Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry, I'm doing something else, and can't multitask. I'm a serial tasker.

Not true. I posit you can walk your dogs and yell at kids at the same time.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry, I'm doing something else, and can't multitask. I'm a serial tasker.

Not true. I posit you can walk your dogs and yell at kids at the same time.

Technically I have to stop so I can properly wave my cane in their direction.

Prestor Jon wrote:


A better version of HB2 would have been a simple bathroom safety act that reaffirms the criminalization of dangerous predatory inappropriate behavior in bathrooms. That should have been enough to assuage the concerns of people upset with the Charlotte ordinance.

I like this very much!

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


What about single fathers with a daughter or single mothers with a son? Do you make exceptions for children? If so, how does that translate to a school? What about people born with both? Do they get to pick and choose or do they just deal with it?

No, making something "P" and "V" is not the solution.

If you have to split hairs about an adult taking a young child to the bathroom or the extraordinarily small population of hermaphrodites, I think there is a much larger issue at hand. Many time Laws have circumstances for which they can be bent and I don't think we can have much of a dispute that either of those things are the extreme exception and not what these new Bathroom laws are about.

You can come up with extreme examples all you like (the plight of the hermaphrodite population for example), but the fact of the matter is that those situations you describe do not apply here. They aren't part of the argument. If they were such a problem, why were they not addressed by other Laws in the past?

Your opinion and mine differ. No worries.

I am sorry, if hermaphrodites and transsexuals are not part of the argument about bathrooms, what is the argument then? I am confused, I was of the understanding that this law was to force people to use the bathroom that other people think they should use, not the one they feel they should use.

Explain to me how they do not apply here, please.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I am sorry, if hermaphrodites and transsexuals are not part of the argument about bathrooms, what is the argument then? I am confused, I was of the understanding that this law was to force people to use the bathroom that other people think they should use, not the one they feel they should use.

Explain to me how they do not apply here, please.

One has both genitalia, the other does not. As explained there are exceptions to every rule. The hermaphrodite is the extreme exception. The transsexuals are also the exception, but they want to be made the rule. Changing laws to suit a very few is difficult. The transsexual community is learning this.

I don't want my pre-teen daughter in a bathroom alone with someone with mature male parts or being forced to change in a locker room with a someone with male equipment. If someone happens to have both parts, that's a bit of a different story.

I don't remember this being a problem in the Hermaphrodite population. Do you?

You also did not approach my comment about a parent taking a young child of opposite sex to the the bathroom.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I am sorry, if hermaphrodites and transsexuals are not part of the argument about bathrooms, what is the argument then? I am confused, I was of the understanding that this law was to force people to use the bathroom that other people think they should use, not the one they feel they should use.

Explain to me how they do not apply here, please.

One has both genitalia, the other does not. As explained there are exceptions to every rule. The hermaphrodite is the extreme exception. The transsexuals are also the exception, but they want to be made the rule. Changing laws to suit a very few is difficult. The transsexual community is learning this.

I don't want my pre-teen daughter in a bathroom alone with someone with mature male parts or being forced to change in a locker room with a someone with male equipment. If someone happens to have both parts, that's a bit of a different story.

I don't remember this being a problem in the Hermaphrodite population. Do you?

You also did not approach my comment about a parent taking a young child of opposite sex to the the bathroom.

Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else? Now, this was not a problem for the Hermaphrodite population until this specific thing happened. It was fine before, not so much now. That is why you are having trouble remembering.

Also, I did not approach your comment about a young child of opposite sex in the bathroom because you kind of really didn't make one. All you said was "there are exceptions" and then went on about hermaphrodites.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else?

You lost me. I don't think any female should be forced to have someone with male equipment use the same bathroom as her in any situation. If they have both genitals, that's a whole different story. I'm not sure how you can equate the two, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else?

You lost me. I don't think any female should be forced to have someone with male equipment use the same bathroom as her in any situation. If they have both genitals, that's a whole different story. I'm not sure how you can equate the two, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

I lost you? I cannot describe to you how confused I am about what you just said.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else?

You lost me. I don't think any female should be forced to have someone with male equipment use the same bathroom as her in any situation. If they have both genitals, that's a whole different story. I'm not sure how you can equate the two, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

This is a bit of a red herring. In my entire life I've never seen anyone else's junk in a public washroom. I know it's there, but it's always in a stall or in in the urinal. Is waving your parts around a thing where you live?

LMAO, dude...

You brought up "what about someone born with both". That's what a hermaphrodite is. Someone born with both male and female genitalia.

You also responded to my post about name bathrooms "P" and "V"and that that wasn't the solution to the bathroom problem.

I am saying that no female should be forced to be in the bathroom with someone with male parts. This is what the transgender population wants is it not?

If you have a "P", you use the "P" bathroom. If you have a "V" you use the "V" bathroom.

This is the internet. If you disagree with this premise, no amount of explanation by me is going to get you to change your mind and vis-a-versa. We have a different opinion and that's okay.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

This is a bit of a red herring. In my entire life I've never seen anyone else's junk in a public washroom. I know it's there, but it's always in a stall or in in the urinal. Is waving your parts around a thing where you live?

That's not the point at all, LOL. Never mind.

It is becoming clear to me that you do not really understand the argument here.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:
It is becoming clear to me that you do not really understand the argument here.....

Perhaps. Explain away!

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
It is becoming clear to me that you do not really understand the argument here.....

Perhaps. Explain away!

I tried a couple times already.

Your argument is that you absolutely do not want anybody with male genitalia in the same restroom/changing room as your daughter. Hermaphrodites can have both. But for some reason they are alright. I do not understand why they are alright and what makes then acceptable here.

Over here in Europe-shire we have toilet cubicles with locks on them. It allows people to excrete-discrete, saving the embarrassment of stray genitalia being on display.

How would anyone know what's down below when there's a locked door in the way? Silliness.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[Hermaphrodites can have both. But for some reason they are alright. I do not understand why they are alright and what makes then acceptable here.

Which I've also explained a few times. You don't get it. I don't get it. It's cool.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[Hermaphrodites can have both. But for some reason they are alright. I do not understand why they are alright and what makes then acceptable here.

Which I've also explained a few times. You don't get it. I don't get it. It's cool.

When did you explain it? The only thing you said was "If they have both, its fine with me" then never went in to detail as to why that is fine.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Great. You're forcing surgically altered trans-men (that is, X-X but with a penis) to use the women's room.

How many of these surgically altered trans-men are there? In a city of a few million, maybe a handful?

We should no longer call bathrooms "Men's" and "Women's". We should call them by their gender anatomy. "P" and "V". Problem solved. Whichever one of those two you currently have, that's where you go to do #1 and #2.

This idea falls short, regardless of intention, when it comes to those Ps and Vs.
As I said on the previous page, we are accustomed to thinking of "completed transition" and "sex change" are a set point in progression - tick boxes: hormones, top and bottom surgery.
Here's the kicker - it isn't always the case. No, I'm not one of the people who can name 35 variations (in fact my tumblr is almost entirely baking photos, sci fi and dinosaurs)...

But I'm saying that we can never pretend that physical or chemical alterations will biologically alter a person. With that in mind, it's not for us, or popular view, to set when somebody reaches personal completion. It is widely variable. I can't pretend I know the statistics, but I know personally about a 50-50 split of people who aim for 'the works" or are content without. Surgery in the basement is not a requisite to be a "fully" transitioned man or woman, if that particular person is happy.*

Plus, 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.

Education and being less fething interested in other people's business would be the ideal answer. But the world is what it is.

*I do realise some states(?) and countries only recognise a full transition and gender record change, after certain physical alterations.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Over here in Europe-shire we have toilet cubicles with locks on them. It allows people to excrete-discrete, saving the embarrassment of stray genitalia being on display.

How would anyone know what's down below when there's a locked door in the way? Silliness.

I don't get it either. America needs to chill out. Are rapists waiting in bathrooms a serious issue?

But seriously, cubicles. You could be peeing out of your nose and nobody would know.

Just make all toilets unisex, problem solved.

So, it seems to me, what the lawmakers needed to do before making this bill is some adequate Requirements Capture.

I think the biggest issue here is that trans are being conflated with perves.

Does pervy things happen? Of course.

The problem with NC's law is that it was already illegal to do these pervy things. Maybe the argument should stick with the concern that the Charllote's regulation gave an overt permission for some to go into the opposite sex facilities, and that the "get out of jail" card is simply stating "I feel like I'm the" opposite sex??!?!

My head is starting to hurt over this...

However, I will add that there's an element of SJW-ish reaction to the plight of trans...

Instead of trying to brow-beat everyone over it, use it a teaching opportunity.

Otherwise, stubborn people will simply just dig in.

A better approach for trans supports... maybe... is to try to get the ADA updated to force every public places to have single-use private bathrooms for all.

Here's a guide to gender symbols that can be used on toilets in future to denote who can use them.



Let's keep it relevant to the thread, I don't know if the above is accurate or mocking but the rest of this post served no purpose, motyak

Okay now I have to add this because with the deletion of the satire, the meaning of the post has been changed.

There are too many different 'classifications' to go trying to segregate people into groups for separate bathroom arrangements.

They looks like runes from a fantasy.

Lol dont be Agener 2 otherwise you will never be able to enter the bathroom

 Goliath wrote:
So in this bill we have provisions blocking an increase to the minimum wage, provisions specifically intended to feth over LGBT* people and in particular trans people, and a block on paid sick leave requirements.

Well done NC, you're acting like a bunch of fething morons.

well, only most of us

More Republican Politicians Than Trans People Have Been Arrested For Sex Acts In Bathrooms

Patheos via Terra Firm:

All the recent political and social commotion about transgender people and bathrooms is even sillier when you look at the numbers. How many trans people have been arrested for sex acts in bathrooms? As best as we can tell, zero.

How many GOP politicians? At least three.

Via Deadstate, which got it from Dan Avery at NewNowNext:

According to Media Matters, there haven’t … been any reports of men ‘pretending’ to be transgender to gain access to women’s spaces and commit crimes against them. You know who have been arrested in public bathrooms for sexual misconduct?Republican politicians.

Without even diving too deep, we found three GOP legislators who were picked up for lavatory indiscretions.

Their names: Larry Craig (pictured), Jon Hinson, and Bob Allen.