1206
Post by: Easy E
http://www.hrc.org/blog/target-affirms-trans-inclusive-policies-makes-powerful-statement-during-sur
Yesterday, in response to the wave of anti-LGBT legislation sweeping our country -- including discriminatory bills aimed at barring transgender people from using restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity -- Target reiterated its inclusive restroom and fitting room policy for its employees and customers.
At Target, which was recognized as an HRC “Best Places to Work for LGBT Inclusion,” employees and guests are welcome to use restrooms and fitting rooms that correspond with their gender identity. Not only is this policy in keeping with the best practices recommended by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, it also aligns with the latest U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on preventing discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Target’s announcement, however, takes a decisive step beyond on-paper policies, serving to publicly affirm transgender people at a time when our dignity and safety are under daily attack.
When I use the restroom as a transgender man today, no one challenges whether I belong there because most people assume I was assigned male at birth. But that wasn’t always the case for me. For decades I walked the earth as a visibly gender non-conforming person, and the question of which restroom or fitting room or locker room to use was a constant source of anxiety and pressure and not without good cause: I faced discrimination and verbal and physical abuse more than once while using sex-segregated facilities. An act as simple as using the restroom or trying on a new pair of jeans was often demoralizing at best, and dangerous at worst.
I wonder what it must be like to be a young transgender person today? I can’t be easy to be bombarded with messages undermining your humanity and dignity. It must be awful to know that elected officials -- like those who passed North Carolina’s terrible HB2 -- fixate on restricting safe access to facilities, including restrooms in public buildings including schools, airports and convention facilities. These discriminatory bills increase stigma for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth and health experts, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have condemned these pieces of legislation as harmful to LGBTQ youth.
Target’s public affirmation of its existing transgender-inclusive policies for employees and guests is an important voice in countering the current misunderstanding and fear mongering surrounding these anti-transgender bills. More than just a statement on policy, it also affirms the dignity of transgender people. This message is a welcome reminder that transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
Is this the same Target that got hammered for giving money to a right-wing Republican in a big Governor's race not long ago? Answer: Yes, the same company but a different CEO.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I can tell you first hand Target is not the best place to work  Not because of any LGBT related policy, but because their work environment is downright awful 
25990
Post by: Chongara
The title would seem to indicate they came under fire for the position, but the text of the article takes a strictly supportive tone.
Is there something about this being a controversy that simply wasn't brought through to the quote block?
1206
Post by: Easy E
Perhaps I should have led with this one, but it is a bit more hyperbolic....
http://www.citypages.com/news/anti-trans-bigots-freak-out-as-target-announces-bathroom-policy-it-already-had-8218948
A lot of people are really, really angry with Target after its announcement Tuesday that the store would allow employees and customers to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.
In a statement on its in-house blog, Target explained that it was spurred to start a conversation with its employees by laws passed in North Carolina and Mississippi that would force folks to use the bathroom of their birth gender — even if that person had transitioned to another sex. Other states, including Minnesota, have seen social conservatives push the same or similar legislation.
This led to many swift condemnations from social conservatives online, with nearly all of them declaring they'd never, ever shop at a Target again. Others tried to argue with the store's decision, and some posed worst-case scenarios of what this new policy would inevitably lead to.
Here's a tiny sampling of what that looks like.
,See Article>
Looks like Target's going to lose some loyal customers who boycott in protest. Other loyal shoppers will be lost through attrition, as they are quickly exposed as sex perverts who are caught snooping in the women's room, and subsequently thrown in prison.
Still others will not be able to shop at Target after they are beaten nearly to death by concerned husbands and fathers. (Note to Target: Self-defense class subsidy for managers?)
So, this is a controversial new policy. There's just this one thing. It's not new. Read through Target's statement (posted below) and you won't see the words "change," "reconsider," "adjust," or "start."
The word you will see is "reiterated." People who automatically connect gender fluidity and sex reassignment to child molestation and rape might not have the greatest vocabulary. Allow us to help: Reiterate is just a fancy way of saying "say again."
Target isn't changing anything. This policy was in place on Saturday, when anti-transgender bigots were shopping there and using the bathroom facilities without incident. Only, they had no way of knowing they were shopping or urinating in the very same building as one of ... those people.
It's sort of like how you can be moving about freely, undisturbed, online, and not realize you're in the same space as a bunch of bigots — until suddenly they all start tweeting in unison, and you realize they've been there the whole time!
One of those scenarios is truly offensive. It's not the one that happens at Target.
Here's the Minneapolis mega-chain's full statement, announcing a revolutionary policy that it's had for a while now. Run for your lives. Or whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  LordofHats wrote:I can tell you first hand Target is not the best place to work Not because of any LGBT related policy, but because their work environment is downright awful
I use to work there as well, but not at the store level.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wait....people still shop at Target....I think...I might have one near me somewhere...
1206
Post by: Easy E
 Jihadin wrote:Wait....people still shop at Target....I think...I might have one near me somewhere...
A lot of people still shop at Target, unless you live in the South.... that is Wal-mart territory.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Target when you pay a bit more not to shop at walmart.
Because seriously feth walmart terrible corporation and the stores are usually gak holes
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
 Ustrello wrote:Target when you pay a bit more not to shop at walmart.
Because seriously feth walmart terrible corporation and the stores are usually gak holes
Agreed.
There are roughly an even number of Targets and Walmarts in my area and I only ever go to Walmart if I absolutely have to. Then, in those dire circumstances, I try to distract myself from the horror of being in a Walmart by playing Live Action People of Walmart. 
37231
Post by: d-usa
Target knows their demographic.
100624
Post by: oldravenman3025
Ustrello wrote:Target when you pay a bit more not to shop at walmart.
Because seriously feth walmart terrible corporation and the stores are usually gak holes
The Super Wal-Mart in my area is actually a decent place to shop for odds and ends local businesses might not carry (or be out of at the time). The staff actually has decent morale because they lucked up and got decent management at our local chain. It will vary between stores. I've been to good stores and bad ones when it comes to Wal-Mart, just as with other stores (including Target).
Besides, if you ever feel bad about yourself, just walk around a Super Wal-Mart at 2 A.M. during the first of the month. I promise that by the time you leave, you'll feel a whole lot better about yourself.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I'm thinking of visiting my brother this summer, who is American and lives in Oregon. I am a UK citizen.
Will US officials be able to recognise a UK birth certificate, to grant me access to the correct lavatory?
On a related note, how long are the queues to get into the lavs, now that everyone has to have their birth certificate examined?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 DarkTraveler777 wrote: Ustrello wrote:Target when you pay a bit more not to shop at walmart.
Because seriously feth walmart terrible corporation and the stores are usually gak holes
Agreed.
There are roughly an even number of Targets and Walmarts in my area and I only ever go to Walmart if I absolutely have to. Then, in those dire circumstances, I try to distract myself from the horror of being in a Walmart by playing Live Action People of Walmart.
This. I won't voluntarily shop at Walmart since they decided to never sell anything made in the USA.
53516
Post by: Chute82
 Kilkrazy wrote:I'm thinking of visiting my brother this summer, who is American and lives in Oregon. I am a UK citizen.
Will US officials be able to recognise a UK birth certificate, to grant me access to the correct lavatory?
On a related note, how long are the queues to get into the lavs, now that everyone has to have their birth certificate examined?
Well considering Oregon is about 2700 miles from North Carolina I think you will be alright if you need to use the bathroom.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Actually if you have to wait for 2,700 miles, I don't think everything is going to be all right unless you have Astronaut underwear.
53516
Post by: Chute82
 Frazzled wrote:Actually if you have to wait for 2,700 miles, I don't think everything is going to be all right unless you have Astronaut underwear.
Lisa Nowak drove 900 miles wearing a space diaper on her kidnapping mission.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
That's an interesting new euphemism for a snatch.
Back to the topic, what if I go to North Carolina to visit some of the ACW sites?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kilkrazy wrote:On a related note, how long are the queues to get into the lavs, now that everyone has to have their birth certificate examined?
It's not that bad. We just form an orderly line, drop trou, show our penis or vagina, and then proceed. It's a lot faster than the bank, certainly. I'd compare it to the movie theater line in the middle of the day.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:That's an interesting new euphemism for a snatch.
Back to the topic, what if I go to North Carolina to visit some of the ACW sites?
Take mosquito spray. Its bug season.
5394
Post by: reds8n
 Ouze wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:On a related note, how long are the queues to get into the lavs, now that everyone has to have their birth certificate examined?
It's not that bad. We just form an orderly line, drop trou, show our penis or vagina, and then proceed. It's a lot faster than the bank, certainly. I'd compare it to the movie theater line in the middle of the day.
So it's much like going through your airports then ?
Come the next election these procedures will also be rolled out to help combat voter fraud, to thwart the vast swathes of people who'll swap genders to ensure Obama's fourth term.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kilkrazy wrote:That's an interesting new euphemism for a snatch.
Back to the topic, what if I go to North Carolina to visit some of the ACW sites?
Bring bug spray, lots of it. LOTS of it. Mosquito season here in NC is godawful.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Ouze wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:On a related note, how long are the queues to get into the lavs, now that everyone has to have their birth certificate examined?
It's not that bad. We just form an orderly line, drop trou, show our penis or vagina, and then proceed. It's a lot faster than the bank, certainly. I'd compare it to the movie theater line in the middle of the day.
But I thought the whole point was that if you're a man who identifies as a woman, you can use the women's toilet? You'd still have a john thomas...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I thought the point is that you have to use the lavatory allocated to the gender declared on your birth certificate, whatever your current anatomical status.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Kilkrazy wrote:I thought the point is that you have to use the lavatory allocated to the gender declared on your birth certificate, whatever your current anatomical status.
I dunno, the whole thing confuses me. Just have unisex toilets and be done with it.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
In the USA this whole bathroom thing affects about 0.23% of the population.
If you have a P, use the bathroom designated for that equipment. If you have a V, use the bathroom corresponding to that equipment. If you absolutely have to use the V lavatory and you have P, make sure you sit down to pee, so no one freaks out. Done.
Taxpayer money down the toilet...
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
A few thoughts come to mind.
1) "employees and guests". Please tell me they are not referring to customers as guests.
2) I do wonder what the fuss is about with women's toilets. Unlike urinals they all have stalls. If you are really worried why just about men spying on women. Why is women spying on women not a problem, or men on men? It's just stupid and a non issue.
3) The one we need to worry about, and the reason we don't want unisex toilets, women using men's bathrooms because of the queues for the ladies. Seriously women, go in, do your business and leave. What the hell are you doing in there that causes a queue like an iPhone launch?
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Deleted Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are. They want to feel like the millions they spend on psychologists to tell them how to attract more consumers to buy stuff is working. So they call customers "guests" now. Stupidity incarnate.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Steve steveson wrote:1) "employees and guests". Please tell me they are not referring to customers as guests.
Since coming to the US I've encountered many businesses that refer to their customers as "guests". I found it odd at first too, but I suppose they're just trying to make customers feel more welcome and encourage employees to take better care of them. Meh, whatever, marketing shenanigans at work...
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Well, in that case Target, it's polite to offer your guest a drink. Mine's a double Jack and Coke.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Kanluwen wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:That's an interesting new euphemism for a snatch.
Back to the topic, what if I go to North Carolina to visit some of the ACW sites?
Bring bug spray, lots of it. LOTS of it. Mosquito season here in NC is godawful.
He won't they never listen, never realize bugs in the summer in the South are like our secret weapon against Moon based Space Nazis.
Well, in that case Target, it's polite to offer your guest a drink. Mine's a double Jack and Coke.
If I walked into a Target and they immediately slapped me witha rum and coke, I would spend lots more money there. 
1206
Post by: Easy E
Target has referred to customers as guest since pre- 21st century. They also call all their employees Team Members, no matter what level you are at. You have individual titles too, but you are all Team Members.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Easy E wrote:Target has referred to customers as guest since pre- 21st century. They also call all their employees Team Members, no matter what level you are at. You have individual titles too, but you are all Team Members.
Yup, "team members"! I worked at a place that called us that. The bosses would prattle on about how important we all were and that us grunts were "on the front lines", "the faces of the company" and other such drivel. I suppose it was to try and make minimum wage with 12 hours a week not seem so bad. "Essential" indeed...
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Mdlbuildr wrote:In the USA this whole bathroom thing affects about 0.23% of the population.
And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Mdlbuildr wrote:In the USA this whole bathroom thing affects about 0.23% of the population.
How are you doing with your transition? Are you still pre- op or are you post- op? How did your family react when you told them about your real gender?
Taxpayer money down the toilet...
But which toilet?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Nostromodamus wrote: Easy E wrote:Target has referred to customers as guest since pre- 21st century. They also call all their employees Team Members, no matter what level you are at. You have individual titles too, but you are all Team Members.
Yup, "team members"! I worked at a place that called us that. The bosses would prattle on about how important we all were and that us grunts were "on the front lines", "the faces of the company" and other such drivel. I suppose it was to try and make minimum wage with 12 hours a week not seem so bad. "Essential" indeed...
I remember working at Target. It was an eye opening step up from my previous job. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:Mdlbuildr wrote:In the USA this whole bathroom thing affects about 0.23% of the population.
And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
Agreed. Its stupid. I blame cat people.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote:I remember working at Target. It was an eye opening step up from my previous job.
Everyone should work a gakky retail job, like at Target or someplace like that. I think it ultimately makes you a better person, less likely to act like a huge entitled jerk.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I agree with the above. Though it may also lead to hating people at large.
I do remember a guy who posted here a few times who was quite proud of treating retail staff like dirt and was confused at how the people he went out with didn't approve.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: Frazzled wrote:I remember working at Target. It was an eye opening step up from my previous job.
Everyone should work a gakky retail job, like at Target or someplace like that. I think it ultimately makes you a better person, less likely to act like a huge entitled jerk.
Target wasn't gakky. Working a carnival was gakky. BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant. The codicil we learned from another couple: don't let your wife take a job in a night club. She won't be your wife in a year...  I do remember a guy who posted here a few times who was quite proud of treating retail staff like dirt.
1. How people treat waitstaff is an excellent window into their character. Seriously. 2. This type of behavior is usually reserved for what is technically called "a douchebag."
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Should be like when there was mandatory military service, except retail. I've been in retail for 15 years and almost every day am treated like gak for trying to help people with what they need.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Kanluwen wrote:
And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
Not the point of the whole argument.
I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom?
Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Nostromodamus wrote: Easy E wrote:Target has referred to customers as guest since pre- 21st century. They also call all their employees Team Members, no matter what level you are at. You have individual titles too, but you are all Team Members.
Yup, "team members"! I worked at a place that called us that. The bosses would prattle on about how important we all were and that us grunts were "on the front lines", "the faces of the company" and other such drivel. I suppose it was to try and make minimum wage with 12 hours a week not seem so bad. "Essential" indeed...
Here in the UK there's the John Lewis Partnership where the employees are called Partners. However treating the employees as equal partners has been a major component of the company since its founding and so is actually followed up with different company policies, the most obvious being that every partner in the company receives an annual bonus from the profits of that year. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mdlbuildr wrote: Kanluwen wrote: And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
Not the point of the whole argument. I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom? Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.
The number of men who dress up in women's clothes just to go and use their bathroom is minuscule. It's probably smaller than the actual transgender population. The number of men who assaulted women in the restroom whilst dressed in womens clothes was eclipsed by the number who did it whilst not dressed in women's clothing. Women's toilets all have stalls so it's not like a woman is going to walk in and see a penis unless that person is walking around with their trousers around their ankles, in which case they're probably already violating a public decency law. The bathroom laws have no purpose but to discriminate against the transgender community.
12313
Post by: Ouze
So, if I understand your thinking, a sexual predator who would be willing to break the laws prohibiting sexual assault and child molestation would be stopped by a law preventing them from entering the bathroom? Is that pretty much the thinking?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Mdlbuildr wrote:s if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that.
Women's bathrooms don't tend to have a lot of urinals -- unless things are wwaayyy different in the USA -- so seeing as said person will be in a stall , as will everyone else.....
Besides, given the vast queues for female toilets anyway, one wonders if it might be too long of a wait for your average eager beaver would be sex offender.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sounds like an argument from Bloomberg about guns. Kinda...stupid.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Frazzled wrote:
BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant.
Call center is also now an acceptable alternative.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Addition...accepted!
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Women's toilets all have stalls so it's not like a woman is going to walk in and see a penis unless that person is walking around with their trousers around their ankles, in which case they're probably already violating a public decency law.
The bathroom laws have no purpose but to discriminate against the transgender community.
Not if the transgender women stands up to pee, which if you look at some of their forums, some of them do.
You're right. All these years the sole purpose of having men's and women's bathrooms were to discriminate against the transgender community. All 0.023% of them. (Sarcasm). Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:
So, if I understand your thinking, a sexual predator who would be willing to break the laws prohibiting sexual assault and child molestation would be stopped by a law preventing them from entering the bathroom? Is that pretty much the thinking?
You are not understanding my thinking. Someone who didn't want to break the law before, now doesn't have to since men are allowed to use the women's bathroom.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Mdlbuildr wrote:Ouze wrote:So, if I understand your thinking, a sexual predator who would be willing to break the laws prohibiting sexual assault and child molestation would be stopped by a law preventing them from entering the bathroom? Is that pretty much the thinking?
You are not understanding my thinking. Someone who didn't want to break the law before, now doesn't have to since men are allowed to use the women's bathroom.
So someone who would have been a child molester or sexual assault before was only stopped from doing so by the illegality of entering the wrong bathroom. Now that they can legally go in the bathroom, they are now free to pursue their felonious actions unhindered, you're thinking - and as such, the best way to prevent this is a law like North Carolina's, which is a civil law and has no provisions for enforcement or penalties for noncompliance.
*Nods sagely*
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Ouze wrote:
So someone who would have been a child molester or sexual assault before was only stopped from doing so by the illegality of entering the wrong bathroom. Now that they can legally go in the bathroom, they are now free to pursue their felonious actions unhindered, you're thinking - and as such, the best way to prevent this is a law like North Carolina's, which is a civil law and has no provisions for enforcement or penalties for noncompliance.
*Nods sagely*
If you actually read the Law in NC the big uproar is not about bathrooms. It's about businesses now being able to discriminate against people who are LGT etc.
The new Law came into play because there was an outcry to let Transgender use the bathroom of the sex they identify with rather than the bathroom of their actual anatomic gender.
I disagree with the Law. That being said, this is now the third time I've said this in this thread, use the bathroom of your equipment. We can argue about it all you like. You can ridicule my opinion all you like. You won't change my mind about it. Period.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Mdlbuildr wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
Not the point of the whole argument.
I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom?
Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.
I'm not a transgender person like you, so maybe I'm just not understanding the problem you have with this stuff.
But how do any of these laws make any changes whatsoever to any laws that already criminalize criminal behavior?
Edit: It has been pointed out that I might be crossing the line on Rule #1 by assuming that you are transgender, so let me expand on my assumption. You have posted a few times that there is only a tiny percentage of people affected by these kind of laws. But you also seem to have a very strong opinion about these kind of laws. So since it only affects that tiny population, but clearly affects you enough to keep on posting about it, I just assumed that you were part of that tiny population or else you wouldn't be so vocal about it.
The other option would be that it affects more than just that tiny population, and I didn't want to assume that you would keep on repeating an incorrect statement. That's all. For me, I do think it affects a much larger group of people: the obvious are transgender folks and people with genetic defects, then there are parents with children, families who have to assist family members who are disabled, caretakers of handicapped people who are assisting them, the person who has to gak in their paints because every single bathroom is full and they would go to jail if they dare set a foot in the other bathroom. Of course that also included taking that 0.3% at face value and not assuming it is under-reported at all.
Edit 2: I also think that it affect the percentage of the population that cares about how 0.3% of the population may be treated.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Please explain how you came to this conclusion. Thanks.
37231
Post by: d-usa
See my edited reply above.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Steve steveson wrote: Frazzled wrote:
BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant.
Call center is also now an acceptable alternative.
[img]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/30/d3/ae30d3a0dcaed2052571db59388df4a4.jpg[/img]
I have worked in both and find this to be true.
As for Target, they seem to be making a lot of "progressive" policy decisions. I am curious how this fits into their business strategy and what sort of bottom line repercussions they have experienced?
I recall when I worked there, there was a greater Negative feedback loop when it was revealed that the company gave a ton of money to an R candidate than any of the other decisions. I worked and lived in MPLS area, so it was the "eye-of-the-storm" news coverage wise. I also seem to recall getting a ton of flak for not allowing Salvation Army Bell-ringers either.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Mdlbuildr wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: Women's toilets all have stalls so it's not like a woman is going to walk in and see a penis unless that person is walking around with their trousers around their ankles, in which case they're probably already violating a public decency law. The bathroom laws have no purpose but to discriminate against the transgender community.
Not if the transgender women stands up to pee, which if you look at some of their forums, some of them do. You're right. All these years the sole purpose of having men's and women's bathrooms were to discriminate against the transgender community. All 0.023% of them. (Sarcasm).
So what if they stand up to go to the bathroom when they're in a locked stall and so out of sight of anyone who is not looking under or over the stall? Who exactly is looking into this stall to check that everyone is sitting down? Because they're the pervert that you should be looking for Also, women can stand to pee as well. Some women will squat over the toilet without touching the seat as they don't trust that it will be clean. Or they could use one of these.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Read my posts more carefully please.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Easy E wrote: Steve steveson wrote: Frazzled wrote:
BUT: you and I and the wife are on the same wavelength. Everyone should work in retail, janitorial work, or a restaurant.
Call center is also now an acceptable alternative.
[img]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/30/d3/ae30d3a0dcaed2052571db59388df4a4.jpg[/img]
I have worked in both and find this to be true.
As for Target, they seem to be making a lot of "progressive" policy decisions. I am curious how this fits into their business strategy and what sort of bottom line repercussions they have experienced?
I recall when I worked there, there was a greater Negative feedback loop when it was revealed that the company gave a ton of money to an R candidate than any of the other decisions. I worked and lived in MPLS area, so it was the "eye-of-the-storm" news coverage wise.
I think as a brand, at least lately, Target is positioning themselves more towards the progressive side of things. The whole "not gender-labeling toys" thing last year didn't seem to hurt them at all, but I don't know that they have seen any increase in business because of that.
I also seem to recall getting a ton of flak for not allowing Salvation Army Bell-ringers either.
That just seems a repeat news-story for both Target and Walmart on an annual basis. Every year there will be stories about how Target doesn't allow Bell Ringers because they hate Christmas or how Walmart made the Marine collecting toys stay outside in the rain because some manager hates the military. But every year the answer is the same: Target doesn't allow soliciting (no matter who) and Walmart allows soliciting outside their doors only (no matter who). Automatically Appended Next Post:
Based on the restrooms I have seen, I think that the majority of them never touch the seat at all
87291
Post by: jreilly89
I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
I have reread the one I replied to and cannot see anything that I did not address. Automatically Appended Next Post: What about someone with a permanent catheter? What bathroom do they use considering they don't even need to drop their trouser or skirt to use the bathroom?
10920
Post by: Goliath
Mdlbuildr wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
And yet lawmakers felt the need to make sure that those dirty perverts couldn't use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
Not the point of the whole argument.
I know this may sound ridiculous but before all this if a man went into a women's bathroom and dropped trousers to pee, that was illegal. Now men who want to do that have potential argument for doing just that. There is potential for abuse. How do you differentiate between a male who is transgender female and a male who wants to just dress as a female so he can get into the women's bathroom?
Use the bathroom that you have the equipment for. Case closed.
So, just as a quick question; Would you be cool with this person using a girls locker room then? Because they're biologically female.
Ooh! or how about this person?
(Side note: I love how I can make this exact post in literally every single trans bathroom issues thread. It's almost as if the argument is tired and played out)
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
 jreilly89 wrote:I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.
There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Mdlbuildr wrote: jreilly89 wrote:I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.
There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.
Is there a point to this post?
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
 Goliath wrote: (Side note: I love how I can make this exact post in literally every single trans bathroom issues thread. It's almost as if the argument is tired and played out)
And likewise, I'm going to repeat myself in a post I made in reply to mbuildr, which I assume they either ignored or never saw.
Re. Why it is is dangerous to segregate by genitals.
...we are yet to reach an easily and safely attainable solution for lower surgeries - for example the most common, safest and uncomplicated FtM method does not give a penis that can urinate. Urethral hookup is beyond the capabilities of many surgeons and the financial or physical reach of many patients. Yet to look at those patients, you would be absolutely clueless in a great many cases.
And there's the danger. If you put one of those patients in the V room because he can't piss in a trough, he is visible. If you put a trans lady in the P room because she can piss in a trough, she is visible. Not only is it forcibly outing someone's identity, it's putting them in danger from people who witness them. Gender neutral bathrooms (when used as a third option) similarly run this issue.
Plus, to receive surgeries, a doctor requires a patient to experience six months to two years of "Real Life Experience" - living as though you have already fully transitioned at work and at home.
Think back a few decades to how commonly accepted terrible things happening to gay people was. Then think about how frightening and dangerous it would have been to have a room that visually distinguished gays.
Yes, there are far more important things to worry about in life... But it's not purely a big fuss about being thought of as weird, or being near kids, or having feelings hurt by going in the 'wrong' room... It's a genuinely frightening (inadvertent) move towards putting people in danger.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 d-usa wrote:Mdlbuildr wrote: jreilly89 wrote:I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.
There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.
Is there a point to this post?
Of course. Let me walk you through the math.
There are slightly over 700,000 transgender individuals in the US.
There are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the US.
There are slightly over 700,000 people living in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Barack Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii in '54.
5 + 4 equals nine.
Those 3 populations go into nine 3 times.
Half Life 3 confirmed. Checkmate, libs.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Mdlbuildr wrote: jreilly89 wrote:I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.
There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.
And? Laws don't stop people from committing terrible crimes. You think that people weren't doing terrible things to women in bathrooms before this law?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Mdlbuildr wrote: jreilly89 wrote:I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.
There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.
Do you know what kind of things can get you put onto the sex offenders list?
Hint: It's not just being a sex offender. Things like public nudity and indecent exposure can get you put onto that list.
Also, somehow every single transgender is a sex offender? That's about all anyone can get from this post, unless you have some kind of secret knowledge the rest of us don't.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Word to the wise - whichever side that will require more people to care over a longer period of time will lose.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
I'm flabbergasted at the responses to the comment I made with respect to the quotation it was meant to address.
700K transgenders is a good reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.
700K registered sex offenders is a bad reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.
Is it that hard to make that correlation based on my comment about the quotation? Automatically Appended Next Post:
LOL thanks for making my point exactly.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Mdlbuildr wrote:I'm flabbergasted at the responses to the comment I made with respect to the quotation it was meant to address.
700K transgenders is a good reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.
700K registered sex offenders is a bad reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.
There are more than 700K black people in the US, how does that affect laws like this?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Mdlbuildr wrote:I'm flabbergasted at the responses to the comment I made with respect to the quotation it was meant to address.
Maybe you should actually make a comment rather than just throw out numbers?
700K transgenders is a good reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.
700K registered sex offenders is a bad reason to allow men to use the women's bathroom.
Is it that hard to make that correlation based on my comment about the quotation?
jreilly89 wrote:I have to agree with some of the other sentiments here, I think the people who are going to abuse this new ruling are vastly outweighed by the people who will use the restroom for it's intended purpose.
This is the quotation you're referring to.
Mdlbuildr wrote:
There are estimated to be over 700K registered sex offenders in the USA. There are estimated to be over 700K transgender individuals in the USA.
That is your comment.
There is no real correlation. You just threw numbers out there.
LOL thanks for making my point exactly.
Waffles. Waffles waffles waffles!
What, you can't see the correlation between the quotation and my reply?
In any regards, throwing out "700K registered sex offenders" is an asinine argument as to why it's a "bad idea for (transgendered) men to use the women's bathroom". There's a ton of things which can get you put onto the sex offenders list that aren't actually sexual offenses or are prosecutable offenses that can be leveled against minors engaged in consenting sexual activity.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously.
The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Mdlbuildr wrote:The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously. The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Okay, find me how many transgender people are on the sex offender register. If you can't find any, or you find that they are a much lower proportion of that population compared to non-transsexuals, then they should be allowed to use whichever bathroom they want to.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well there was that guy from Silence of the Lambs....
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Mdlbuildr wrote:The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously.
The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Exfrigginactly what your "700K transgenders and 700K sex offenders" comment had to do with the discussion at hand.
Throwing out numbers with no context contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.
A) Where did you get the numbers from?
B) Are you trying to say that there are 700K transgendered sex offenders? 700K sex offenders are transgendered? That all sex offenders are transgendered and all transgendered are sex offenders?
C) Out of the % of sex offenders who are transgendered, what are they registered for? Remember that in some places, engaging in certain traditionally homosexual acts can be considered sexual offenses and get you put on the registry.
In all seriousness, you really show a complete lack of understanding of the sex offender's registry and why it is considered a bit of an outmoded thing by law enforcement agencies.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
A Town Called Malus wrote:
What about someone with a permanent catheter? What bathroom do they use considering they don't even need to drop their trouser or skirt to use the bathroom?
They can do what the folks around here with colostomy bags apparently do: use the drinking fountain drain.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Wow...just wow...
37231
Post by: d-usa
Mdlbuildr wrote:The quotation referred to the poster thinking there are more people that would abide by using the bathroom properly based on their gender identification over those that would do it maliciously.
The number pointed to the fact that there are numerically just as many who could use it properly as those that could use it malicioulsy. Perhaps next time I will be more specific. Thanks for the suggestion.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the waffle comment. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
So people will use this bill as a fake reason to go into bathrooms in order to do criminal things, but the only people that would do so are people already on the registered sex offender list?
Passing laws requiring people to use the gender on their birth certificate does nothing to prevent people who want to commit crimes in bathrooms from entering the bathroom. Passing laws banning discrimination in bathrooms does nothing to allow people who want to commit crimes in bathrooms to enter the bathroom.
I understand that YOU think that throwing those numbers out there means something, but they are junk statistics and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mdlbuildr wrote:Wow.
I'm saying that there are 700K that would likely use the bathrooms appropriately.
There's A WHOLE OTHER GROUP OF 700K PEOPLE that would likely not.
Yes, if we let transgender people go to the bathroom of their gender, then EVERY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER currently registered in the US will swarm the bathroom of their opposite gender.
Wow indeed.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Can someone please tell me what being on the sex offender list has to do with which restroom one chooses? I'm not following that train.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
*Post purged out of courtesy*
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.
2548
Post by: jmurph
d-usa wrote:
Yes, if we let transgender people go to the bathroom of their gender, then EVERY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER currently registered in the US will swarm the bathroom of their opposite gender.
Now you begin to see the danger! 
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:Can someone please tell me what being on the sex offender list has to do with which restroom one chooses? I'm not following that train.
Someone posted that he was sure that the people that would use this law properly outweighed those that would use the law maliciously.
As I've posted a few times, the transgender community would likely use the laws properly, but that there were an equal number of people who could use the law maliciously.
The conduct of some of the people on this thread is truly frightening. Kindly remove that "Crazy Train" and I believe referring to Rule #1 is not out of the realm of what should be mentioned here.
5394
Post by: reds8n
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Can someone please tell me what being on the sex offender list has to do with which restroom one chooses? I'm not following that train.
I've no idea.
let's just put this down to a misunderstanding and move on.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Never mind.
221
Post by: Frazzled
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.
Who are you going to believe, a fictional book character or me? 
I think we've all learned something here, and that the number '700,000' is tricksy, realz tricksy.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Why hasn't the Crazy Train post been removed?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
d-usa wrote:Yes, if we let transgender people go to the bathroom of their gender, then EVERY SINGLE SEX OFFENDER currently registered in the US will swarm the bathroom of their opposite gender.
That's going to be a really crowded bathroom! Automatically Appended Next Post: Mdlbuildr wrote:As I've posted a few times, the transgender community would likely use the laws properly, but that there were an equal number of people who could use the law maliciously.
No, there is not an equal number. There is a much, much larger number. There are a little over 7 billion people in the world, all of whom could use the law maliciously. What matter is whether people are likely to use the law maliciously, and that's a question that the number of convicted sex offenders has very little to do with. There are undoubtedly lots of sex offenders who haven't been caught and convicted yet. There are "sex offenders" convicted for minor offenses (for example, someone labeled a "sex offender" for getting drunk and running naked across the field at a sporting event is probably not any more likely than the average person to commit a more serious offense). There are sex offenders convicted of serious offenses who have no interest in bathrooms. There are gay sex offenders who would not find being restricted to the bathroom matching what's between their legs to be a significant obstacle. There are sex offenders who would like to commit some sex offenses in bathrooms, but know that trying anything in such a public location is just a good way to get arrested again. Etc, etc.
On top of this we need to look at whether the law even accomplishes anything to keep sex offenders from doing anything to hurt people. A person who is going to do something inappropriate is likely to understand that getting caught is easy, and pick a low-traffic bathroom where they can be alone with their victim and not worry about anyone else walking in and catching them. And in this case it doesn't really matter what sign is on the door, nobody is going to be around to prevent them from going in whatever bathroom they want, regardless of the law. Similarly, taking pictures of people, acting creepy towards them, etc, are things that are already either illegal or grounds for being banned from whatever store/restaurant/etc owns the bathroom. A person doing those things can be arrested or banned regardless of their claimed gender identity, so making stricter laws about which bathroom a person can use doesn't really add anything.
In conclusion, the only sex offenders these laws can plausibly stop is the kind that just wants to quietly sit in a bathroom and listen to everything without ever making their presence known. And, while this is pretty creepy, it would be difficult to argue that they are having any meaningful effect on anyone.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:
Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.
Who are you going to believe, a fictional book character or me?
I think we've all learned something here, and that the number '700,000' is tricksy, realz tricksy.
To be fair Frazz, how do we know YOU aren't a fictional character?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote: Frazzled wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:
Lecter and Clarice Starling both very clearly stated that Buffalo Bill was not transgender (and had in fact been denied treatment to undergo sex-reassignment) but that his desire to become a woman stemmed from childhood trauma and a desire to completely transform himself due to his own self hatred, which he believed made him transsexual.
Who are you going to believe, a fictional book character or me?
I think we've all learned something here, and that the number '700,000' is tricksy, realz tricksy.
To be fair Frazz, how do we know YOU aren't a fictional character?
Well if I were still a Zen Buddhist I'd say I was, but for now we'll just go with:
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Can a Mod please remove the Crazy Train post!! I find it insulting and it breaks Rule #1.
I've asked several times, now. Both with a report and via PM.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Mdlbuildr wrote:Can a Mod please remove the Crazy Train post!! I find it insulting and it breaks Rule #1.
I've asked several times, now. Both with a report and via PM.
Mods usually don't respond publicly to requests or alerts, unless it requires an in-thread warning to discourage further violations. They also usually don't justify their decisions one way or another, unless it is in the interest of the thread as a whole.
There is a locked thread in Nuts & Bolts that goes into some of the same issues that might help explain stuff.
47598
Post by: motyak
Stick to the topic, if it hasn't been changed after being reviewed then asking repeatedly in thread for that to happen is just going to get you a spam/off topic warning.
Back to the original topic, last warning for the thread as a whole before I lock it.
99
Post by: insaniak
Mdlbuildr wrote:As I've posted a few times, the transgender community would likely use the laws properly, but that there were an equal number of people who could use the law maliciously.
Do you honestly believe that men who would be inclined to assault women in public bathrooms are going to be in any way influenced by whether or not the law allows them to walk into said bathroom...?
Have they all previously just been hovering around the door going 'Geeze, I'd really love to go in there and get me some raping done, but I might get in trouble for walking into the ladies' room!'
37231
Post by: d-usa
The only thing stopping a bad guy in the bathroom, is a good guy in the bathroom.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Mdlbuildr wrote: BobtheInquisitor wrote:Can someone please tell me what being on the sex offender list has to do with which restroom one chooses? I'm not following that train.
Someone posted that he was sure that the people that would use this law properly outweighed those that would use the law maliciously.
As I've posted a few times, the transgender community would likely use the laws properly, but that there were an equal number of people who could use the law maliciously.
So, you are saying that being on the sex offender list is equivalent to intending to use the law maliciously? How are you connecting those? Not everyone on the list is a rapist. Not every rapist is a violent offender. Not every violent rapist will stalk a woman into a public restroom. So, the number of people on the list has almost nothing to do with the number of malicious law-exploiters we can expect, not even as an upper limit in some extremely-hypothetical "assume every rapist is a spherical ball of iron to simplify calculations" kind of a way.
Here's what I can extrapolate from your numbers: Most of the transgender people would benefit from the law. A possibly nonzero number of criminals would benefit from this law. That's not a compelling argument against it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:The only thing stopping a bad guy in the bathroom, is a good guy in the bathroom.
Do we need to set up a bathroom militia?
1206
Post by: Easy E
No, what we need to stop this is more slacktivism!
2548
Post by: jmurph
d-usa wrote:The only thing stopping a bad guy in the bathroom, is a good guy in the bathroom.
With a gun.
102851
Post by: Monkey Tamer
I don't like sharing a bathroom with anyone. I demand private bathroom equality.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
 insaniak wrote:
Do you honestly believe that men who would be inclined to assault women in public bathrooms are going to be in any way influenced by whether or not the law allows them to walk into said bathroom...?
There is moreof a potential for this:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault
And I have 2 young daughters. There are crazy people out there who may just feel that now they get a free pass.
So yes, I am honestly concerned.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I don't understand how this is possible. Surely sexual assault is against the law in Canada?
Perhaps they need to make a law prohibiting rape and other sexual assaults.
100729
Post by: Mdlbuildr
Ouze wrote:
I don't understand how this is possible. Surely sexual assault is against the law in Canada?
Perhaps they need to make a law prohibiting rape and other sexual assaults.
I guess you didn't read my comment very carefully.
I put in "potential" and "free pass".
And I answered the question put forth. No need to poke fun or get overly sarcastic because you don't like my answer. Jeez.
Furthermore, this criminal actually used the Transgender laws to get into some where he shouldn't have been which is precisely what we are talking about. I gave an example of why I have concerns.
37231
Post by: d-usa
We already covered that gakky article in the last thread, so there is no point replying to it. I look forward to seeing the same single article in every thread to showcase how big the problem is that can't find a second article to back it up.
As for your concern about your daughters, it's a good use of the "think of the children" defense. But what do you think will be more effective: being able to take them to the bathroom yourself, or being forced to stand outside the bathroom while they go alone and you hope the "no penis allowed" rule stops the guy willing to ignore the "don't rape little girls" rule? Automatically Appended Next Post: Mdlbuildr wrote: Ouze wrote:
I don't understand how this is possible. Surely sexual assault is against the law in Canada?
Perhaps they need to make a law prohibiting rape and other sexual assaults.
I guess you didn't read my comment very carefully.
I put in "potential" and "free pass".
And I answered the question put forth. No need to poke fun or get overly sarcastic because you don't like my answer. Jeez.
Furthermore, this criminal actually used the Transgender laws to get into some where he shouldn't have been which is precisely what we are talking about. I gave an example of why I have concerns.
The very fact that this article exists, in which he is charged, is the perfect example that the didn't get a "free pass".
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Both the Charlotte bathroom statute and the HB2 law are bad laws passed for bad reasons. Neither law was about solving an actual problem, both were passed to pander to political bases in an election year in an attempt to gain support and bolster turnout. They're both unenforceable laws that don't do anything except give politicians another example to put out as a reason for voters to support them at the ballot box,
Were any transgender people in Charlotte being barred from using or forcibly removed from the public bathrooms of the gender they identify with? Were transgender people in Charlotte unable to use public bathrooms prior to that statute? There isn't a single public bathroom anywhere in Charlotte or the state of NC that requires people to show what's in their pants in order to gain admittance to the bathroom of their choice.
The Charlotte statute didn't remove any obstacles preventing from transgendered people from using public restrooms. HB2 hasn't made people any safer in bathrooms and doesn't create any real obstacle that prevents transgendered people from using the same public restrooms they were using before the law was passed.
All the bad things that could happen to you in a bathroom, indecent exposure, lewd behavior, sexual assault, nonsexual assault, kidnapping, murder etc. are just as illegal now as they were before. You are just as safe in a public bathroom today in NC as you were before HB2 was passed, nothing has changed in that regard.
HB2 is an unncessary heavy handed law that violates the principles of federalism and municipal authority. It's an additional law that benefits no one except the politicians using it to create a wedge issue to try to win over segment of voters. Both pieces of legislation are bad, I personally think HB2 is worse because it's about much more than just public bathrooms and sets a bad precedent for state govt usurping legal authority from municipalities.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I like how that Lifesite has that article under "Homosexuality".
Why?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Well, looks like 280,000 people will no longer shop at Target because a plastic sign without any verification of actual gender stops rapes and Target is the now the go to place for your kakhi fetish and sexual predation of women. So Walmart should be happy about the increased business. http://www.businessinsider.com/target-boycott-over-transgender-bathroom-policy-2016-4
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Well, Target is used to losing business for bad reasons [cough]Canadian expansion[/cough]
7942
Post by: nkelsch
The sad truth is 3/4th of sexual assaults against children are done by "Family Members or people the children know". So statistically the child has a higher chance of being molested by their own parent/step-parent/familymember than a random stranger pooper.
Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents Poor, Rural and Minority doubles and triples the risk past that.
Also, 81% of sexual assaults against children happen in either the perpetrator's home or the victim's home.
So most of these people 'protesting' Target are probably statistically more likely to facilitate the molestation of their own children themselves by someone they know in their own home, than for their kids to get molested by a stranger in the bathroom at target.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Looks like the state should remove all children from their homes, and house them in gender specific bathrooms until they reach adulthood. That's the only way to protect them.
96540
Post by: TheWaspinator
The really stupid thing about this whole thing is that I'm certain transgender people have been using the "wrong" restroom for years and most people never noticed. Seriously, just mind your own business and unless you're peeking into stalls it's really never going to come up.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You are no doubt right.
For some reason the USA has got itself into a right tizzy over this issue, which has never arisen at all in the UK AFAIK.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kilkrazy wrote:For some reason the USA has got itself into a right tizzy over this issue, which has never arisen at all in the UK AFAIK.
The reason is simple: because the republican party needs to keep the religious right happy if they want to win elections. It's the same reason republican politicians keep making futile attempts to overturn gay marriage. It doesn't matter if the law accomplishes anything (or even has a chance of surviving a court challenge), it tells an important element of their base "we hate the same people you hate". Meanwhile the low-information "undecided" voters hear some variation of "we have to protect our children from rapists" and think of course, there must be a reason for the law, without ever really understanding the issue beyond what the right-wing politicians and religious leaders are saying.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
A mild bump as Oxford, Alabama enters the bathroom fray:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/27/3773081/oxford-alabama-transgender-jail/
On Tuesday night, the City Council of Oxford, Alabama unanimously approved a new ordinance that will punish individuals for using restrooms that do not match their biological sex as stated on their birth certificate. The policy is a direct response to Target indicating that trans people are welcome and will be respected in their stores.
According to the text of the ordinance, “citizens have a right to quite [sic] solicitude [sic] and to be secure from embarrassment and unwanted intrusion into their privacy while utilizing multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facilities by members of the opposite biological sex.”
It also warns that “single sex public facilities are places of increased venerability [sic] and present the potential for crimes against individuals utilizing those facilities which may include, but not limited to, voyeurism, exhibitionism, molestation, and assault and battery.”
Anywhere within the city’s police jurisdiction, it is now a criminal offense for transgender people to use restrooms that match their gender identity unless they have undergone surgery and successfully changed the gender marker on their birth certificate.
Each individual violation will result in a $500 fine or up to six months in jail. CNN reported this week that “most people urinate four to seven times during a day.”
The ordinance is actually more expansive than North Carolina’s HB2, which only applies to government buildings and public schools and universities.
In a prepared statement after the ordinance’s passage, Council President Steven Waits said that the council passed it “not out of concerns for the 0.3 percent of the population who identify as transgender,” but “to protect our women and children,” according to the Anniston Star. Apparently many residents had complained about Target’s policy statement about transgender inclusion.
“We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity,” the company said last week, reiterating a policy that was already in place. “Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”
If transgender customers or employees try to take advantage of this inclusive policy at the Target in Oxford, they could soon find themselves in jail.
A sorta not joking question, but are people expected to carry their birth certificates now in Oxford?
76278
Post by: Spinner
I was about to get cheerful about another state being crazier than mine (and then, you know, depressed because people are making laws like this), but then I noticed it was just Oxford rather than Alabama.
Nice try, guys, but we're still the Stupid Bathroom Law champion! Which, I guess...makes us Number One?
(Making it look like you typed your legal ordinance with autocorrect is a nice touch, though.)
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
This law has a crazy amount of support in Kentucky, many are pushing for a similar deal as we have Targets too. I've seen a shocking number of people from back home saying they were boycotting target and supporting a "bathroom law" of our own. I dont think anything is on the cards yet for us, but if the people on my facebook are any Indica ion, it'll happen soon.
I haven't been this embarrassed about my home state since that bigoted hag refused to hand out marriage licenses.
37231
Post by: d-usa
What if a transgender gay couple wants to get married in a bathroom there?
34390
Post by: whembly
 MrMoustaffa wrote:This law has a crazy amount of support in Kentucky, many are pushing for a similar deal as we have Targets too. I've seen a shocking number of people from back home saying they were boycotting target and supporting a "bathroom law" of our own. I dont think anything is on the cards yet for us, but if the people on my facebook are any Indica ion, it'll happen soon.
I haven't been this embarrassed about my home state since that bigoted hag refused to hand out marriage licenses.
It's the "wedge issue" de jour now...
Which is unfortunate as I don't believe most people care if trans go into their bathroom of choice to take care of "bidness". There's more than enough privacy for everyone...
I guess there's an arguement about locker/changing rooms... but... eh.
Nah... it's a wedge issue.
96540
Post by: TheWaspinator
The enforcement issue might be the dumbest part of this whole thing. They want people to present their birth certificates on demand to prove their gender? Really? We're seriously going to a "papers please" scenario? There is something really wrong with parts of this country.
That's not even going into how these laws ignore the reality that gender is more complicated than binary. Which bathroom are you supposed to force people with androgen insensitivity syndrome to use?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The ordinance only applies to single sex facilities. The easy way around this is for Target to mark all their ladies' loos as being for women and men, and all their gents' as being for men and women.
The other point is that maintenance workers are exempt. Clearly the presence of a crew of hulking men in the ladies' loo is perfectly acceptable so long as they are cleaning it.
35350
Post by: BuFFo
Jihadin wrote:Wait....people still shop at Target....I think...I might have one near me somewhere...
My girlfriend does.... and she would never want to share a bathroom with a man, for what that's worth.
10920
Post by: Goliath
 BuFFo wrote: Jihadin wrote:Wait....people still shop at Target....I think...I might have one near me somewhere...
My girlfriend does.... and she would never want to share a bathroom with a man, for what that's worth.
So you're advocating that policies banning the use of toilet based on gender identity are a good thing?
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Copper Mountain, Colorado huh? I see what you did there.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
I wonder what sexual minority is going to be the Great Satan once transgenders are finally accepted.
10920
Post by: Goliath
My bet is on genderqueer people.
"I can accept changing from one side to the other, but you can't be partway!" or objections to that effect.
1206
Post by: Easy E
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:I wonder what sexual minority is going to be the Great Satan once transgenders are finally accepted.
If you talk to a Rightie, they will tell you it will be Heteros.
80999
Post by: jasper76
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I wonder what sexual minority is going to be the Great Satan once transgenders are finally accepted.
It'll just stay atheists.
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
443
Post by: skyth
The Bible is pretty clear that owning slaves is okay as well...
80999
Post by: jasper76
 skyth wrote:The Bible is pretty clear that owning slaves is okay as well...
Indeed it is. The justification to own slaves is always there in the background to be dug up, it's just not in fashion at present.
Likewise, the justification to mistreat homosexuals will always be there to be dug up, even if mistreating homosexuals goes out of fashion.
1206
Post by: Easy E
A follow-up story:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/04/25/conservative-christian-group-boycotting-target-transgender-bathroom-policy/83491396/
A conservative Christian activist group has gained more than half a million signatures and counting from people pledging to boycott Target over its transgender bathroom policy.
The petition started by the American Family Association on Wednesday raises concerns that Target's inclusive stance on transgender rights encourages sexual predators and puts women and young girls in danger, because "a man can simply say he 'feels like a woman today' and enter the women's restroom."
The boycott has more than 744,800 signatures as of Tuesday afternoon, marking it as one of AFA's most popular campaigns.
"This is the best response we’ve ever had this quick," says AFA President Tim Wildmon, attributing the protest's viral nature to the fact that "everybody knows who Target is, and it’s an easy-to-understand issue."
Wildmon says Target stands "to lose a lot of customers who won't come back." But Target is standing by its policy.
"We certainly respect that there are a wide variety of perspectives and opinions," says Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder. "As a company that firmly stands behind what it means to offer our team an inclusive place to work — and our guests an inclusive place to shop — we continue to believe that this is the right thing for Target."
She added that hundreds of Target stores "have single-stall, family restrooms for those who may be more comfortable with that option."
arget made its position public in a blog post last week, stating that the company welcomes "transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity." The announcement comes as legislation on transgender issues in multiple states has spurred several major corporations and businesses to take a stance on LGBT rights.
Deutsche Bank halted a plan to add 250 jobs to an outpost of the company in North Carolina after the state passed a law requiring transgender people using public bathrooms to use the one associated with the sex on their birth certificate.
The American Family Association, a non-profit based in Tupelo, Miss., frequently protests on issues that target what it considers traditional family values. Its more recent campaigns include canceling the organization's use of PayPal after that company pulled back on plans to open a new facility in North Carolina due to the state's transgender bathroom law.
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
 jasper76 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:I wonder what sexual minority is going to be the Great Satan once transgenders are finally accepted.
It'll just stay atheists.
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
How many more generations will have a Christian majority?
In the UK, church congregations are generally people aged 40+ and churches are closing and combining. There has been a real push to encourage younger people to join the calling.
Is this also happening stateside?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Yes. But something to keep in mind is that's the Churchs that are drawing in young people in droves right now are the kind we normally make fun of for being bat gak crazy (those radical evangelical types who think earth is only 6000 years old), or new denominations that are quite different from older ones. Mormonism is one of the fastest growing brands of Christian in the US right now. If you were to go to say, an Angelical church in the US you'd probably see mostly old people in their late 40s and 50s.
Guess what I'm saying is that it's really the "old guard" churches that are experiencing a declines. A lot of newer ones are growing quite fast (in the US).
87291
Post by: jreilly89
 Buttery Commissar wrote: jasper76 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:I wonder what sexual minority is going to be the Great Satan once transgenders are finally accepted.
It'll just stay atheists.
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
How many more generations will have a Christian majority?
In the UK, church congregations are generally people aged 40+ and churches are closing and combining. There has been a real push to encourage younger people to join the calling.
Is this also happening stateside?
Yes. A percentage people are either losing faith or becoming more ambiguous, i.e. agnostic. With some quick google-fu, here are some news stories.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10626076/Is-America-losing-faith-Atheism-on-the-rise-but-still-in-the-shadows.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/upshot/the-rise-of-young-americans-who-dont-believe-in-god.html?_r=0
Pew Research Center actually has a TON of statistics on religion.
http://www.pewforum.org/
80999
Post by: jasper76
Buttery Commissar wrote: jasper76 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:I wonder what sexual minority is going to be the Great Satan once transgenders are finally accepted.
It'll just stay atheists.
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
How many more generations will have a Christian majority?
In the UK, church congregations are generally people aged 40+ and churches are closing and combining. There has been a real push to encourage younger people to join the calling.
Is this also happening stateside?
Religion is on the decline in the US, but Christians are still the majority. No idea how long it will take for that to flip, if it will flip, or what the future has in store for religion in the US.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
I will admit that my phone's autocorrect is apparently far more clever than I am, what's the joke here?
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
MrMoustaffa wrote:
I will admit that my phone's autocorrect is apparently far more clever than I am, what's the joke here?
Indica is a strain of marijuana.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Glad all these southern states are having such a wonderful budget surplus that they can wast their time on laws like this
Oh wait, most of them are running horrible horrible deficits? You dont say...
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Ahhh that explains it. Never touched the ol' devil's lettuce so those kind of references go right over my head.
Gotten a lot of strange looks over that ever since I got up here too
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Do Targets bathrooms count as "public facilities" as per the new Oxford law, given they are in privately owned building run by a privately owned company?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
They are public in the sense that the general public has an implicit right of access to the shop, like railway stations and hotels, which all exist for the purpose that the public should go into them.
99
Post by: insaniak
BuFFo wrote: Jihadin wrote:Wait....people still shop at Target....I think...I might have one near me somewhere...
My girlfriend does.... and she would never want to share a bathroom with a man, for what that's worth.
But how does she feel about sharing a bathroom with someone who looks like a man, but is forced by the law to share her bathroom because of their outward gender at birth?
And how does she tell the people who just look like men from the ones who are men?
79818
Post by: bound for glory
Can't wait for the first assult on a woman by a guy who puts one and one togeather and thinks,"hey! if i dress like a lady, i can go in a rest room and rape a woman!"
I don't think it will take much time until it happens. Mean to say, all it will take is for a women to feel threatened by a transgendered person, and we're off...
Bad decisions just to catter to a tiny segment of mankind.
18698
Post by: kronk
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm thinking of visiting my brother this summer, who is American and lives in Oregon. I am a UK citizen.
Will US officials be able to recognise a UK birth certificate, to grant me access to the correct lavatory?
Probably not, as it's most likely written in English and not American.
221
Post by: Frazzled
bound for glory wrote:Can't wait for the first assult on a woman by a guy who puts one and one togeather and thinks,"hey! if i dress like a lady, i can go in a rest room and rape a woman!"
I don't think it will take much time until it happens. Mean to say, all it will take is for a women to feel threatened by a transgendered person, and we're off...
Bad decisions just to catter to a tiny segment of mankind.
Couldn't they do that now?
18698
Post by: kronk
bound for glory wrote:Can't wait for the first assult on a woman by a guy who puts one and one togeather and thinks,"hey! if i dress like a lady, i can go in a rest room and rape a woman!"
I don't think it will take much time until it happens. Mean to say, all it will take is for a women to feel threatened by a transgendered person, and we're off...
Bad decisions just to catter to a tiny segment of mankind.
That could happen now.
76278
Post by: Spinner
bound for glory wrote:Can't wait for the first assult on a woman by a guy who puts one and one togeather and thinks,"hey! if i dress like a lady, i can go in a rest room and rape a woman!"
I don't think it will take much time until it happens. Mean to say, all it will take is for a women to feel threatened by a transgendered person, and we're off...
Bad decisions just to catter to a tiny segment of mankind.
Like the people who think that allowing transgender people into the bathroom of the gender they identify with will make bathroom rape legal? Or the people who think a "guys/girls only" sign on a bathroom will stop rapists?
12313
Post by: Ouze
No guys, rapists are deterred by laws telling them not to go in the bathroom.
No idea how many times this ideological hamster wheel can spin with zero progress.
The funny thing about this is that it's the right wing who pushes for these stupid laws, while also being the first to point out that we shouldn't have any more gun control because criminals don't follow the law anyway. The cognitive dissonance is just breathtaking.
21196
Post by: agnosto
So, where's the outrage over Starbucks following the same policy?
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
 Spinner wrote:bound for glory wrote:Can't wait for the first assult on a woman by a guy who puts one and one togeather and thinks,"hey! if i dress like a lady, i can go in a rest room and rape a woman!"
I don't think it will take much time until it happens. Mean to say, all it will take is for a women to feel threatened by a transgendered person, and we're off...
Bad decisions just to catter to a tiny segment of mankind.
Like the people who think that allowing transgender people into the bathroom of the gender they identify with will make bathroom rape legal? Or the people who think a "guys/girls only" sign on a bathroom will stop rapists?
Hey, don't let logic get in the way of sensationalism and "WONT ANYONE THINK OF DA CHILDREN?!".
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
 agnosto wrote:So, where's the outrage over Starbucks following the same policy?
People can live without Target. They cannot live without coffee.
Just picking their battles
79818
Post by: bound for glory
It could certainly happen now. But why open that can of worms(no pun intended.)?
I have a first cousin who is transgendered, and she and her "click" are against all this "look at me!! I'm so special everyone should cater to me and i will bully you until you do so" mindset. She refuses to "make waves" so to speak. and would rather not drawl attention to herself.
I understrand and respect that.
21196
Post by: agnosto
My local Target has a Starbucks so it'd be the same bathroom in that case anyway.
12313
Post by: Ouze
bound for glory wrote:I have a first cousin who is transgendered, and she and her "click" are against all this "look at me!! I'm so special everyone should cater to me and i will bully you until you do so" mindset. She refuses to "make waves" so to speak. and would rather not drawl attention to herself.
I understrand and respect that.
She's one of the good ones, huh? She doesn't even want to eat at that lunch counter, anyway.
agnosto wrote:So, where's the outrage over Starbucks following the same policy?
I'd point out that Barnes & Nobles also has the same policy, but I suspect the people who think this is a good hill to die on might not be heavy readers.
21196
Post by: agnosto
bound for glory wrote:It could certainly happen now. But why open that can of worms(no pun intended.)?
I have a first cousin who is transgendered, and she and her "click" are against all this "look at me!! I'm so special everyone should cater to me and i will bully you until you do so" mindset. She refuses to "make waves" so to speak. and would rather not drawl attention to herself.
I understand and respect that.
Just like any population or group, I think you'll find that your cousin is in the majority rather than the vocal minority.
43066
Post by: feeder
bound for glory wrote:Can't wait for the first assult on a woman by a guy who puts one and one togeather and thinks,"hey! if i dress like a lady, i can go in a rest room and rape a woman!"
I don't think it will take much time until it happens. Mean to say, all it will take is for a women to feel threatened by a transgendered person, and we're off...
Bad decisions just to catter to a tiny segment of mankind.
The problem with this line of thinking is there are already laws in place regarding rape, assault, voyuerism, and other crimes that 'pretend trans' may commit.
There is no requirement for this law other than, "Eww, trans people"
37231
Post by: d-usa
At least conservatives finally realized the power of plastic signs and are starting to embrace the concept of gun free zones by adding rape free zones to the mix.
I'm also happy that they are focusing on making sure that child molesters and serial rapists are put in their rightful place: the bathroom with their little boys.
12313
Post by: Ouze
d-usa wrote:At least conservatives finally realized the power of plastic signs and are starting to embrace the concept of gun free zones by adding rape free zones to the mix.
I'm also happy that they are focusing on making sure that child molesters and serial rapists are put in their rightful place: the bathroom with their little boys.
Indeed, I've never seen such a miraculous ideological turnaround with regards to how gun-free zones are actually a great idea, as long as the signs are prominently posted.
5394
Post by: reds8n
... but you will or will not need to wash your hands afterwards ?
18698
Post by: kronk
bound for glory wrote:
I have a first cousin who is transgendered, and she and her "click" are against all this "look at me!! I'm so special everyone should cater to me and i will bully you until you do so" mindset. She refuses to "make waves" so to speak. and would rather not drawl attention to herself.
I understrand and respect that.
I can respect a trans-gendered person that knows her/his fething place, too! Get to the back of the bus!
/sarcasm Automatically Appended Next Post:  reds8n wrote:... but you will or will not need to wash your hands afterwards ?
As I travel every week, and have gotten to use more airport restrooms than I would care to, I cannot believe the % of men that don't wash their hands. I'd put it at 75%. Easy.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Well, firing a gun tends to eject hot gases from every available outlet - generally forward, but at least some tends to escape from the ejection port and action - and in that hot gas is microscopic fragments of burning power, lead, and so on.
So it's best to wash your hands whether you're hot off secret-transgender-bathroom-assaulting or a school-or-workplace shooting, certainly before eating or drinking something.
 kronk wrote:As I travel every week, and have gotten to use more airport restrooms than I would care to, I cannot believe the % of men that don't wash their hands. I'd put it at 75%. Easy.
This is the bathroom issue we should be talking about. How many more Chipotle foodborne poisoning outbreaks must we endure before Obama speaks out on this issue? Is he secretly a dump & dasher, himself?
43066
Post by: feeder
kronk wrote:[
reds8n wrote:... but you will or will not need to wash your hands afterwards ?
As I travel every week, and have gotten to use more airport restrooms than I would care to, I cannot believe the % of men that don't wash their hands. I'd put it at 75%. Easy.
I fully support the following and believe it should be added to the building code everywhere:
37231
Post by: d-usa
Ouze wrote: d-usa wrote:At least conservatives finally realized the power of plastic signs and are starting to embrace the concept of gun free zones by adding rape free zones to the mix.
I'm also happy that they are focusing on making sure that child molesters and serial rapists are put in their rightful place: the bathroom with their little boys.
Indeed, I've never seen such a miraculous ideological turnaround with regards to how gun-free zones are actually a great idea, as long as the signs are prominently posted.
Maybe liberals should return the favor and embrace the conservative idea: the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a penis, is a good guy with a penis. If more non-rapist men would decide to use the women's restroom, then rapists would be stopped.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Ouze wrote:
This is the bathroom issue we should be talking about. How many more Chipotle foodborne poisoning outbreaks must we endure before Obama speaks out on this issue? Is he secretly a dump & dasher, himself?
Amen!
I never did get the hoopla over this but maybe that's because I lived in Korea for so long. I'll never forget my first experience with a unisex bathroom, standing at a urinal, a mirror to the left and seeing a woman walk behind me to get to the stall.
221
Post by: Frazzled
agnosto wrote:So, where's the outrage over Starbucks following the same policy?
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my lactose free triple latte moche cappacino expresso being made. I'd point out that Barnes & Nobles also has the same policy, but I suspect the people who think this is a good hill to die on might not be heavy readers.
There is so much win in one post its breathtaking.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Frazzled wrote:
I'd point out that Barnes & Nobles also has the same policy, but I suspect the people who think this is a good hill to die on might not be heavy readers.
There is so much win in one post its breathtaking.
Agreed. Quick, everyone exalt Ouze's post so he's in the running for most exalted post award this year!
99
Post by: insaniak
I'm not sure what exactly it is that Starbucks sells, but it sure as hell isn't coffee...
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
insaniak wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly it is that Starbucks sells, but it sure as hell isn't coffee...
That is true, though we could refer to Ouze's post about them not being well-read and then extrapolate it to them also not knowing real coffee
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
agnosto wrote:So, where's the outrage over Starbucks following the same policy?
Extreme right wingers may be crazy, but even they aren't crazy enough to spend $10 on a cup of coffee
Therefore they don't know Starbucks is doing it
EDIT: And then I remember all the morons who brought friggin m16's to Starbucks to "support" it for not having "no guns allowed" signs.
Good lord that hurt to watch.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
MrMoustaffa wrote: agnosto wrote:So, where's the outrage over Starbucks following the same policy?
Extreme right wingers may be crazy, but even they aren't crazy enough to spend $10 on a cup of coffee
Therefore they don't know Starbucks is doing it
EDIT: And then I remember all the morons who brought friggin m16's to Starbucks to "support" it for not having "no guns allowed" signs.
Good lord that hurt to watch.
My favorite was their boycott starbucks because their cups didn't show off enough santa icons. So to show their disdain for starbucks, they bought star bucks coffee and told them their name was 'merry xmas'. Boy that showed them, after a beating like that the rightwingers figured starbucks wouldn't dare step out of line again
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
MrMoustaffa wrote: agnosto wrote:So, where's the outrage over Starbucks following the same policy?
Extreme right wingers may be crazy, but even they aren't crazy enough to spend $10 on a cup of coffee
Therefore they don't know Starbucks is doing it
.
Maybe this is just my neck of the woods but a large Starbucks coffee is ~2.40 while a large Timmy's is ~2.00. One can be drank without milk and sugar, and one is terrible even with. Replace Tim Horton's with Dunkin if you don't live near or in Canada. Just never got that argument that Starbucks is this ultra-expensive coffee place. It's far from the best coffee, but if you drink yours black, its sadly some of the best you'll get from a chain nationwide. They even had to produce a lighter shittier coffee to appease the milk and sugar loving people. YMMV but I just dont find Starbucks to be that expensive or pretentious. Try a store that roasts their "fair-trade" beans if you want that.
And more on topic, I actually understand what bound to glory was saying, albeit in a terrible way.
My current girlfriend (? I'm not really sure what we are honestly) is a trans-woman, and her response when one of my friends brought up the NC bill was along the lines of "oh really? that's pretty stupid" kind of how I feel about the laws on cannabis. It's a "feel-good" law for frightened older people that grew up in a time when you just weren't even gay. If you were, you for feth sure didn't talk about, and your family for feth sure didn't talk about it. Therefore, it didn't exist. Even when your husband was sneaking off to the park late at night to grab some ankle.
Isn't a little bit of understanding for these people warranted? I mean, explaining things with them is gonna work better than "uh I'm on the right side of history you bigot!" I'm not talking about anyone here in particular, and I know dealing with die-hard "social conservatives" can be taxing, but I do see a lot of Us vs. Them in a lot the dialogue about any trans issues, and I kinda don't like it
And if you really want to feth with somebody that's virulently anti-trans, show them a few select pics of Sarina Valentina without letting them know. I'd say Bailey Jay too, but she's gotten a lot more public attention. Either way they'll get mad at themselves and/or they're genitals.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Honestly, it depends on the person. Are they mostly just uninformed about the subject and showing a willingness to learn when presented with better information? Sure, I'll explain why they're wrong and not just try to bite their heads off. But there are a lot of people who go well beyond merely not knowing anything and into active bigotry. When someone has been told how the situation works, been given an opportunity to understand it, and still comes back with "JESUS HATES THEM THINK OF THE CHILDREN" then all you can really do is make is absolutely clear to anyone watching that the person is a bigot and their behavior is not acceptable.
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
 Peregrine wrote:
Honestly, it depends on the person. Are they mostly just uninformed about the subject and showing a willingness to learn when presented with better information? Sure, I'll explain why they're wrong and not just try to bite their heads off. But there are a lot of people who go well beyond merely not knowing anything and into active bigotry. When someone has been told how the situation works, been given an opportunity to understand it, and still comes back with "JESUS HATES THEM THINK OF THE CHILDREN" then all you can really do is make is absolutely clear to anyone watching that the person is a bigot and their behavior is not acceptable.
And I respect that viewpoint. But really, how many people are honestly willing to learn? A solid percentage of children aren't. It just gets worse as people age, in general.
I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't think that it works. When you hit people like that over the head with facts, they double down and harden up their views.
I guess I find a problem with anyone deciding what is acceptable behavior for someone else, crimes and whatnot notwithstanding.
People can be informed of trans issues and not like them, just like people can be informed of gay issues and not like them, just like people can be informed of religious issues and not like them (you see where I'm going with this) An open mind for dialogue is the best way to move forward, not instantly shutting down the other side. That type of viewpoint comes from the same part of the brain as their bigotry.
96540
Post by: TheWaspinator
For people who say that they don't want men walking into the women's bathroom, do you realize that these laws would make people who look like this have to use the women's bathroom?
http://www.oddee.com/item_98038.aspx
37231
Post by: d-usa
At least we now have men going into women's bathroom so that they can kick women out of the women's bathroom: The way things are headed, with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick setting the state's legislative agenda, Texas may very well have its own crack squad of bathroom police. In the meantime, it's up to self-appointed enforcers of traditional gender norms to adjudicate which bathrooms strangers should use.
Case in point: the man who, um, heroically barged into a women's restroom at Baylor Medical Center in Frisco on Thursday to make sure that Jessica Rush, who manages a local health-food takeout place, was peeing in the proper place.
She was, for the record, and her situation isn't particularly complicated. Rush was born and identifies as female and has no plans to change that. "I look very much like a girl," she says. "I'm not trying to transition, nothing like that."
But Rush wears her hair in a bleached blond fauxhawk and dresses androgynously. On Thursday, she was wearing a T-shirt from her alma mater, Texas Tech, with basketball shorts. As the man at Baylor explained after walking into the restroom behind her, it's all very confusing.
Rush caught the latter end of the exchange on video:
"When I saw you enter I thought you was..." the man says.
"A boy?" Rush offers.
"Yeah, it was kind of confusing." Certainly she can see why. "You dress like a man," he says several times as he walks away.
Later, in the doctor's office lobby where Rush was waiting to have a pair of broken fingers looked at, the man elaborated that he was concerned that a man had entered the same bathroom his mother was going to use.
The point is I was helping my mom. I was confused when I see someone entering the woman's bathroom looking like a man," he said. "Each one of us is man or woman so ... I wanted to make sure she was going to the right place." Because in times like these, you can never be too careful.
The guy at Baylor isn't the first person who's found himself confused by Rush's self-presentation. Once, when Rush was at Hobby Lobby, a woman accosted her for trying to enter the restroom her granddaughter was using. Another women berated Rush for brazenly waltzing into the 24 Hour Fitness locker room before recognizing that Rush was, in fact, a woman and muttering an apology. And pretty much whenever she goes into the restroom at the mall, she'll hear kids murmur "Mom, there's a boy in the girls' bathroom!"
The confusion isn't universal, however. Once, because the women's restroom was full and figuring that everyone mistook her for a dude anyways, she tried using the men's bathroom at a bar. Its occupants were immediately panic stricken. "Whoa, there's a chick in the bathroom!" they yelled. "Get out, get out!"
"It makes me feel suuuper insecure," Rush says of the bathroom confrontations. Sometimes, like with the grandmother at Hobby Lobby, it's merely embarrassing. At other times, like when a man twice her size follows her into a hospital bathroom, it's scary. "Welcome to my world," Rush wrote when she posted the Baylor videos on Facebook. "Do you actually think I would choose this life?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The guy at Baylor isn't the first person who's found himself confused by Rush's self-presentation. Once, when Rush was at Hobby Lobby, a woman accosted her for trying to enter the restroom her granddaughter was using
Why do I feel like this was inevitable?
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
agnosto wrote: Ouze wrote:
This is the bathroom issue we should be talking about. How many more Chipotle foodborne poisoning outbreaks must we endure before Obama speaks out on this issue? Is he secretly a dump & dasher, himself?
Amen!
Funnily enough, a new research was recently published that stated that people in the Western world are 'too clean' because they wash and shower too often. It proved that this leads to increased health issues because less exposure to bacteria and viruses means the body builds up less resistance. In particular, the research linked the huge increase of diabetes in the Western world to increased cleanliness.
In other words, it might actually be healthy for you to forget washing your hands every now and then.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
BuFFo wrote: Jihadin wrote:Wait....people still shop at Target....I think...I might have one near me somewhere...
My girlfriend does.... and she would never want to share a bathroom with a man, for what that's worth.
Why...? I really don't get any of this non-issue. Surely you don't believe it's more pleasant to poop and piss amongst your own gender? I mean, it's pooping and pissing, it's never fun, and it's always terrible when you're aware of someone else doing it in your vicinity, regardless of gender.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I think the real bathroom issue we need to be discussing is why more group bathrooms don't have Muzak machines and white-noise generators. No one wants to hear other people using the restroom!
Under an Easy E administration, such devices would be mandatory in all public restrooms. #NeverTrump #WriteinEasyE.
18698
Post by: kronk
Easy E wrote:I think the real bathroom issue we need to be discussing is why more group bathrooms don't have Muzak machines and white-noise generators. No one wants to hear other people using the restroom! Under an Easy E administration, such devices would be mandatory in all public restrooms. #NeverTrump #WriteinEasyE.
Voting early and often for Easy E! As for Starbucks:  Let's roll.
221
Post by: Frazzled
kronk wrote: Easy E wrote:I think the real bathroom issue we need to be discussing is why more group bathrooms don't have Muzak machines and white-noise generators. No one wants to hear other people using the restroom!
Under an Easy E administration, such devices would be mandatory in all public restrooms. #NeverTrump #WriteinEasyE.
Voting early and often for Easy E!
Finally a campaign promise I can get behind.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
I still don't get the separation and phobia bit.
As a guy who has worked outdoors quite a bit, you really don't see the point after a while.
Oftentimes guys and girls shared the same latrine/gakbucket, or we'd be in the woods casually talking to one another while someone took a leak with talking distance.
Heck, back when I worked in prarie areas, you'd be standing in a field with no cover in sight, so if a woman had to use the bathroom you'd pull the truck up to block one likely avenue of someone walking up, then have the guys stand in a line for the next likely direction like we were blocking a soccer penalty kick so she'd have some privacy with her not very far behind us.
Not to mention all the gas stations we'd go to where the line would be long for one gender so we'd all just use the other one (with no funny business) and no one batted an eye in what were very conservative parts of the country.
Not to mention the common occurrence of people occasionally zoning out and walking into the "wrong" bathroom.
I just don't get it. Personally it wouldn't make any real difference to me if we had just big ol unisex bathrooms, as long as I've got access to a urinal so I'm not stuck in a massive line just to take a leak. Nature is already like that and it's never bothered me
21196
Post by: agnosto
Easy E wrote:I think the real bathroom issue we need to be discussing is why more group bathrooms don't have Muzak machines and white-noise generators. No one wants to hear other people using the restroom! Under an Easy E administration, such devices would be mandatory in all public restrooms. #NeverTrump #WriteinEasyE.
Funnily enough, Japanese public restrooms often are equipped with devices that produce flushing sounds for people to cover up their bathroom noise. The standard previously was to do a "courtesy flush" but it wasted too much water.  Automatically Appended Next Post: MrMoustaffa wrote:I still don't get the separation and phobia bit. As a guy who has worked outdoors quite a bit, you really don't see the point after a while. Oftentimes guys and girls shared the same latrine/gakbucket, or we'd be in the woods casually talking to one another while someone took a leak with talking distance. Heck, back when I worked in prarie areas, you'd be standing in a field with no cover in sight, so if a woman had to use the bathroom you'd pull the truck up to block one likely avenue of someone walking up, then have the guys stand in a line for the next likely direction like we were blocking a soccer penalty kick so she'd have some privacy with her not very far behind us. Not to mention all the gas stations we'd go to where the line would be long for one gender so we'd all just use the other one (with no funny business) and no one batted an eye in what were very conservative parts of the country. Not to mention the common occurrence of people occasionally zoning out and walking into the "wrong" bathroom. I just don't get it. Personally it wouldn't make any real difference to me if we had just big ol unisex bathrooms, as long as I've got access to a urinal so I'm not stuck in a massive line just to take a leak. Nature is already like that and it's never bothered me
Why didn't the women just use one of these? http://www.amazon.com/Go-Girl-Female-Urination-Lavender/dp/B003BEDUS6 I've seen disposable versions as well.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
If you could've heard some of the horror stories girls told me about those things, you'd understand why they prefer squatting, let's just leave it at that.
21196
Post by: agnosto
MrMoustaffa wrote:
If you could've heard some of the horror stories girls told me about those things, you'd understand why they prefer squatting, let's just leave it at that.
I can imagine.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Yeah no, sorry, those things are not really an option.
1206
Post by: Easy E
agnosto wrote: Easy E wrote:I think the real bathroom issue we need to be discussing is why more group bathrooms don't have Muzak machines and white-noise generators. No one wants to hear other people using the restroom!
Under an Easy E administration, such devices would be mandatory in all public restrooms. #NeverTrump #WriteinEasyE.
Funnily enough, Japanese public restrooms often are equipped with devices that produce flushing sounds for people to cover up their bathroom noise. The standard previously was to do a "courtesy flush" but it wasted too much water.
If we as Americans truly believe we are the greatest nation on Earth, we can not afford to fall behind in the Restroom White Noise gap! The Western World is counting on us to spearhead innovation in this area and take back our rightful place in making restrooms great again! #NeverTrump #WriteInEasyE
In other news, did this actually pass and is the original law repealed or is it still pending?
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
agnosto wrote: MrMoustaffa wrote:
If you could've heard some of the horror stories girls told me about those things, you'd understand why they prefer squatting, let's just leave it at that.
I can imagine.
The difference between those and a functional man-stick, is that the plastic one relies on gravity and gradual bladder control to dictate pressure of liquid output. It's an inert funnel, not a set of muscles and sphincters that can give feedback... Basically if the user goes at full flow, it's liable to fill up and flood their underwear/hands.
I've never known anyone who was an actual user apart from a unionist who attended a lot of rallies and was afraid of getting kettled by police.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
An already stupid issue is getting stupider:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-lgbt-group-testing-target-restrooms_us_5727928ce4b01a5ebde63950
A director for the American Family Association (AFA) says it’s sending men into the women’s restrooms at Target stores to test its barriers after the retail giant announced that its facilities will be transgender friendly.
Sandy Rios, the director of government affairs for the AFA, revealed her group’s agenda in a radio interview Monday.
Speaking on “Breitbart News Daily,“ Rios said the group’s concerned that women and children could be victimized by men who enter female restrooms while falsely claiming to be transgender.
“The chief concern, even more than just, I think, trauma, certainly for little girls of having men dressed like women coming in their bathrooms, the chief concern of the American Family Association is the predators who will take advantage,” she said. Radio host Stephen Bannon added that it’s “decent, hard-working people” who will end up victimized by Target’s new policy.
“I think there’s no question when you say that there are no barriers in the bathroom,” Rios said of the Target stores. “The net effect will be that people will not be stopped. We’ve already had people testing this, going into Targets and men trying to go into bathrooms. There is absolutely no barrier.”
On AFA’s website, it argues that Target should instead create unisex bathrooms for transgender individuals.
The group has placed its own bullseye on the retail chain in the form of a nationwide boycott. As of Monday, AFA claims to have more than one million signatures from people who have made a vow to no longer shop at Target stores.
It’s not clear whether Target is aware of any restroom transgressions committed by male AFA members posing as transgender, or if any have actually occurred. The store did not immediately return a request for comment.
Couldn't find a transcript of the Breitbart interview, and the HuffPo's sterling journalism doesn't really help explain what actions AFA are taking, or what they hope to achieve.
Is AFA really just sending men into the women's room or are they going so far as to ask the men to dress in women's clothing? Either way, what the feth does any of this prove other than the AFA still thinks transwomen are simply men in women's clothing?
Also, FETH the AFA for turning that acronym into something ugly. I am used to AFA referring to the Action Figure Authority. Those are the fine folks who grade my GI JOE's and forever seal away my army mens in protective acrylic cases--not bathroom blitzing donkeycaves who are obsessed with what people do in the bathroom. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
agnosto wrote:Funnily enough, Japanese public restrooms often are equipped with devices that produce flushing sounds for people to cover up their bathroom noise. The standard previously was to do a "courtesy flush" but it wasted too much water.
I'd love to see one of these in the US, but one that ues sensors to detect clenching and unclenching to play dramatic crescendo of music - like the Jaws theme - and loudly plays a wicked heavy metal riff upon poo finally hitting the water.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
So they're fighting men/predators going into women's restrooms.... By sending men into restrooms...
I... Urrgjxndnonsmkdkjejxjdje
And seriously, why has the whole "pedo" thing in bathrooms just now become an issue? What about all the little boys left alone in restrooms? Do people honestly think that pedophiliac men only prey on girls? From what I've heard they usually target boys.
I mean, I know what they're really after, but to use this as their reasoning as if it's the main issue is crazy.
You really think that sign of "no men allowed" in the women's restroom ever stopped a man who had intent to harm someone in there? They're not going to waltz in at 2pm on a Friday, they're going to do it at odd hours when nobody is around to help. You know, LIKE THEYVE ALWAYS DONE IT IN THE PAST.
221
Post by: Frazzled
MrMoustaffa wrote:So they're fighting men/predators going into women's restrooms.... By sending men into restrooms...
Sometimes you have to destroy a village to save a village? -Clinton vs. Trump -People fighting over...bathrooms Gentlemen we are through the Looking Glass here, and have officially entered Stupidtown. Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh jeez now enighltened metropolis's in Texas are joining the fray. http://kxan.com/2016/05/03/texas-joins-fight-over-ordinance-dividing-restrooms-by-gender/ I guess, like being both a banker and a lawyer I can claim joint status in Austin/Houston depending on who's going to be more cray cray at any given point. As a Houstonian I will point out this is Dallas. Like Cat people, Dallasites are evilz. ON the positive even the nefarious Dallasites voted this down, so hope has not passed utterly from this earth. Now that the LT Gov said he supports I expect our crack legislature to jump on this like a a wiener dog on a barbeque sandwich....GRRRRRRRR
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
US justice department tells North Carolina their lavatory law violates national civil rights laws and must not be implemented.
From the BBC:
N Carolina law 'violates civil rights' says US
7 hours ago
From the section US & Canada
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Well at least one branch of our government is working correctly.
God this is stupid. At this rate we're gonna have another incident like integrating public schools in the 60's. Let's hope it doesn't come to the point of the national guard getting called in like last time
43066
Post by: feeder
Through this issue, I'm learning that some people are really, really concerned about other people's junk, and will invent all kinds of wild scenarios in order to justify that.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yeah, I don't really understand what's with this (in my opinion) sudden, sort of widespread spate of concern for who poops where, something that hasn't really been a problem previously.
5534
Post by: dogma
What is strange to me is that there are troughs, actual troughs, at Wrigley into which men urinate next to children. No one has a problem with this, apparently.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ouze wrote:Yeah, I don't really understand what's with this (in my opinion) sudden, sort of widespread spate of concern for who poops where, something that hasn't really been a problem previously.
Well, with gay marriage now legal and its opponents getting pushed more and more into joke territory conservatives need a new enemy to keep the "Jesus hates you" crowd pressing 'R' every election. I'm sure when this non-issue eventually joins gay marriage we'll be hearing all about the next threat to our women and children, and how Something Must Be Done.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 dogma wrote:What is strange to me is that there are troughs, actual troughs, at Wrigley into which men urinate next to children. No one has a problem with this, apparently.
Luckily, I have thusfar avoided having to pee into a trough, not being a fan of either baseball or particularly seedy bars. I've heard they're pretty damn gross, though.
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:Well, with gay marriage now legal and its opponents getting pushed more and more into joke territory conservatives need a new enemy to keep the "Jesus hates you" crowd pressing 'R' every election. I'm sure when this non-issue eventually joins gay marriage we'll be hearing all about the next threat to our women and children, and how Something Must Be Done.
It's funny how these moral panics line up with elections so neatly, isn't it?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Ouze wrote: dogma wrote:What is strange to me is that there are troughs, actual troughs, at Wrigley into which men urinate next to children. No one has a problem with this, apparently.
Luckily, I have thusfar avoided having to pee into a trough, not being a fan of either baseball or particularly seedy bars. I've heard they're pretty damn gross, though.
Troughs are reasonably common in the UK, especially in older buildings. They are usually OK as long as they are cleaned reasonably often; otherwise (and I am not sure how people are this bad at aiming, but most of them are in pubs so that may have something to do with it...) the floor is often not the cleanest so you have to pee long distance if you don't want to track wizz around with your shoes...
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
What is odd to me is the "for children" angle that keeps getting brought up. Arguably, children are the spearhead on this issue. If there was one group in this whole mix that cares the least about who potties where, its children. Children have likely seen both parents potty without going ark of the covenant before they are 5 years old anyways.
A child isn't going to be terified by seeing a "man" in womens clothing in the female bathroom unless they were taught to be terrified by it. In my experience, children that take issue with this issue are always taught by parents that it is wrong.
When I was in school (13 years ago) kids were fairly excepting of differences, not universally but most never cared. Going by my little sister's experience (11 years my junior) and kids cared even less then my age group did. Now seeing my GF's nieces and nephews (all bajillion of them), the ones with conserva hippy parents (republicans that only eat organic) judge anything that isn't heteronormative as per their parents beliefs and the ones with with parents that left them to decide have trans or gay or queer...etc etc close friends.
So maybe we should let children decide (in the long run) how this will work out and maybe focus on the things that will actually help them. Things like...I don't know...not collapsing the whole country with debt or shooting at other countries producing another generation of war.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
If we wanted to go by actual statistics, children are most at-risk of sexual assault from a white, cis-gendered family member... usually a male.
221
Post by: Frazzled
check your T privilege. we will not stand idly by while you oppress us with your oppressive terms. we prefer breeder, or if you like, sir. quick
someone give me a safe space.
99
Post by: insaniak
 BrotherGecko wrote:What is odd to me is the "for children" angle that keeps getting brought up. Arguably, children are the spearhead on this issue. If there was one group in this whole mix that cares the least about who potties where, its children. Children have likely seen both parents potty without going ark of the covenant before they are 5 years old anyways.
A child isn't going to be terified by seeing a "man" in womens clothing in the female bathroom unless they were taught to be terrified by it. In my experience, children that take issue with this issue are always taught by parents that it is wrong. .
The issue being raised over this isn't anything to do with children accidentally seeing the wrong genitals. There's this idea being bandied about that allowing people who were born with male bits but who identify as female to use the female facilities will result in hordes of sexual predators declaring 'I'm a woman!' in order to infiltrate the ladies' room to assault all the children in there.
Because right now, those children are safe, due to the sexual predators knowing that they would get in trouble if they walk into the ladies room.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:The issue being raised over this isn't anything to do with children accidentally seeing the wrong genitals.
Except this exact issue is raised.
As for the rest of your post I really hope that was sarcasm and you don't really mean any of it.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
jasper76 wrote:
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
Sorry for the late reply to this but....
It's kind of funny because the actual word "homosexual" was never in the bible, until the late 1940s-1970s, when you had Evangelical protestant groups that decided to have a more modern translation of the bible from the KJV. And in discussions with a religion professor at my school, they were commenting on how the english word choices from the original Hebrew or even Greek languages of that day, are quite bizarre.
1206
Post by: Easy E
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: jasper76 wrote:
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
Sorry for the late reply to this but....
It's kind of funny because the actual word "homosexual" was never in the bible, until the late 1940s-1970s, when you had Evangelical protestant groups that decided to have a more modern translation of the bible from the KJV. And in discussions with a religion professor at my school, they were commenting on how the english word choices from the original Hebrew or even Greek languages of that day, are quite bizarre.
That is a similar story to Civil Rights and racial issues too.
Time heals all wounds?
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Ensis Ferrae wrote: jasper76 wrote:
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
Sorry for the late reply to this but....
It's kind of funny because the actual word "homosexual" was never in the bible, until the late 1940s-1970s, when you had Evangelical protestant groups that decided to have a more modern translation of the bible from the KJV. And in discussions with a religion professor at my school, they were commenting on how the english word choices from the original Hebrew or even Greek languages of that day, are quite bizarre.
I've always found it troubling that so many people willfully ignore all of the politics involved with the creation of the KJV and act as if Moses brought the whole book down from the mountain along with the 10 commandments.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Prestor Jon wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: jasper76 wrote:
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
Sorry for the late reply to this but....
It's kind of funny because the actual word "homosexual" was never in the bible, until the late 1940s-1970s, when you had Evangelical protestant groups that decided to have a more modern translation of the bible from the KJV. And in discussions with a religion professor at my school, they were commenting on how the english word choices from the original Hebrew or even Greek languages of that day, are quite bizarre.
I've always found it troubling that so many people willfully ignore all of the politics involved with the creation of the KJV and act as if Moses brought the whole book down from the mountain along with the 10 commandments.
I've always found it troubling that anyone takes any religious beliefs seriously. And try to pass laws enforcing the views of their interpretation of their particular brand of religion on everyone else... sadly these days disguising it as moral outrage/think of the children/teach the controversy...
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
Peregrine wrote: insaniak wrote:The issue being raised over this isn't anything to do with children accidentally seeing the wrong genitals.
Except this exact issue is raised.
As for the rest of your post I really hope that was sarcasm and you don't really mean any of it.
I do believe it is. Sarcasm. I think insaniak isn't that type of person.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
Easy E wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: jasper76 wrote:
But to be honest, I don't think LGBTQ will ever be fully excepted in a society with a significant population that reveres the Bible as a source of morality. The Bible is pretty clear on how it views homosexuals.
Sorry for the late reply to this but....
It's kind of funny because the actual word "homosexual" was never in the bible, until the late 1940s-1970s, when you had Evangelical protestant groups that decided to have a more modern translation of the bible from the KJV. And in discussions with a religion professor at my school, they were commenting on how the english word choices from the original Hebrew or even Greek languages of that day, are quite bizarre.
That is a similar story to Civil Rights and racial issues too.
Time heals all wounds?
Naomi and Ruth,
David and Jonathan
Saul and his arms bearer
Other minor characters
Both homosexual relationships in the bible which, based on context were approved of. For example, saul acknowledges both the marriage between david and his son and david and his daughter.
I would say that pro-segregationists actually had a much stronger argument based on interpreting the bible than anti-LGBT people.
However, I personally am an atheist, so my perspective may be different.
196
Post by: cuda1179
I posted this in another thread, but I'll restate it here.
I'm totally fine with trans people using single-occupancy restrooms. If the door locks to the room, what's the difference?
I'm somewhat fine with trans people using the communal restroom, provided that there is adequate privacy protections (doors on the stalls, no gaps between panels, etc.)
Where I draw the line is when pre-op transsexuals use communal changing areas or showers. If you don't have the genitals of your desired gender, stay out.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Aydian Dowling, into the female showers you go!
You too, Shawn Stinson!
Get that vaginer in with the rest of the little ladies, Buck Angel!
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
If I was a woman, I don't think I would mind so much with them.
443
Post by: skyth
Apparently Texas is choosing to keep poor children from eating so they can discriminate against Trans people.
37231
Post by: d-usa
skyth wrote:Apparently Texas is choosing to keep poor children from eating so they can discriminate against Trans people.
They won't have the energy to rape each other, so it's win-win.
65101
Post by: FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs
d-usa wrote: skyth wrote:Apparently Texas is choosing to keep poor children from eating so they can discriminate against Trans people.
They won't have the energy to rape each other, so it's win-win.
I read this in dewey's voice...
Anyway I would be more confused with a woman walking into a males locker room than a male having different genitals. Although I think the whole segregated locker room thing is kind of stupid, but that is besides the point.
196
Post by: cuda1179
Ouze wrote:Aydian Dowling, into the female showers you go!
You too, Shawn Stinson!
Get that vaginer in with the rest of the little ladies, Buck Angel!
For every transsexual that looks even remotely that passible there are probably 100 male to female transsexuals that make this one look downright feminine.
43066
Post by: feeder
 cuda1179 wrote: Ouze wrote:Aydian Dowling, into the female showers you go!
You too, Shawn Stinson!
Get that vaginer in with the rest of the little ladies, Buck Angel!
For every transsexual that looks even remotely that passible there are probably 100 male to female transsexuals that make this one look downright feminine.
That's a photoshop.
Come on man. Is this really the best you can do?
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Hey when did curt schilling get a dakka account?
196
Post by: cuda1179
 feeder wrote: cuda1179 wrote: Ouze wrote:Aydian Dowling, into the female showers you go!
You too, Shawn Stinson!
Get that vaginer in with the rest of the little ladies, Buck Angel!
For every transsexual that looks even remotely that passible there are probably 100 male to female transsexuals that make this one look downright feminine.
That's a photoshop.
Come on man. Is this really the best you can do?
So what if it was a photoshop? The point still stands that a VAST majority of transsexuals are NOT passable in any way. I could have done better, but looking for a bad Let's ensure we steer clear of offensive language, thanks pic that wasn't NSFW was kind of hard.
Also, why the photo removal Dakka???
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:So what if it was a photoshop? The point still stands that a VAST majority of transsexuals are NOT passable in any way. I could have done better, but looking for a bad tranny pic that wasn't NSFW was kind of hard.
You honestly don't see any problem with posting photoshopped pictures to support your idea of what transgendered people look like?
PS: "tranny" is incredibly offensive, on the level of various racist terms that will get you immediately banned for using them. But I suspect you know that and are doing it deliberately.
Also, why the photo removal Dakka???
Because one of this site's rules is that attachments and gallery pictures must be related to wargaming. Offensive stereotype pictures are not related to wargaming, so you'll have to find somewhere else to host them before a moderator removes them.
76278
Post by: Spinner
If your defense is 'I would have definitely used a real picture and not a photoshop, but finding one that fit my argument was too hard', maybe the argument doesn't really hold up all that well in the first place.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Spinner wrote:If your defense is 'I would have definitely used a real picture and not a photoshop, but finding one that fit my argument was too hard', maybe the argument doesn't really hold up all that well in the first place.
This is probably one of the most on-point rebuttals I've ever read on this forum.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Ouze wrote: Spinner wrote:If your defense is 'I would have definitely used a real picture and not a photoshop, but finding one that fit my argument was too hard', maybe the argument doesn't really hold up all that well in the first place.
This is probably one of the most on-point rebuttals I've ever read on this forum.
Unfortunately, it will most likely fall on deaf ears (or whatever the Internet equivalent of that idiom is).
33125
Post by: Seaward
I tend to default to letting women decide the outcome on this one. I'm decently confident in my ability to remain un-molested by any potential transman attacker, mythical or otherwise, so it ought to be up to the ladies.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Seaward wrote:I tend to default to letting women decide the outcome on this one. I'm decently confident in my ability to remain un-molested by any potential transman attacker, mythical or otherwise, so it ought to be up to the ladies.
Which is a pretty irrelevant fact, since the myth of bathroom attacks is just that: a myth. If you're alone and isolated in a bathroom where someone attacking you isn't going to immediately get police attention it doesn't matter what sign is on the door or what bathroom policies are in effect.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Peregrine wrote:Seaward wrote:I tend to default to letting women decide the outcome on this one. I'm decently confident in my ability to remain un-molested by any potential transman attacker, mythical or otherwise, so it ought to be up to the ladies.
Which is a pretty irrelevant fact, since the myth of bathroom attacks is just that: a myth. If you're alone and isolated in a bathroom where someone attacking you isn't going to immediately get police attention it doesn't matter what sign is on the door or what bathroom policies are in effect.
But the crime won't happen to begin with if you just put up a sign.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Why not put up a sign that says "don't molest anyone in the bathroom" instead?
I'm against these stupid bathroom laws, but I will concede that I would support a "Don't molest anyone in here" sign for the bathroom.
Still no prawns, though.
196
Post by: cuda1179
So, if it doesn't matter what is between your legs in the locker room or shower like some people here claim, then why not just have uni-sex showers at gyms. After all the ladies won't mind some swinging meat, right?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Why not just be completely naked in the rest of the gym as well, helicoptering on the treadmill? Just helicopter in, run a few laps, helicopter out?
196
Post by: cuda1179
Ouze wrote: Spinner wrote:If your defense is 'I would have definitely used a real picture and not a photoshop, but finding one that fit my argument was too hard', maybe the argument doesn't really hold up all that well in the first place.
This is probably one of the most on-point rebuttals I've ever read on this forum.
There are definitely pictures of non-convincing trans people. I just got tired of pouring through the mountain of XXX pictures that popped up with a google search. for every g-rate pic there were thousands of dirty ones. Believe it or not, looking at nude intersexed people and be quite nauseating for a good chunk of the population. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:Why not just be completely naked in the rest of the gym as well, helicoptering on the treadmill? Just helicopter in, run a few laps, helicopter out?
Yeah, that's kind of my point. People are claiming that having a pork-lance in the ladies room isn't a big deal, you shouldn't be looking anyway. If that were the case showers wouldn't be gender specific.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:So, if it doesn't matter what is between your legs in the locker room or shower like some people here claim, then why not just have uni-sex showers at gyms. After all the ladies won't mind some swinging meat, right?
This is a valid point that has been raised. We probably should just have one shower/locker room for everyone, and get over our absurd cultural belief that non-sexual nudity is some kind of simultaneously horrifying and fascinating thing. It turns out that, once you get over that issue, having a bunch of mixed-gender people naked in a non-sexual context is pretty boring. All those other naked people just become part of the background and are about as stare-worthy as the naked people you're already around. Automatically Appended Next Post: cuda1179 wrote:There are definitely pictures of non-convincing trans people. I just got tired of pouring through the mountain of XXX pictures that popped up with a google search. for every g-rate pic there were thousands of dirty ones.
IOW, "trust me, the evidence is totally out there, even though I can't find it". If you can't find your evidence with a brief search then perhaps it isn't as common as you think?
Believe it or not, looking at nude intersexed people and be quite nauseating for a good chunk of the population.
Sounds like you just have some issues to work through. I personally find it about as interesting as watching paint dry.
12313
Post by: Ouze
cuda1179 wrote:Yeah, that's kind of my point. People are claiming that having a pork-lance in the ladies room isn't a big deal, you shouldn't be looking anyway. If that were the case showers wouldn't be gender specific.
I think your point is actually your terrible argument about bathrooms is losing, so you're trying to move the goalposts somewhere else. To go back on topic (sorry), I think it's atypical for me to see anyone else's bald-headed yogurt slinger on a typical visit to the bathroom. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a skin flute on a trip to the bathroom, ever.
196
Post by: cuda1179
While I agree that nudity shouldn't be an issue, I totally understand that it IS an issue for many people.
Ideally I think new gyms and school locker rooms should simply be designed to have many individual locking rooms. Everyone can get changed, or shower, in complete privacy. No segregation then. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote: cuda1179 wrote:Yeah, that's kind of my point. People are claiming that having a pork-lance in the ladies room isn't a big deal, you shouldn't be looking anyway. If that were the case showers wouldn't be gender specific.
I think your point is actually your terrible argument about bathrooms is losing, so you're trying to move the goalposts somewhere else. To go back on topic (sorry), I think it's atypical for me to see anyone else's bald-headed yogurt slinger on a typical visit to the bathroom. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a skin flute on a trip to the bathroom, ever.
whoops, when I said ladies room I meant ladies changing area. My bad on that one. If you look at my previous posts you'll see that I am more tolerant toward the trans community concerning bathrooms.
76278
Post by: Spinner
cuda1179 wrote:
There are definitely pictures of non-convincing trans people. I just got tired of pouring through the mountain of XXX pictures that popped up with a google search. for every g-rate pic there were thousands of dirty ones.
Okay, cool.
But you didn't actually post any, is the thing.
I mean, I get that there's some 'non-convincing' trans people - I worked with one lady once who seemed to have a permanent five-o'clock shadow - although I have reservations about the assertions that there's hundreds for every one one that's 'convincing'. My real issue was the disingenuousness of putting up a photoshop with the implication that it was an actual picture, then falling back on saying that 'well, we all know there's plenty of people that look like that, I would have put up real pictures but the Internet is full of porn that I don't want to look at'.
I also get that the Internet is full of porn.
It's the sort of thing you'd see that one angrily political relative or family friend or old classmate post on Facebook, like that Danny DeVito picture that came up in the other thread. If there's pictures of non-convincing trans people and you want to use them to support an argument, post them. If you can't find them, don't try to use a fake one as an example. If all you saw was porn, then just say all you saw was porn or don't bring it up at all.
Why not just be completely naked in the rest of the gym as well, helicoptering on the treadmill? Just helicopter in, run a few laps, helicopter out?
Wait, you're not supposed to do that?
That actually explains a lot.
...I've got some apology cards to send, anyone have any recommendations?
43066
Post by: feeder
cuda1179 wrote:
So what if it was a photoshop? The point still stands that a VAST majority of transsexuals are NOT passable in any way. I could have done better, but looking for a bad Let's ensure we steer clear of offensive language, thanks pic that wasn't NSFW was kind of hard.
So your point is there is transwomen out there that are still fairly masculine? Is that it? I'm struggling to understand. You're only okay with transpersons if they are cute enough for you?
edit: derp fix
37231
Post by: d-usa
To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Spinner wrote:...I've got some apology cards to send, anyone have any recommendations?
A pop-up card would be the most appropriate thing.
76278
Post by: Spinner
Ouze wrote: Spinner wrote:...I've got some apology cards to send, anyone have any recommendations?
A pop-up card would be the most appropriate thing.
Perfect! Thanks, let's see if we can get that so-called 'lifetime ban' lifted!
196
Post by: cuda1179
feeder wrote: cuda1179 wrote:
So what if it was a photoshop? The point still stands that a VAST majority of transsexuals are NOT passable in any way. I could have done better, but looking for a bad Let's ensure we steer clear of offensive language, thanks pic that wasn't NSFW was kind of hard.
So your point is there is transwomen out there that are still fairly masculine? Is that it? I'm struggling to understand. You're only okay with transpersons if they are cute enough for you?
edit: derp fix
The argument was made that women would be extremely uncomfortable with very manly looking (in other worded VERY passable) trans-men being forced into the ladies locker rooms. I'm just saying that the number of trans-people that look as convincing as those shown are fairly slim. The number of extremely passable trans-men is less than the number of non-passable trans women. If we are setting the standards of who-goes-where, then I say go with option that causes the least panic, even if it is imperfect.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:If we are setting the standards of who-goes-where, then I say go with option that causes the least panic, even if it is imperfect.
And I'm guessing you aren't counting the panic of the transgendered people in question in this calculation.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:Which is a pretty irrelevant fact, since the myth of bathroom attacks is just that: a myth.
Obviously you've never seen True Lies.
I'm also sympathetic to the argument that chicks don't wanna see dong in their changing rooms. I don't wanna see it in mine, either.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Seaward wrote:I'm also sympathetic to the argument that chicks don't wanna see dong in their changing rooms. I don't wanna see it in mine, either.
And yet somehow you manage to cope. I suspect that women will figure it out just as well, and men will probably figure out how to cope with female bits in "their" changing rooms.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:And yet somehow you manage to cope. I suspect that women will figure it out just as well, and men will probably figure out how to cope with female bits in "their" changing rooms.
Why have sex-segregated changing rooms at all?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
We shouldn't. Allow me to quite myself from the previous page:
This is a valid point that has been raised. We probably should just have one shower/locker room for everyone, and get over our absurd cultural belief that non-sexual nudity is some kind of simultaneously horrifying and fascinating thing. It turns out that, once you get over that issue, having a bunch of mixed-gender people naked in a non-sexual context is pretty boring. All those other naked people just become part of the background and are about as stare-worthy as the naked people you're already around.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:
We shouldn't. Allow me to quite myself from the previous page:
This is a valid point that has been raised. We probably should just have one shower/locker room for everyone, and get over our absurd cultural belief that non-sexual nudity is some kind of simultaneously horrifying and fascinating thing. It turns out that, once you get over that issue, having a bunch of mixed-gender people naked in a non-sexual context is pretty boring. All those other naked people just become part of the background and are about as stare-worthy as the naked people you're already around.
It's a consistent answer, I'll give you that. It's just not an opinion I happen to share.
99
Post by: insaniak
Spinner wrote:although I have reservations about the assertions that there's hundreds for every one one that's 'convincing'.
Indeed. If only because, really, the 'unconvincing' ones are the only ones you're generally going to know about. Short of going all Mick Dundee on every woman you encounter on the street, you'd have no way of knowing how many of them were actually born women or not...
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
I'll admit to being ignorant of Trans issues. Woefully undereducated and all that but as I see it the use of bathrooms by gender identity preference is a non issue isnt it?
Before change to federal law and this becoming a hot topic issue trans male to female persons would have had to use male bathrooms and trans female to male would have had to use female bathrooms...thats right isnt it? And I would assume that for decades people have used whatever bathroom they feel comfortable using?
If so has this been a big issue in the past? Has anyone cared enough to make it an issue?
Same with changing rooms I would assume?
I'm not too sure about anyone who has gender identity issues but who isn't transitioning or whatever the terminology is. But for those who are or have transitioned I personally feel that switching to their preferred bathroom does not really impact me. I'm not interested in their junk, I don't care about their life story. I'm not going to have any interaction with them.
I'm not too sure I buy the argument for criminal activity to increase due to signs changing either. I would guess that anyone anti such a change or is obsessed with the purity of their restrooms would statistically be more likely to cause harm to someone using such a facility than those using it for the correct purpose?
And as a father I am probably safe in saying that the worst thing that would happen should we use a facility is that I will have to man up and answer some questions.
Whats the statistical chance of me noticing a transgender person using the same restroom/toilet/bathroom/changing room?
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Ouze wrote:Why not just be completely naked in the rest of the gym as well, helicoptering on the treadmill? Just helicopter in, run a few laps, helicopter out?
My name is Dreadwinter and I approve this message. We should be allowed to helicopter wherever we want! FREE THE PEEN! LET THE HELICOPTERING COMMENCE!
5394
Post by: reds8n
insaniak wrote: Spinner wrote:although I have reservations about the assertions that there's hundreds for every one one that's 'convincing'.
Indeed. If only because, really, the 'unconvincing' ones are the only ones you're generally going to know about. Short of going all Mick Dundee on every woman you encounter on the street, you'd have no way of knowing how many of them were actually born women or not...
You do realise that a substantial portion of our members won't be old enough to get that reference right ?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Seaward wrote: Peregrine wrote:And yet somehow you manage to cope. I suspect that women will figure it out just as well, and men will probably figure out how to cope with female bits in "their" changing rooms.
Why have sex-segregated changing rooms at all?
It's a good question.
I think it's a cultural norm in modern western society that derives ultimately from the Christian idea that the nude body is provoking to the sin of lust, particularly the female body to male lust. Islam has the same concept to an even greater degree, hence purdah, the hijab and so on. This leads to the creation of a sense of shame and embarrassment for revealing one's naked body at all, let alone to the opposite sex, as well as an obsession with getting a eyeful if possible.
Whether these feelings are good or bad is a matter of interpretation based on personal circumstances.
As with other cultural norms there are exceptions. Unisex changing rooms are common in swimming baths in Sweden and Austria, for instance. Outside the western European tradition, mixed nude bathing is not uncommon in Japan, and there's no stigma involved in public nudity and washing in the more common segregated bathing areas. Mixed public nude beaches have been around for a long time in many European countries.
Things change over time, of course. 100 years it was pretty racy for women to appear in the street not wearing clothes that completely covered their bodies. Mixed bathing and changing of different races was highly anti-social or even illegal in many places. Those attitudes have completely changed in the western world.
There is a significant amount of installed infrastructure of segregated lavatories and changing rooms, but these could gradually be converted or replaced with unisex facilities.
67730
Post by: stanman
Just get rid of public washrooms, make every do their business at home behind closed doors.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Kilkrazy wrote:There is a significant amount of installed infrastructure of segregated lavatories and changing rooms, but these could gradually be converted or replaced with unisex facilities.
Why would we want to? Aren't you arguing in another thread that it's important to make sure cultural traditions of religious origin be accommodated by a broader society altering around them rather than the other way around? Or is this simply a little progressive stack calculus that I don't have the right equations for?
443
Post by: skyth
There's a huge difference between traditions that require you to do something and traditions that insist other people do things.
33125
Post by: Seaward
skyth wrote:There's a huge difference between traditions that require you to do something and traditions that insist other people do things.
Yeah, I don't buy that. If a tradition insists that people wear pants, for example, that's insisting that other people do things.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Ouze wrote:Why not put up a sign that says "don't molest anyone in the bathroom" instead?
Because then you have to put up the explanation that anything more than three shakes is playing with yourself and thus, depending on your beliefs, molestation (even if it is to your own person) Automatically Appended Next Post:  Mr. Burning wrote:
Before change to federal law and this becoming a hot topic issue trans male to female persons would have had to use male bathrooms and trans female to male would have had to use female bathrooms...thats right isnt it? And I would assume that for decades people have used whatever bathroom they feel comfortable using?
If so has this been a big issue in the past? Has anyone cared enough to make it an issue?
AFAIK, before these absurd laws started popping up, we had a sign on the door that said 'men' and 'women' but generally speaking, followed the "Duck rule".... as in, if it looks like a man, talks like a man, it is a man. Now these laws are creating a problem by saying, "looks like a man, talks like a man.... really a man?"
Also in general, I think that prior to this decade, the only real time I can ever recall Trans issues being brought up in the public eye, were when a trans person was the victim of a horrendous crime because of them being trans. Doesn't mean there weren't hot button issues around, just that I don't remember them.
443
Post by: skyth
Seaward wrote: skyth wrote:There's a huge difference between traditions that require you to do something and traditions that insist other people do things.
Yeah, I don't buy that. If a tradition insists that people wear pants, for example, that's insisting that other people do things.
That's not a religious based tradition. I believe you are moving the goalposts.
And it still works. Making a woman wear pants because wearing a skirt is against your religion is bad. A woman choosing to wear pants because it's required by her religion is fine and you're in the wrong if you try to make her wear a skirt.
196
Post by: cuda1179
I don't think that there is an answer that would totally please everyone. I would however like to try.
I have some questions (serious questions) and some ideas that I'd like to bounce off you guys.
As I see it, despite what the Justice department is stating, discrimination based upon gender IS sometimes legal. If a man that identifies as male walks into the ladies room he can be in legal trouble.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, the Federal Government has never legislated a definition of what the genders actually are. According to the Constitution any right that is not specifically given to the Federal Government is reserved for the states.
Could the problem be that we are trying to force several genders into a (as we see it now) gender binary society? Could the answer be to legislate in more than two genders?
I know this is technically "separate, but equal" and that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, but why not just have a trans-bathroom? Men only in one, women only in one, trans only in the third bathroom. This kind of thing isn't exactly unheard of. In several Asian countries they have specific bathrooms for "lady-boys" as they call them. natural men and women are not allowed to use them. After they did this assaults on Trans people in the restroom dropped. Trans people got behind it and fully supported the idea and it appears to be working great.
I know many will say "but a trans-woman doesn't see herself as a third gender, she sees herself as a WOMAN." Without trying to sound like a bigot, if you are not physically a woman, you are NOT a woman. I'll give you the same respect I'd give a woman, but you really aren't one.
Trans supporters used to scoff when people brought up the idea of "trans racial" and even said that it's not a thing, until 2014 came and a Trans-racial professor happened. I honestly talked with several LGBT supporters who DIDN'T accept the idea of trans racial. This puzzled me as I really don't see the difference.
37231
Post by: d-usa
When public bathrooms and locker rooms were desegregated many years ago it didn't result on any significant amount of rapes, despite fears to the contrary.
Gays don't rape straight people that change in the same dressing room with them, despite fears to the contrary.
This is just the newest "there is change, and I don't understand it" episode, and it too will pass.
99
Post by: insaniak
cuda1179 wrote:
Could the problem be that we are trying to force several genders into a (as we see it now) gender binary society? Could the answer be to legislate in more than two genders?
Yes, that's the problem, but no, that's not the solution.
The solution is to stop writing legislation that is based on gender.
I know this is technically "separate, but equal" and that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, but why not just have a trans-bathroom?
Because it would be as pointless and unenforceable as the current derided 'use the right toilet' legislation.
Just make bathrooms non-gender-specific and privately enclosed, and move on.
76278
Post by: Spinner
You just answered that question.
I know this is technically "separate, but equal"
Unless you're either willing to kick out everyone who 'don't look right' or go the full South Park route and install a Toilet Safety Administration, any 'no trans people in this or that bathroom' law is completely unenforceable. It wouldn't stop people from being assaulted in bathrooms, it wouldn't protect children, and it wouldn't really deter less-violent creepy people. Any privacy issues are easily addressed via closing and locking the stall door - frankly, I'd think stalls without properly working doors are a bigger issue, along with those stupid urinals that don't have dividers between them. Can't we put all this energy into fixing that?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:I know this is technically "separate, but equal" and that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, but why not just have a trans-bathroom?
Because "trans" is not a gender. A trans-woman and trans-man are two very different things, and it doesn't make any sense to put them together in a third bathroom.
Without trying to sound like a bigot, if you are not physically a woman, you are NOT a woman.
Define "physically a woman". When you do, please remember that sex and gender are two very different things.
Trans supporters used to scoff when people brought up the idea of "trans racial" and even said that it's not a thing, until 2014 came and a Trans-racial professor happened. I honestly talked with several LGBT supporters who DIDN'T accept the idea of trans racial. This puzzled me as I really don't see the difference.
The difference is that with transgender people we have a plausible explanation for how it happens. We know that the process of turning a genderless blob of cells into a male or female human is complex and can go wrong in various ways, so it's entirely plausible that one of those ways things can go wrong is for the brain to get the opposite hormones/genetic triggers/whatever as the rest of the body and go down the opposite development path. There is no similar concept with race. The same development process doesn't exist, and most of what we think of as "race" is cultural, not physical.
196
Post by: cuda1179
Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:I know this is technically "separate, but equal" and that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, but why not just have a trans-bathroom?
Because "trans" is not a gender. A trans-woman and trans-man are two very different things, and it doesn't make any sense to put them together in a third bathroom.
Without trying to sound like a bigot, if you are not physically a woman, you are NOT a woman.
Define "physically a woman". When you do, please remember that sex and gender are two very different things.
Trans supporters used to scoff when people brought up the idea of "trans racial" and even said that it's not a thing, until 2014 came and a Trans-racial professor happened. I honestly talked with several LGBT supporters who DIDN'T accept the idea of trans racial. This puzzled me as I really don't see the difference.
The difference is that with transgender people we have a plausible explanation for how it happens. We know that the process of turning a genderless blob of cells into a male or female human is complex and can go wrong in various ways, so it's entirely plausible that one of those ways things can go wrong is for the brain to get the opposite hormones/genetic triggers/whatever as the rest of the body and go down the opposite development path. There is no similar concept with race. The same development process doesn't exist, and most of what we think of as "race" is cultural, not physical.
As I stated, a third gender could legally be legislated in. Trans Men and Trans Women sharing a bathroom isn't any more silly than a trans woman sharing a bathroom with a cis woman.
I would like to add one thing to the Sex vs Gender thing. Your are right, there is a difference. However, the constitution only provides protections for sex, not gender.
If race is more cultural than biology, then would a man of European decent that grew up from infancy in Africa, among Africans that treated him as an equal, be Black? By your logic he would, and trans racial IS a thing.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Lots of things can be legislated in. That doesn't mean they make any sense. Trans-men and trans-women have essentially nothing in common, grouping them together is just something you think would be convenient. It makes about as much sense as creating a separate bathroom for all people under 5" tall, regardless of gender, because they're all short people.
Trans Men and Trans Women sharing a bathroom isn't any more silly than a trans woman sharing a bathroom with a cis woman.
According to you. However, there is a rather obvious difference that most other people can see: one involves two women sharing a bathroom, the other involves a man and a woman sharing a bathroom.
I would like to add one thing to the Sex vs Gender thing. Your are right, there is a difference. However, the constitution only provides protections for sex, not gender.
What is your point? How is this a response to what I asked you to define? Please don't change the subject.
If race is more cultural than biology, then would a man of European decent that grew up from infancy in Africa, among Africans that treated him as an equal, be Black? By your logic he would, and trans racial IS a thing.
You're missing the point here. The concept of "trans racial" means "I am inherently {race}, not {race they appear to be}". IOW, "I'm a white guy from a white family, but I was supposed to be black". That is not at all the same as talking about a person who is adopted by a different race/culture.
99
Post by: insaniak
cuda1179 wrote: Trans Men and Trans Women sharing a bathroom isn't any more silly than a trans woman sharing a bathroom with a cis woman.
You know what else would be exactly the same as Trans Men and Trans Women sharing a bathroom?
Men and Women sharing a bathroom.
If race is more cultural than biology, then would a man of European decent that grew up from infancy in Africa, among Africans that treated him as an equal, be Black?
The more pertinent question would be: why does it matter?
196
Post by: cuda1179
insaniak wrote: cuda1179 wrote: Trans Men and Trans Women sharing a bathroom isn't any more silly than a trans woman sharing a bathroom with a cis woman.
You know what else would be exactly the same as Trans Men and Trans Women sharing a bathroom?
Men and Women sharing a bathroom.
If race is more cultural than biology, then would a man of European decent that grew up from infancy in Africa, among Africans that treated him as an equal, be Black?
The more pertinent question would be: why does it matter?
This whole thread is about accepting people as the identity they most identify with. This really isn't that different yet there is no where near the acceptance for it. Just the duality of logic.
I would say that trans men and women sharing a bathroom isn't quite as bad as cis men and women. For starters, the population difference is far from 50-50. plus, they both kind-of have one foot on each side of the fence.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:This whole thread is about accepting people as the identity they most identify with. This really isn't that different yet there is no where near the acceptance for it. Just the duality of logic.
I've already explained why the two situations are completely different. It's interesting to me that you'd reply to insaniak's post and ignore mine with an explanation.
196
Post by: cuda1179
Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:This whole thread is about accepting people as the identity they most identify with. This really isn't that different yet there is no where near the acceptance for it. Just the duality of logic.
I've already explained why the two situations are completely different. It's interesting to me that you'd reply to insaniak's post and ignore mine with an explanation.
Some people do claim that they feel like they were born into the wrong race. They have NEVER identified with their own race. If you want another case of someone not "being born to the right body" with an actual biological link, like what you claim is needed, how about people with body integrity identity disorder? Some of these people feel like some of their limbs are not truly them, and want them amputated. We are not accepting of this behavior. We simply think it is a mental disorder......kind of like how transsexuals were once viewed.
47598
Post by: motyak
cuda1179 wrote: Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:This whole thread is about accepting people as the identity they most identify with. This really isn't that different yet there is no where near the acceptance for it. Just the duality of logic.
I've already explained why the two situations are completely different. It's interesting to me that you'd reply to insaniak's post and ignore mine with an explanation.
Some people do claim that they feel like they were born into the wrong race. They have NEVER identified with their own race. If you want another case of someone not "being born to the right body" with an actual biological link, like what you claim is needed, how about people with body integrity identity disorder? Some of these people feel like some of their limbs are not truly them, and want them amputated. We are not accepting of this behavior. We simply think it is a mental disorder......kind of like how transsexuals were once viewed.
Just to be clear, are you saying we should go back to the 'good ol days' where we classified a whole bunch of stuff as a mental illness just because we didn't understand it? A whole bunch of stuff that now we know most certainly isn't?
74210
Post by: Ustrello
 motyak wrote: cuda1179 wrote: Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:This whole thread is about accepting people as the identity they most identify with. This really isn't that different yet there is no where near the acceptance for it. Just the duality of logic.
I've already explained why the two situations are completely different. It's interesting to me that you'd reply to insaniak's post and ignore mine with an explanation.
Some people do claim that they feel like they were born into the wrong race. They have NEVER identified with their own race. If you want another case of someone not "being born to the right body" with an actual biological link, like what you claim is needed, how about people with body integrity identity disorder? Some of these people feel like some of their limbs are not truly them, and want them amputated. We are not accepting of this behavior. We simply think it is a mental disorder......kind of like how transsexuals were once viewed.
Just to be clear, are you saying we should go back to the 'good ol days' where we classified a whole bunch of stuff as a mental illness just because we didn't understand it? A whole bunch of stuff that now we know most certainly isn't?
The good old days where women were diagnosed with hysteria and sent to get hysterectomys
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:Some people do claim that they feel like they were born into the wrong race. They have NEVER identified with their own race.
And? We know that those claims are not plausible, regardless of how sincere they are.
If you want another case of someone not "being born to the right body" with an actual biological link, like what you claim is needed, how about people with body integrity identity disorder? Some of these people feel like some of their limbs are not truly them, and want them amputated. We are not accepting of this behavior. We simply think it is a mental disorder......kind of like how transsexuals were once viewed.
The very obvious difference is that someone who believes they shouldn't have legs is going to be at a significant functional disadvantage if their wish is granted. You can look at that situation and say very clearly that they'd be better off if they could fix their mental "map" of their body and accept it with everything intact. But with transgender people we can't say that they're better off in their current body. The changes they seek are all superficial ones, with little or no functional impact. They aren't going to be disabled and unable to walk, for example, they're just going to look different.
The other relevant issue here is that gender is a massive part of how we define ourselves. If you change a person's mental gender you're changing who that person is, so trying to treat their gender identity issues as a mental illness is getting dangerously close to "killing" the old person and overwriting it with a new one. So ideally you want to keep their identity intact and fix their body to match it. But things like "how many limbs do I have" are much less likely to be a core part of a person's identity, and getting someone to accept their existing body in that case is a lot less likely to involve serious re-writing of who they are.
196
Post by: cuda1179
No, I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many people's beliefs.
No solution to the trans issues will please everybody. I don't feel that Trans people should be excluded, and the world needs to bend a little for them. On the other hand I don't feel like the rest of the world need to go completely out of their way to accommodate them, just reasonable accommodation.
Fix bathrooms so they are more private and I'm fine with any trans person using them. If a trans person is fully reassigned, I'm fine with them using communal showers.
I just think that it is reasonable to ask them to NOT expose themselves until the transition is complete. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:No, I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many people's beliefs.
Except there is no hypocrisy. Why do you keep ignoring the posts where I have pointed out the significant difference between the two situations? If two cases are fundamentally different then it is not hypocrisy to have different answers for each case.
No solution to the trans issues will please everybody.
Well yes, this is obvious. No solution is going to please the people who think that transgender people are filthy sinners who should be killed and sent to their eternal torture in hell. The real question is now how to please everyone, it's why we should give a  about the people a given solution doesn't please.
196
Post by: cuda1179
Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:Some people do claim that they feel like they were born into the wrong race. They have NEVER identified with their own race.
The very obvious difference is that someone who believes they shouldn't have legs is going to be at a significant functional disadvantage if their wish is granted. You can look at that situation and say very clearly that they'd be better off if they could fix their mental "map" of their body and accept it with everything intact. But with transgender people we can't say that they're better off in their current body. The changes they seek are all superficial ones, with little or no functional impact. They aren't going to be disabled and unable to walk, for example, they're just going to look different.
The other relevant issue here is that gender is a massive part of how we define ourselves. If you change a person's mental gender you're changing who that person is, so trying to treat their gender identity issues as a mental illness is getting dangerously close to "killing" the old person and overwriting it with a new one. So ideally you want to keep their identity intact and fix their body to match it. But things like "how many limbs do I have" are much less likely to be a core part of a person's identity, and getting someone to accept their existing body in that case is a lot less likely to involve serious re-writing of who they are.
Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:No, I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many people's beliefs.
Well yes, this is obvious. The real question is now how to please everyone, it's why we should give a about the people a given solution doesn't please.
I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cuda1179 wrote:Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.
At this point I'm not sure what argument you think you're having. I never said that people with BID should not be allowed to have the option of removing their unwanted body parts (as if such a law would be ethical or enforceable). I simply pointed out that there are differences between gender identity issues and BID, so the two situations don't necessarily have the same answers.
I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.
Yes, this is the exact same logic. That was the whole point here. No solution can possibly please everyone because some of the positions are mutually contradictory. The question then becomes which group gets to be left unhappy. And there is a pretty compelling argument that transgender people should not be that group, while there isn't much of an argument for caring what the "Jesus hates you, burn in hell" crowd has to say about anything.
196
Post by: cuda1179
Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.
At this point I'm not sure what argument you think you're having. I never said that people with BID should not be allowed to have the option of removing their unwanted body parts (as if such a law would be ethical or enforceable). I simply pointed out that there are differences between gender identity issues and BID, so the two situations don't necessarily have the same answers.
I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.
Yes, this is the exact same logic. That was the whole point here. No solution can possibly please everyone because some of the positions are mutually contradictory. The question then becomes which group gets to be left unhappy. And there is a pretty compelling argument that transgender people should not be that group, while there isn't much of an argument for caring what the "Jesus hates you, burn in hell" crowd has to say about anything.
Frankly I'd say that one person having discomfort by having to shower by themselves is much less of an evil than an entire room of women feeling discomfort from having an exposed penis flopping around in front of them.
I would like to say that I DO NOT think that a trans person should be forced to change or shower with a gender that they don't think they are. That would be cruel.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
cuda1179 wrote: Peregrine wrote: cuda1179 wrote:Many people with BID have "forced" the amputation issue by starting it themselves. Afterwards most of them have reported a drastic increase in their long term self image and happiness. As long as they are consenting, informed adults and are aware of their reduced ability why should they not have that option? I would say that these self-inflicted wounds should not be able to get handicapped status though. Some might argue that having or not having legs or and arm is every bit as much an issue to how these people "define" themselves as trans people. People with BID do suffer from identity issues and that is part of the problem.
At this point I'm not sure what argument you think you're having. I never said that people with BID should not be allowed to have the option of removing their unwanted body parts (as if such a law would be ethical or enforceable). I simply pointed out that there are differences between gender identity issues and BID, so the two situations don't necessarily have the same answers.
I hate to point this out.....but this is the exact same logic used by people that want trans school students to use the "nurse bathroom" or "outside changing area" instead of changing with the cis girls. This is a solution to the problem as well, but just not good enough to please trans people that sue for discrimination.
Yes, this is the exact same logic. That was the whole point here. No solution can possibly please everyone because some of the positions are mutually contradictory. The question then becomes which group gets to be left unhappy. And there is a pretty compelling argument that transgender people should not be that group, while there isn't much of an argument for caring what the "Jesus hates you, burn in hell" crowd has to say about anything.
Frankly I'd say that one person having discomfort by having to shower by themselves is much less of an evil than an entire room of women feeling discomfort from having an exposed penis flopping around in front of them.
I would like to say that I DO NOT think that a trans person should be forced to change or shower with a gender that they don't think they are. That would be cruel.
Oh boy, here we go again. It is more of an "evil" to have a transgender person shower alone because an entire group of women feel discomfort, because there is no evidence to show that transgenders use the bathroom to perform sexual attacks on people. That comes out of peoples prejudice towards transgenders. So are we letting prejudice or facts dictate the laws being made?
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?
Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.
That is a basic human right, if you ask me.
76278
Post by: Spinner
 TheMeanDM wrote:The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?
Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.
That is a basic human right, if you ask me.
That's a really great argument for locker rooms with private changing areas for everyone. I don't want to walk into a locker room and get a surprise look at anyone's junk.
The concept always struck me as odd, really. "Here! We've made a nice separate area for you to change in! By the way, it's a big communal thing. Go ahead and drop trou next to that old guy right there!"
63000
Post by: Peregrine
TheMeanDM wrote:Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.
That is a basic human right, if you ask me.
Well, I really don't want to be exposed to the genitalia of other men in a *locker* room, so all other men must be banned from my locker room. Women are fine though, I guess.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.
What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
cuda1179 wrote: feeder wrote: cuda1179 wrote:
So what if it was a photoshop? The point still stands that a VAST majority of transsexuals are NOT passable in any way. I could have done better, but looking for a bad Let's ensure we steer clear of offensive language, thanks pic that wasn't NSFW was kind of hard.
So your point is there is transwomen out there that are still fairly masculine? Is that it? I'm struggling to understand. You're only okay with transpersons if they are cute enough for you?
edit: derp fix
The argument was made that women would be extremely uncomfortable with very manly looking (in other worded VERY passable) trans-men being forced into the ladies locker rooms. I'm just saying that the number of trans-people that look as convincing as those shown are fairly slim. The number of extremely passable trans-men is less than the number of non-passable trans women. If we are setting the standards of who-goes-where, then I say go with option that causes the least panic, even if it is imperfect.
What you're saying here is that you believe you can identify trans people on sight.
Here's the thing: If a transgender person is passing, you don't notice at all. You don't have a trans-dar or special ability.
You could, and will have, met trans women and men that you didn't spot.
Saying more fail to pass than succeed is absolutely impossible to prove.
But don't let me stop you from making up statistics.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
TheMeanDM wrote:The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?
Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.
That is a basic human right, if you ask me.
Maybe look the other way?
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
TheMeanDM wrote:The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?
Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.
That is a basic human right, if you ask me.
Listen man, if you don't want to see it, don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to look. Pretty easy concept.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Better not go to a gym ever then because you will see enough wrinkly units to scar you for life.
91
Post by: Hordini
TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
If you're that concerned about it, I would recommend not taking yourself or your children into a locker room. Locker rooms are for changing.
76278
Post by: Spinner
TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Again. Great argument for a changing/locker room that has private areas for everyone, as well as private showers. I'm all for it! Let's lobby for that!
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Do not want your kids to see other peoples genitals, don't take them to places where they can see other peoples genitals.
I am just a simple man, somebody hangs dong and I look the other way.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.
What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.
So? Sexism is also prevalent in the global majority of countries, that does not make it good.
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
And marginalising an already vulnerable group rather than face answering a few awkward questions from your own kids, is no solution either.
Also I query why any children would be both fixated by and terrified of said genitals. Unlike adults, they have to be taught that those are naughty parts.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Your boy likes looking at penises?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ashiraya wrote: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.
What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.
So? Sexism is also prevalent in the global majority of countries, that does not make it good.
you are getting on a holier than thou shtick when you are the minority. careful with that. the rest of the world is going the other way.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.
What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.
I don't have a source, but I'm feeling pretty safe saying that you are completely wrong.
The majority of the world has no qualms with nudity the way we do.
91
Post by: Hordini
Frazzled wrote: Ashiraya wrote: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:To be fair, if the United States would somehow manage to join the rest of the western world when it comes to attitude about nudity we wouldn't have any of these problems.
What if the western world joins the rest of the world about nudity? Your views are incthe minority around the globe.
So? Sexism is also prevalent in the global majority of countries, that does not make it good.
you are getting on a holier than thou shtick when you are the minority. careful with that. the rest of the world is going the other way.
Since when have we cared which way the rest of the world was going?
37231
Post by: d-usa
The majority hates America, maybe frazzled wants us to hate America too?
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
The daughter of America’s most famous evangelical preacher has claimed that God let the September 11 attacks happen because he was angered by transgender people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/god-let-911-happen-in-anger-at-transgender-silliness-says-americ/
Whoops.
Paired with the fact gay weddings cause floods I'm surprised that there are any landmasses left intact.
99
Post by: insaniak
TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Yeah, I think your 'right' to not see naked people goes away when you walk into a room designed for people to take their clothes off in...
39550
Post by: Psienesis
TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Show me in the Constitution where you are expressly, or even by implication, given that right.
76278
Post by: Spinner
Today I learned that Billy Graham's daughter believes God would rather pull for suicide-bombing terrorists than transgender people who need to take a leak.
What an interesting theological viewpoint. You know, I'm pretty sure the suicide-bombing terrorists have the same thought!
On a slightly lighter note, I like how some people think God's a bored sadist playing a Sims game. "Okay...okay, cool, they're making computers or some crap, whateveWHAT? They're getting gay married? Where's the toggle for that - oh, screw it. I'll just play with the weather slider and cause a few floods every time it happens. They'll figure it out."
196
Post by: cuda1179
 Psienesis wrote: TheMeanDM wrote:So you are willing to disenfranchise me and my kids' right to not be exposed to genitalia that we don't want to see (especially my kids at this point in life) because we should just look thenother way.....great argument. I will be sure to use that next time.
Show me in the Constitution where you are expressly, or even by implication, given that right.
The courts have rules that a combination of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments together create a right to privacy without undue burden. A great many people in this country would consider that and undue burden. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Dreadwinter wrote: TheMeanDM wrote:The same can be said for your argument, Dreadwinter...are you letting facts direct your argument or emotion?
Plain and simple, no person should be forced to be exposed to the genitalia of anyone they do not wish to be in view of while in a *locker* room.
That is a basic human right, if you ask me.
Listen man, if you don't want to see it, don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to look. Pretty easy concept.
I've debated this concept with people in person before, including some pretty hard-core feminists. After they claim this I ask if they truly believe it. When they affirm that they do I challenge them to change their cloths and take a communal show WITH ME. They have all either stormed off or acted repulsed. I guess they really can't put their money where their mouth is.
|
|
