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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, being nekkid in a locker room is flashing?
BRB, I got some lawsuits to file.

Wait... you're seeing bewbs and vajayjay in your lockers now?

Damn... I was born too soon.

 whembly wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, being nekkid in a locker room is flashing?
BRB, I got some lawsuits to file.

Wait... you're seeing bewbs and vajayjay in your lockers now?

Damn... I was born too soon.

No, they are still segregated locker rooms.

I'm pretty sure the reason this got voted down is because it gives special rights to a certain group. If it was just about opposing transgender folks then I don't think those speaking against the bill would have gained much traction. As it stands, use of restrooms is based on physical gender. While this may put transgender people in a tough spot, there isn't much of an alternative at the moment since there is not an objective way to prove one's mental gender (that I know of). So ultimately it allows transgender individuals to use both restrooms based on which categorization they use, which amounts discrimination against everyone else. I understand that is not WHY there is an effort to allow them into the restroom of the gender they identify with, and I think that is the right way to go, but as of now there simply isn't a fair way to go about it. Sometimes we have to play with the hand we are dealt, even if it sucks. And say say that knowing personally how much these sorts of things can suck, if not the transgender situation specifically.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, being nekkid in a locker room is flashing?
BRB, I got some lawsuits to file.

Are If you are naked in front of an unwilling female thats either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm pretty sure the reason this got voted down is because it gives special rights to a certain group. If it was just about opposing transgender folks then I don't think those speaking against the bill would have gained much traction. As it stands, use of restrooms is based on physical gender. While this may put transgender people in a tough spot, there isn't much of an alternative at the moment since there is not an objective way to prove one's mental gender (that I know of). So ultimately it allows transgender individuals to use both restrooms based on which categorization they use, which amounts discrimination against everyone else. I understand that is not WHY there is an effort to allow them into the restroom of the gender they identify with, and I think that is the right way to go, but as of now there simply isn't a fair way to go about it. Sometimes we have to play with the hand we are dealt, even if it sucks. And say say that knowing personally how much these sorts of things can suck, if not the transgender situation specifically.

Don't think it was an issue in the first place, thats why I am not seeing the reason for a bill or special protection-which means mandates and that all important lucrative lawsuit.

But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.

Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?

The bill itself was very broad and covered many different areas and offered protection from discrimination for many different groups in many different areas: apartments not rending to you because you are gay, getting fired for being transgender, etc etc etc.

Some of the opponents went with the "this bill will allow men to lie about being transgender and force your daughters to be naked around them while they flash them", and used the "think of the children" tactics to drive voters against this bill.

Transgender people and public bathrooms was a very small part of that bill, but it is a controversial topic that will raise passions on both sides. All other discrimination issues in the bill were just caught in the crossfire.

Perhaps they should have put the bathroom portion in a separate bill so it would not have sunk the other portions?

 d-usa wrote:
The bill itself was very broad and covered many different areas and offered protection from discrimination for many different groups in many different areas: apartments not rending to you

Do the apartments have to roll a 6+ for rending?

 CptJake wrote:
Perhaps they should have put the bathroom portion in a separate bill so it would not have sunk the other portions?

I think this is what should have been done, and is what should be done now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.

Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?

So, a trans-guy being naked in a locker room is considered flashing. Besides, last time I checked, in high-school locker rooms you tend not to actually naked, but in underwear.
You are making some mental back-flips to criminalize being nekkid in a locker room. Now can I get people in trouble in the boys locker room if they are nekkid, they are flashing me after are.

 CptJake wrote:
Perhaps they should have put the bathroom portion in a separate bill so it would not have sunk the other portions?

I honestly don't know if there was an actual bathroom portion in the bill or if opponents just took a general "can't discriminate against transgender" portion and then used that as "that means that they can't keep men pretending to be women out of your daughters locker rooms", which wouldn't surprise me.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.

Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?

So, a trans-guy being naked in a locker room is considered flashing.
No its considered at least a criminal misdemeanor FORM OF ASSAULT. This is not hard.

Besides, last time I checked, in high-school locker rooms you tend not to actually naked, but in underwear.

How do you know? Are you a woman? or are you once again speaking from your font of great knowledge from...what again?

You are making some mental back-flips to criminalize being nekkid in a locker room. Now can I get people in trouble in the boys locker room if they are nekkid, they are flashing me after are.

I've not seen statutes where revealing your male genitalia to other males in a gym setting would be considered a crime.

I thought you had sisters, yet seem not to care a whit about their rights.

Frazzled is just gonna Frazzle.

When he starts to argue that 97% of the US population are criminals you should just walk away.

We all know this, so why are you encouraging him?

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Perhaps they should have put the bathroom portion in a separate bill so it would not have sunk the other portions?

I honestly don't know if there was an actual bathroom portion in the bill or if opponents just took a general "can't discriminate against transgender" portion and then used that as "that means that they can't keep men pretending to be women out of your daughters locker rooms", which wouldn't surprise me.

It was in the bill. It was then taken out, but then the mayor followed up with a tweet saying taking it out didn't really matter.

What killed this was the antics of the mayor. She tried to subpoena the sermons of multiple churches and that took this from a "no one cares or notices" ordnance to become a big deal. She essentially lost because of the inner city African American vote came out against her on the issue. Turner the new African American mayor who will win the runoff, could re institute the bill with a tweek like the Plano bill and no one would care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Frazzled is just gonna Frazzle.

When he starts to argue that 97% of the US population are criminals you should just walk away.

We all know this, so why are you encouraging him?

I am not arguing 97% of the population are criminals. I'm arguing the rights of women are being trampled on by the proposed ordnance, which in any other scenario would be crusaded against. But the proponents are telling them to sit down and shut up. Just look away, its your fault.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.

Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?

So, a trans-guy being naked in a locker room is considered flashing.
No its considered at least a criminal misdemeanor FORM OF ASSAULT. This is not hard.

Besides, last time I checked, in high-school locker rooms you tend not to actually naked, but in underwear.

How do you know? Are you a woman? or are you once again speaking from your font of great knowledge from...what again?

You are making some mental back-flips to criminalize being nekkid in a locker room. Now can I get people in trouble in the boys locker room if they are nekkid, they are flashing me after are.

I've not seen statutes where revealing your male genitalia to other males in a gym setting would be considered a crime.

I thought you had sisters, yet seem not to care a whit about their rights.

I have one sister, who is with me on this.

Is your sister a fish in high school?

A fish?
No she is human, and in college with me....sadly.....

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They still turned down the rights for people to use the bathroom they feel like. A very real issue for many trans-people. Its part of their transistion.

Why do you hate democracy again?

I dont hate democracy. I just dont think basic rights should be up to vote.

Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont hate democracy. I just dont think basic rights should be up to vote.

And the rights of women not to be assaulted, to be allowed the dignity of modesty and not be visually assaulted?

So Trans people dont deserve rights? Even to safety(Which this is also about, if a trans-person is seen using the wrong bath-room, they can often get harassed or even assaulted. its happened here in cali before


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont hate democracy. I just dont think basic rights should be up to vote.

And the rights of women not to be assaulted, to be allowed the dignity of modesty and not be visually assaulted?

They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.

You sure like your hyperbole. I like you we went from "not allowed to use the opposite gender's locker room" to "they are not allowed any rights".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.

Dear lord. My brain hurts.

I do think. for trans gender people, using the appropriate bathroom is a serious issue for them.

We have reached the usual genitals = gender deadlock, Frazzled arguing that somebody changing in a locker room is a criminal, this thread is only going to end in red text so we should just shut it down while we are ahead.

For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The bill itself was very broad and covered many different areas and offered protection from discrimination for many different groups in many different areas: apartments not rending to you

Do the apartments have to roll a 6+ for rending?

dont even need to role, it auto rends with instant death eviction

 Sigvatr wrote:
For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?

So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........

They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.

Thats an interesting sentence.