I like my privacy, but on the other hand I don't care if gay males are in the same facilities I'm in, go figure.
Why would that even be an issue?
because it is.
Stop the presses! We have a winner! That is right. You sir, have just won best argument of the millennium award.
Back to reality, why is it a problem? They aren't staring at on your swinging manhood (unless you turn around and gyrate), they are just in there to enter a closed stall, relieve themselves, wash their hands (hopefully), and then leave. Nowhere in this process do either of you have to interact with each other or even acknowledge the other party's existence.
Reason 1: The sign on the bathroom door says "men," and that person who just walked in is not a man. This is the bathroom equivalent of someone running a stop sign.
Reason 2: It's socially taboo, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "custom has the force of law."
Reason 3: It's clearly improper. Bathrooms, even involving closed stalls, involve semi-nude persons. As such, it is only proper that there be gender-segregation in such cases so as to guard against (among other reasons) our animal concupiscence. Furthermore, these semi-nude persons are committing acts which appertain to their vegetative nature (namely, excretion of waste), the observation of which only serves to lower the personal respect due to persons of the opposite gender.
Related to the last line of what I just wrote:
Reason 4: It just ain't chivalrous.
The entrance of a homosexual into a bathroom does not violate 1, 2 or 4, but it does violate 3.
The entrance of a transgendered person into a bathroom which does not correspond to his or her biological sex/gender (I simply deny the psychological/sociological distinction between them) violates all 4.
So using that logic Unisex toilets are an abomination because humans are sex driven animals who might not be able to control their urges and poop (even though they're in closed stalls you can't look into unless you're trying to) is icky.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: So using that logic Unisex toilets are an abomination because humans are sex driven animals who might not be able to control their urges and poop (even though they're in closed stalls you can't look into unless you're trying to) is icky.
What do you mean by unisex toilets? In a broad sense, every bathroom in the average household in a unisex toilet. I assume that when you were a child, you used the same bathroom as, say, your mother.
Not, of course (I assume), at the same time.
This is generally what the term "unisex" bathroom evokes for Americans. There is a single bathroom which facilitates a single occupant at a time.
I find no difficulty with this, nor do such bathrooms violate any of the reasons I set out earlier.
Unless you mean, by "unisex bathroom," bathrooms in which persons of any gender may "do their business" at the same time, yes, I consider such things to be positively "out of the question," based on all of the reasons I've set out earlier.
Just for starters, it's completely heterodox. It's just not a thing. The suggestion that it even should be a thing is counter-cultural, counter-historical and, in a word, ideologically revolutionary (I don't mean this in any "good" sense).
Traditio wrote: Reason 1: The sign on the bathroom door says "men," and that person who just walked in is not a man. This is the bathroom equivalent of someone running a stop sign.
So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous, the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.
Reason 2: It's socially taboo, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "custom has the force of law."
So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.
Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people. Unless you're being creepy and looking under doors (followed shortly by being removed from the bathroom and likely subject to criminal charges) you just aren't going to see anything very interesting.
As such, it is only proper that there be gender-segregation in such cases so as to guard against (among other reasons) our animal concupiscence.
Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation, or do you have something else in mind here? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're arguing, and that argument simply does not match reality.
Furthermore, these semi-nude persons are committing acts which appertain to their vegetative nature (namely, excretion of waste), the observation of which only serves to lower the personal respect due to persons of the opposite gender.
Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?
The entrance of a transgendered person into a bathroom which does not correspond to his or her biological sex/gender (I simply deny the psychological/sociological distinction between them) violates all 4.
You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.
Traditio wrote: Reason 1: The sign on the bathroom door says "men," and that person who just walked in is not a man. This is the bathroom equivalent of someone running a stop sign.
So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous, the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.
what if there is a sign that says mens restroom and other one says womens restroom?
Traditio wrote: Reason 2: It's socially taboo, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "custom has the force of law."
So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.
So what if child molesters demand the right to be with kids under 18? or 15? or if sexual devients want to be with Animals, or if blood brother and sister want to marry? transgenders were lumped into these same categories, so why shouldn't they be allowed their rights?
Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people. Unless you're being creepy and looking under doors (followed shortly by being removed from the bathroom and likely subject to criminal charges) you just aren't going to see anything very interesting.
actually i've seen a few restrooms where the stall doors were removed so privacy was not really an option, furthermore urinal stalls are not private.
Traditio wrote: As such, it is only proper that there be gender-segregation in such cases so as to guard against (among other reasons) our animal concupiscence.
Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation, or do you have something else in mind here? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're arguing, and that argument simply does not match reality.
i'm not under the illusion of men will run in and rape women, albeit will only take one to make this whole affair turn ugly.
Traditio wrote: Furthermore, these semi-nude persons are committing acts which appertain to their vegetative nature (namely, excretion of waste), the observation of which only serves to lower the personal respect due to persons of the opposite gender.
Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?
women in general do not like to share bathrooms with strange men.
Traditio wrote: The entrance of a transgendered person into a bathroom which does not correspond to his or her biological sex/gender (I simply deny the psychological/sociological distinction between them) violates all 4.
You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.
its simple, ya got tally wacker you are male, if you have a wahoo you are a female(words changed to avoid issues of using genital specific terms), if you have both, you are a hermaphrodite and can use which ever bathroom you choose since ya got both parts.
Peregrine wrote:So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous
Except, this isn't always true. Consider the following case:
It is 2 AM and nobody else is on the road. You come to a traffic light, and the light is just turning red. Coming to a complete stop, you look both ways and determine that the streets are empty, and there is no incoming traffic.
Ought you to run the red light? You might be inclined to say "yes." But the cop parked in the nearby parking lot, watching said intersection, might beg to differ.
the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.
Signs like "STOP" and "Men" and "Don't walk on the grass" indicate publicly expressed norms which are intended to be followed.
Insofar as a woman just walked into the men's bathroom, she has just violated a publicly expressed norm, and this, probably intentionally (I'm assuming, of course, that she's neither blind nor illiterate).
So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.
In order to confirm the truth of what St. Thomas Aquinas is saying, consider the fact that the speed limit sign says 70, but everybody is going at least 75, including the police officers tasked with enforcing traffic laws.
Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people.
Note the bolded. I didn't make the claim that you are here denying.
Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation
No: that would just be silly. I'm arguing that the entrance of a woman into a man's bathroom violates propriety, not public safety.
Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?
If this were another board with a more "mixed" audience, I'd propose a public poll.
"Are you pathologically disposed in the same way to a woman pooping in the stall next to you as a man pooping in the stall next to you?"
I imagine that most people would say no.
Personally, I find both abhorrent, but the same-sex pooping to be somewhat less abhorrent than inter-sex pooping.
You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.
It's an ad hoc distinction (a distinction without a real difference) made up on the spot by relatively recent psychologists and sociologists, in large part to advance a revolutionary social/ideological agenda.
If you think that they are indisputably different, then by all means, I'm open to hearing arguments for why it's so.
Because among conservatives, they are indisputably not really different. Ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about it, for example. Or Trump.
Asterios wrote: what if there is a sign that says mens restroom and other one says womens restroom?
What if there is? The question is "why should it matter which bathroom a person uses", not "what does the sign say". Simply pointing out that the sign saying "men" or "women" exists does not tell us why we should care that the sign exists.
So what if child molesters demand the right to be with kids under 18? or 15? or if sexual devients want to be with Animals, or if blood brother and sister want to marry? transgenders were lumped into these same categories, so why shouldn't they be allowed their rights?
WTF. Do you honestly not understand the difference between those things, or are you just trying to see how offensive you can be?
actually i've seen a few restrooms where the stall doors were removed so privacy was not really an option, furthermore urinal stalls are not private.
Yeah, that's a rather definite minority of bathrooms and I doubt many people use them willingly. And urinals are still pretty private. There's usually a divider wall between them, and from the back you can't see anything. Unless you think that people are dropping their pants entirely to use them?
i'm not under the illusion of men will run in and rape women, albeit will only take one to make this whole affair turn ugly.
Sure, it will be ugly, but what exactly do you think that bathroom laws are going to do to prevent this? Rape is already illegal, and a serious felony. If someone is willing to risk years in prison to rape a person then why exactly do you think they're going to be afraid of being punished for being in the wrong bathroom?
women in general do not like to share bathrooms with strange men.
Counter-point: you just complained about women going into the men's room and how annoying it is when that happens. So either you're lying about the complaint or there seem to be plenty of women who don't mind sharing your bathroom with you.
its simple, ya got tally wacker you are male, if you have a wahoo you are a female(words changed to avoid issues of using genital specific terms), if you have both, you are a hermaphrodite and can use which ever bathroom you choose since ya got both parts.
That doesn't have anything to do with sex vs. gender. Nor does whether a person is male or female really tell you much about which bathroom they should be in, even if you want to enforce gender segregation in bathrooms. Or do I need to go back a few pages and get those pictures of trans men (people with "wahoo"s, as you so maturely put it) who look just like any other men (complete with muscles, beards, etc) unless they take their pants off?
Peregrine wrote:So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous
Except, this isn't always true. Consider the following case:
It is 2 AM and nobody else is on the road. You come to a traffic light, and the light is just turning red. Coming to a complete stop, you look both ways and determine that the streets are empty, and there is no incoming traffic.
Ought you to run the red light? You might be inclined to say "yes." But the cop parked in the nearby parking lot, watching said intersection, might beg to differ.
the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.
Signs like "STOP" and "Men" and "Don't walk on the grass" indicate publicly expressed norms which are intended to be followed.
Insofar as a woman just walked into the men's bathroom, she has just violated a publicly expressed norm, and this, probably intentionally (I'm assuming, of course, that she's neither blind nor illiterate).
So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.
In order to confirm the truth of what St. Thomas Aquinas is saying, consider the fact that the speed limit sign says 70, but everybody is going at least 75, including the police officers tasked with enforcing traffic laws.
Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people.
Note the bolded. I didn't make the claim that you are here denying.
Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation
No: that would just be silly. I'm arguing that the entrance of a woman into a man's bathroom violates propriety, not public safety.
Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?
If this were another board with a more "mixed" audience, I'd propose a public poll.
"Are you pathologically disposed in the same way to a woman pooping in the stall next to you as a man pooping in the stall next to you?"
I imagine that most people would say no.
Personally, I find both abhorrent, but the same-sex pooping to be somewhat less abhorrent than inter-sex pooping.
You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.
It's an ad hoc distinction (a distinction without a real difference) made up on the spot by relatively recent psychologists and sociologists, in large part to advance a revolutionary social/ideological agenda.
If you think that they are indisputably different, then by all means, I'm open to hearing arguments for why it's so.
Because among conservatives, they are indisputably not really different. Ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about it, for example. Or Trump.
Actually Trump told Jenner he/she could use his hotel bathrooms whenever, but then again think he/she got the operation so it would make her a woman then, so she can use the women's restroom then.
Asterios wrote:Actually Trump told Jenner he/she could use his hotel bathrooms whenever, but then again think he/she got the operation so it would make her a woman then, so she can use the women's restroom then.
This is news to me. At any rate, among those of you who have conservative facebook friends, especially in traditionally conservative parts of the country, I'm sure you'll find that memes protesting integrated bathrooms (especially transgendered persons going into the wrong bathrooms) have been fairly rampant.
Target is being boycotted, no?
But here, I respectfully must disagree with both you and Mr. Trump. The bathroom door says "women." Mr. Jenner is a man. "Man" and "woman" are ontological, not psychological claims. They do not express opinions, estimations or feelings about oneself. Saying "I am a man" is not like saying "I am tired" or "I am a lover of paintings." Saying "I am a man" is like saying "I am an animal" or "I am alive." Persons in persistent-vegetative states, or otherwise, asleep, do not have an ambiguous "gender-identity." Manhood or womanhood is independent of our thoughts about it.
Traditio wrote: Ought you to run the red light? You might be inclined to say "yes." But the cop parked in the nearby parking lot, watching said intersection, might beg to differ.
And? That's still a question of safety, not whether or not the poor red light's feelings were hurt when you didn't pay attention to it. It's much better for safety if running a red light is illegal at all times instead of allowing drivers to choose when they should stop.
Signs like "STOP" and "Men" and "Don't walk on the grass" indicate publicly expressed norms which are intended to be followed.
Insofar as a woman just walked into the men's bathroom, she has just violated a publicly expressed norm, and this, probably intentionally (I'm assuming, of course, that she's neither blind nor illiterate).
You're missing the point entirely. Obviously the sign indicates that something should happen, but the question is WHY that thing should happen. WHY is the thing the sign indicates a thing that we should want to do? Merely citing the existence of the sign is not an answer to that question.
In order to confirm the truth of what St. Thomas Aquinas is saying, consider the fact that the speed limit sign says 70, but everybody is going at least 75, including the police officers tasked with enforcing traffic laws.
And if that cop tickets you for going 71 in a 70 you're going to get laughed out of court if you try to claim "but St. Thomas Aquinas said that custom is law".
Note the bolded. I didn't make the claim that you are here denying.
Then what exactly is your point? If a person is semi-nude in an enclosed space where nobody else can see them then why does it matter who is in the surrounding space?
Personally, I find both abhorrent, but the same-sex pooping to be somewhat less abhorrent than inter-sex pooping.
And I find both abhorrent, but I don't care what gender the producer of the disgusting smells and/or sounds next door is. Perhaps this is a personal issue for you, rather than a universal truth?
If you think that they are indisputably different, then by all means, I'm open to hearing arguments for why it's so.
Simple: consider the difference between "being a male" and "being a man". Being a male is clearly a straightforward thing: check between a person's legs, run a DNA test if there's any doubt. Being a man is a much more complicated concept, involving standards for things like honor, courage, chivalry, etc. We very often say that a male person is not a man because they fail to live up to those standards. So clearly "male" and "man" can not be the same thing. And therefore sex and gender can not be the same thing.
Because among conservatives, they are indisputably not really different. Ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about it, for example. Or Trump.
Neither of whom are experts in any relevant scientific field. Being a raving lunatic who gets a lot of media attention does not mean that your opinions on scientific matters have any value.
Asterios wrote: what if there is a sign that says mens restroom and other one says womens restroom?
What if there is? The question is "why should it matter which bathroom a person uses", not "what does the sign say". Simply pointing out that the sign saying "men" or "women" exists does not tell us why we should care that the sign exists.
so if a sign says authorized personal only? then we should just ignore it and go in then?
Asterios wrote: So what if child molesters demand the right to be with kids under 18? or 15? or if sexual devients want to be with Animals, or if blood brother and sister want to marry? transgenders were lumped into these same categories, so why shouldn't they be allowed their rights?
WTF. Do you honestly not understand the difference between those things, or are you just trying to see how offensive you can be?
actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?
Asterios wrote: actually i've seen a few restrooms where the stall doors were removed so privacy was not really an option, furthermore urinal stalls are not private.
Yeah, that's a rather definite minority of bathrooms and I doubt many people use them willingly. And urinals are still pretty private. There's usually a divider wall between them, and from the back you can't see anything. Unless you think that people are dropping their pants entirely to use them?
doesn't help when the sinks are across from those stalls.
Asterios wrote: i'm not under the illusion of men will run in and rape women, albeit will only take one to make this whole affair turn ugly.
Sure, it will be ugly, but what exactly do you think that bathroom laws are going to do to prevent this? Rape is already illegal, and a serious felony. If someone is willing to risk years in prison to rape a person then why exactly do you think they're going to be afraid of being punished for being in the wrong bathroom?
look at it this way, most bathrooms in big stores are right by registers or personal are near there (more of a LP thing), they see a male go into womens restroom it will ring a bell, if the law passes they can't do anything.
Asterios wrote: women in general do not like to share bathrooms with strange men.
Counter-point: you just complained about women going into the men's room and how annoying it is when that happens. So either you're lying about the complaint or there seem to be plenty of women who don't mind sharing your bathroom with you.
yes just like some men wouldn't mind rushing into a womens restroom, does not mean women want a man in their restroom.
Asterios wrote: its simple, ya got tally wacker you are male, if you have a wahoo you are a female(words changed to avoid issues of using genital specific terms), if you have both, you are a hermaphrodite and can use which ever bathroom you choose since ya got both parts.
That doesn't have anything to do with sex vs. gender. Nor does whether a person is male or female really tell you much about which bathroom they should be in, even if you want to enforce gender segregation in bathrooms. Or do I need to go back a few pages and get those pictures of trans men (people with "wahoo"s, as you so maturely put it) who look just like any other men (complete with muscles, beards, etc) unless they take their pants off?
gender is based on what tools ya got, your sex is based on what tools ya got. males can get a woman pregnant with no outside help of any kind, females can bare children, what part of that don't you understand?
Peregrine wrote: Simple: consider the difference between "being a male" and "being a man". Being a male is clearly a straightforward thing: check between a person's legs, run a DNA test if there's any doubt. Being a man is a much more complicated concept, involving standards for things like honor, courage, chivalry, etc. We very often say that a male person is not a man because they fail to live up to those standards. So clearly "male" and "man" can not be the same thing. And therefore sex and gender can not be the same thing.
so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a man to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error also being a man does not guarantee you are chivalrous, nor have honor nor courage.
Asterios wrote: so if a sign says authorized personal only? then we should just ignore it and go in then?
That depends on WHY there is such a sign. Merely citing the existence of a sign tells us nothing, the reason we shouldn't go in is provided by asking what dangerous/sensitive/whatever thing exists beyond that point that justifies limiting access.
actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
doesn't help when the sinks are across from those stalls.
So what? Looking at the back of a person using a urinal in a mirror is no different from looking at them directly. And, unless people where you live are in the habit of dropping their pants entirely to use a urinal then you aren't going to see anything in either case.
look at it this way, most bathrooms in big stores are right by registers or personal are near there (more of a LP thing), they see a male go into womens restroom it will ring a bell, if the law passes they can't do anything.
...
You do realize that the biggest danger of being raped in a bathroom is when nobody is around to notice, right? Your hypothetical rapist isn't going to choose a public bathroom right next to the registers, they're going to pick an isolated spot with nobody around to hear anything and call the police.
yes just like some men wouldn't like rushing into a womens restroom, does not mean women want a man in their restroom.
...
So, women don't want a man in their restroom, but they have no problem going into a restroom with men in it. These seem to be some very confused women that you are talking about.
gender is based on what tools ya got, your sex is based on what tools ya got. males can get a woman pregnant with no outside help of any kind, females can bare children, what part of that don't you understand?
I understand that you don't seem to know the difference between sex and gender. Here's a hint: if you're talking about having children you're talking about sex, not gender.
so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a woman to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error
I said no such thing. In fact, I don't even endorse these claims about what "being a man" means. I am simply pointing out that the concept is commonly used like that.
actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.
Asterios wrote: so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a woman to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error
I said no such thing. In fact, I don't even endorse these claims about what "being a man" means. I am simply pointing out that the concept is commonly used like that.
you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.
heres a riddle for you, wondering if you can even answer this simple riddle: a father and a son get in an accident, the father is taken to one hospital, the son is taken to another hospital, the surgeon for the son comes in and says I cannot operate on this boy he is my son. who is the Surgeon?
If you have nothing to post but snide remarks and off topic riddles, you're best off not posting. Either post on topic and politely or take a voluntary breather. Thanks
Asterios wrote: no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.
Sorry, but posting random semi-coherent tangents and claiming victory when anyone asks what they have to do with the subject being discussed is not the same thing as winning.
you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between "people say X" and "I agree with people who say X"? At no point did I say that I agree with those concepts about "being a man", I simply stated that they are concepts that are commonly used in society (and therefore the difference between sex and gender is not one that is limited to some far-left fringe).
Asterios wrote: no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.
Sorry, but posting random semi-coherent tangents and claiming victory when anyone asks what they have to do with the subject being discussed is not the same thing as winning.
you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between "people say X" and "I agree with people who say X"?
first i said what if child molesters(adults) wanted to be with young children, (under 18 and even 15) shouldn't they be allowed to since transgenders have their rights, you said they were different, but i say they are not since state law allows them to, the only way it is against the law is if certain laws are broken, but legally the federal minimum age for consent is 12, its not so different when you think about it.
you used it to defend your stance, stand by it, or don't use it, plain and simple, which is it? or are you agreeing you have a certain women are weak attitude? or that they cannot have honor? or that they cannot be Chivalrous?, or they can't do things men can do? while also stating all men do those things.
actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.
One of the problems with your sentence is that it uses too many pronouns and uses unclear language. This generates confusion as we try and muddle through to what "part", "those", "some", "things", "it", and "one" are supposed to refer. Clarify your sentence first, and then it can be calmly refuted.
Asterios wrote: so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a woman to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error
I said no such thing. In fact, I don't even endorse these claims about what "being a man" means. I am simply pointing out that the concept is commonly used like that.
you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.
heres a riddle for you, wondering if you can even answer this simple riddle: a father and a son get in an accident, the father is taken to one hospital, the son is taken to another hospital, the surgeon for the son comes in and says I cannot operate on this boy he is my son. who is the Surgeon?
The child's mother, other father, other legal guardian that considers the child to be like a son, legal adopter for the purposes of paperwork, robotic caretaker that raises all humans from embryos in a giant human farm, etc.
I'm having a lot of "wait...what?" moments in this thread.
Arguments aren't making any sense, and honestly the main argument isn't even coherent enough to make out what the actual argument is.
When someone is arguing against someone that transgender people in bathrooms are like pedophiles with children because of a federal age of consent and surgeon riddles, then it's time to just lock the damn thread to safe us all some sanity.
If we're at the point where one side is saying there's no difference between transgenders using a bathroom and adults molesting children, this thread is done because we have moved so far past reasonable discussion that it can't be corrected. We haven't seen a new argument for a long while, just the same ones recycled again and again, so that's that.
Don't start another one on this subject or drag it into any other threads for a while, let it cool off.
you you 
