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.

 Laughing Man wrote:

So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.

Let's put something into perspective. Yes, it's illegal. You, me, or any rational person could see this.

The area in which I live has quite a few progressive persons. Which is fine, it's a decent mix.

But these guys- all it would take is talking to the right people, claiming the stories are fabrications to persecute them. Claim that any 'protrusions' were their bodies adjusting to their new clothing.
Have you paid attention to some of the crazies on the internet these days, out hunting their next little fix for their 'outrage fetish'? It's a big thing. And the people who write about it make good money doing so. They catch wind of this 'persecution', and now my city is flooded with angry protestors. The internet is awash accusing people of bigotry. Stupidity goes full blast.

Back to square one.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.

Let's put something into perspective. Yes, it's illegal. You, me, or any rational person could see this.

The area in which I live has quite a few progressive persons. Which is fine, it's a decent mix.

But these guys- all it would take is talking to the right people, claiming the stories are fabrications to persecute them. Claim that any 'protrusions' were their bodies adjusting to their new clothing.
Have you paid attention to some of the crazies on the internet these days, out hunting their next little fix for their 'outrage fetish'? It's a big thing. And the people who write about it make good money doing so. They catch wind of this 'persecution', and now my city is flooded with angry protestors. The internet is awash accusing people of bigotry. Stupidity goes full blast.

Back to square one.

And your evidence for this ever happening is...?

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.

Let's put something into perspective. Yes, it's illegal. You, me, or any rational person could see this.

The area in which I live has quite a few progressive persons. Which is fine, it's a decent mix.

But these guys- all it would take is talking to the right people, claiming the stories are fabrications to persecute them. Claim that any 'protrusions' were their bodies adjusting to their new clothing.
Have you paid attention to some of the crazies on the internet these days, out hunting their next little fix for their 'outrage fetish'? It's a big thing. And the people who write about it make good money doing so. They catch wind of this 'persecution', and now my city is flooded with angry protestors. The internet is awash accusing people of bigotry. Stupidity goes full blast.

Back to square one.

And your evidence for this ever happening is...?

He told you, where he lives in Texas with his South Korean flag it's happened. That's evidence.

 Laughing Man wrote:

And your evidence for this ever happening is...?

Wasn't a city nearby where you live in flames a couple of years ago, because people didn't want to wait for the facts... or didn't like the facts when they came out?

There's my evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
[

He told you, where he lives in Texas with his South Korean flag it's happened. That's evidence.

Military stationed in South Korea, temporarily. Yes. I am a native Texan and will return to Texas soon. Is this the basis for your argument?

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 motyak wrote:
[

He told you, where he lives in Texas with his South Korean flag it's happened. That's evidence.

Military stationed in South Korea, temporarily. Yes. I am a native Texan and will return to Texas soon. Is this the basis for your argument?

No, but "X city had a riot therefore I'm correct" is hopefully not the basis of yours...

 motyak wrote:


No, but "X city had a riot therefore I'm correct" is hopefully not the basis of yours...

As an Australian, I don't expect you to fathom the stupidity of large numbers of low-information American outrage fetishists. It's sort of becoming an issue here. People find something to get pissed off about, lose their cool and go full spaghetti, and the details and facts aren't even out before there's conflict and mayhem of some sort. It gets to be annoying, there's knee-jerk 'solutions' and in the end it becomes a divisive issue that shouldn't have ever been an issue.

Do I expect a riot over a few perverts? Of course not. Do I expect unwarranted outrage, and yet another misguided attempt to stereotype a city or state based on one particular event? Well, yeah. Happens every day.

Don't get me wrong, if you read the substance of my post- my point was 'this isn't one-sided', and 'I understand the concerns of other people'. I'm by far no fool- I do realize a child is much, much more likely to be victimized by a parent, relative, neighbor, or schoolteacher than some transgendered person taking a piss.

The counter for this issue is to basically be honest with people. The bathroom isn't a social area. If someone, regardless of the equipment between their legs, harasses you- then it's harassment plain and simple. Transgender acceptance is a relatively new thing in the US. And some people- let's be clear- are a bit uncomfortable around what they perceive to be 'a guy in a dress'. Most people think 'drag queen'- and let's admit, they do play on the dramatic aspects of it for kicks and that can disturb some people.

EDIT:

I can give you an example of how this occurred in Australia a few years ago, with low-information outrage.

An Australian gay couple was in the news, because one of them was being deported back to Pakistan. Apparently, this was 'horrible treatment of homosexuals' by 'bigots in Australian government'. People were signing petitions, launching massive tirades about how terrible these homophobes were...

In the end, the guy from Pakistan had never finished filling out all of his paperwork to stay in the country. He just didn't do it. That's all it was.

Does this 'pervert pretending to be transgender' have any basis in reality? I mean, for real. It seems like people are just trying to find something to be scared of/outraged over, which is a thing of monstrous irony since it is what they are accusing the opposition of.

More importantly, even if it did, harassment is harassment whether you're transgender or not. The comparison to banning gay men from men's bathrooms because they could go there to check out hot guys is an apt one.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Does this 'pervert pretending to be transgender' have any basis in reality? I mean, for real. It seems like people are just trying to find something to be scared of/outraged over, which is a thing of monstrous irony since it is what they are accusing the opposition of.

More importantly, even if it did, harassment is harassment whether you're transgender or not. The comparison to banning gay men from men's bathrooms because they could go there to check out hot guys is an apt one.

Which is something I've stated clearly. And you'll also notice I said it was far more likely to occur with a parent, teacher, relative, etc. than some random stranger in a public bathroom where they are much more likely to be caught.

Does the incident have basis in reality? Well, considering that it occurred... I'd say so. I would say those people I know that had to deal with it shouldn't be invalidated. The experience bothered them, but since it isn't 'common'... should we just completely disregard them?

It doesn't just have to happen, it has to happen to a realistic enough degree for the actions taken to prevent it to be at all reasonable compared to the problems said actions will create.

There was a man who was struck by lightning seven times in his lifetime, only to have an eighth strike his gravestone, but this is not something anyone else has to really factor in in their burial plans even if I am sure it caused much discomfort to the undertaker.

You will also forgive me if I have some doubt for your personal anecdote given that it seems like a very unlikely thing to happen.

 Ashiraya wrote:
It doesn't just have to happen, it has to happen to a realistic enough degree for the actions taken to prevent it to be at all reasonable compared to the problems said actions will create.

There was a man who was struck by lightning seven times in his lifetime, only to have an eighth strike his gravestone, but this is not something anyone else has to really factor in in their burial plans even if I am sure it caused much discomfort to the undertaker.

You will also forgive me if I have some doubt for your personal anecdote given that it seems like a very unlikely thing.

Not to get on someone else's bandwagon, but the same logic when applied to banning a specific type of weapon is met with disgust and outrage.

And your doubt, or belief thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the reality of it. And it isn't completely unheard of, either...

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/man-undresses-in-front-of-girls-in-seattle-locker-room-cites-gender-identity-regulation/

But hey, it doesn't happen often. Let's ignore that, right?

Maybe also this one.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault

Perverts gonna perv, breh.

I also must admit, it's a bit comical when someone who appears to be somewhat progressive is now on the side of 'not believing' when a woman is sexually harassed.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Not to get on someone else's bandwagon, but the same logic when applied to banning a specific type of weapon is met with disgust and outrage.

And your doubt, or belief thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the reality of it. And it isn't completely unheard of, either...

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/man-undresses-in-front-of-girls-in-seattle-locker-room-cites-gender-identity-regulation/

But hey, it doesn't happen often. Let's ignore that, right?

Once is not indicative of a trend.

Maybe also this one.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault

Wow, two whole times, two years apart, and in different countries.

Stop drilling you've struck oil!

Perverts gonna perv, breh.

Astute observation, you'll fit in nicely here!

I also must admit, it's a bit comical when someone who appears to be somewhat progressive is now on the side of 'not believing' when a woman is sexually harassed.

You're new here so save your concern trolling for elsewhere.

Let's not equate disbelief in personal anecdotes with blaming the victim, hardly a constructive way to argue your points.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Once is not indicative of a trend.

Wow, two whole times, two years apart, and in different countries.

Stop drilling you've struck oil!

So, it's rare. That means no one should be concerned about it. Screw the victims. When there's more, you can give a damn. If that's how you see things, I won't be attempting to sway your mentality. Unfortunately, 'one time' is significant enough to warrant someone's concern being placed at ease.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Astute observation, you'll fit in nicely here!

Actually, it's starting to seem like it'd be easier to do this if I didn't think for myself and just desperately try to be a contrarian for everything.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You're new here so save your concern trolling for elsewhere.

And I'm new here, so I don't particularly understand your definition of 'trolling', but I can understand if someone having an opinion you dislike is bothersome for you. Many people who lack maturity and think little for themselves have difficulty accepting their narrative being trampled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Let's not equate disbelief in personal anecdotes with blaming the victim, hardly a constructive way to argue your points.

Oh? Seems to be working with the 'Rape Culture' cult.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Let's not equate disbelief in personal anecdotes with blaming the victim, hardly a constructive way to argue your points.

Oh? Seems to be working with the 'Rape Culture' cult.

Considering it's already illegal to put on a dress in order to facilitate shaking your peen at someone in public, there is no reason to remove protections for people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons.

Passing legislation protecting people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons also doesn't extent that protection to people putting on a dress in order to facilitate shaking their peen at someone in public.

So there is really no purpose in using perverts in an argument against protections for LGBT people.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Oh? Seems to be working with the 'Rape Culture' cult.

I...can't help but feel that you're bringing feelings in from somewhere else, when I was commenting on this thread.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Let's not equate disbelief in personal anecdotes with blaming the victim, hardly a constructive way to argue your points.

Oh? Seems to be working with the 'Rape Culture' cult.

My question for you is this: At what point have my points been indicative that someone should be 'punished', and not 'inform all sides and hear their concerns'? You seem more desperate to lash out at an argument I'm not making. You're disregarding the concerns of the other side and attempting to mock them, rather than have dialogue. With that attitude, don't expect things to get better.

I don't see where you've been punished. That account hasn't received any warnings or suspensions, you haven't done anything to be removed from the off topic section so you are still here 'voicing your concerns'. I'm just not sure where this feeling of persecution sprung up from, unless you're bringing it from elsewhere/other times on the internet?

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it's already illegal to put on a dress in order to facilitate shaking your peen at someone in public, there is no reason to remove protections for people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons.

Passing legislation protecting people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons also doesn't extent that protection to people putting on a dress in order to facilitate shaking their peen at someone in public.

So there is really no purpose in using perverts in an argument against protections for LGBT people.

Noted in my original post, I stated that not all of them were like this. I simply stated that it was a concern for some people. You can say 'there is no merit to the argument', but demonstrably some individuals have exploited the law. Does that mean the others should be punished? No. They are innocent people.

For some people, this can be a concern. Slinging mud at someone with a concern is far less effective than a dialogue, and usually tends to make things even worse. Take the climate change argument for example- many rabid deniers are only deniers because when they asked for 'proof' and 'solid information' they were called 'stupid Teabillies'.

When people have a concern, it should be addressed.

"Hey, if you're worried about this happening, go with your kids. Teach them what to do if ANYONE tries to touch them or something."

"If you don't want to change in front of people ask for a private stall."

"The solution could be resolved by making all stalls 'boxed' so everyone can have a bit of privacy."

Again, I go to the bathroom to push one out or drain my bladder. Personally, I don't care of there's a silverback gorilla in the next stall breastfeeding a koala bear.

Actually, I do. I want a picture.

But regardless- people tend to get defensive and ignore legitimate concerns that may bother some people and lash out, rather than having dialogue. Look, I personally have no dog in the fight. But you can keep lashing out, and it's not going to make the other side any more welcoming to the idea.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

I don't see where you've been punished. That account hasn't received any warnings or suspensions, you haven't done anything to be removed from the off topic section so you are still here 'voicing your concerns'. I'm just not sure where this feeling of persecution sprung up from, unless you're bringing it from elsewhere/other times on the internet?

Oh, I think there's miscommunication. Let me clarify:

"I am not saying transgendered people should be punished for these concerns. I am saying that the people with concerns should be heard and a discussion should be made, rather than making this issue even more divisive."

Better?

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Noted in my original post, I stated that not all of them were like this. I simply stated that it was a concern for some people. You can say 'there is no merit to the argument', but demonstrably some individuals have exploited the law.

Perverts and exhibitionists who have purposefully exposed themselves have been able to successfully exploit laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination to get away with it?

An issue I'm taking with 'it's rare'....

Well, so are terrorist attacks on American soil, right? They happen... but not very often. Yet people have concerns about them. So, you put them at ease.

"You're more likely to be killed by a domestic criminal."

"It's rare, but if you see something suspicious you should do X, Y, Z..."

"There have only been X attacks on American soil, and generally they target Y and Z."

Those people who are scared don't feel better if you accuse them of being bigots that hate Muslims.

The issue at hand is, as I've said- low-information people. Grandma that believes everything in the Facebook feed. Billy that's never lived in a major city before. Little Susie that doesn't know how to research statistics and information quite yet.

You don't combat low-information reactionaries with vitriol, you win with information.

I mean, for example- I thought Age of Sigmar was awful until a few hours ago when I found out it was easy to familiarize yourself with all the armies because war scrolls are free. Now I'm considering a boxed set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Perverts and exhibitionists who have purposefully exposed themselves have been able to successfully exploit laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination to get away with it?

Yes. Individuals see those stories and panic. They worry. Some mom doesn't want her small daughter traumatized. Some people are scared of this sort of thing happening.

I mean, it has happened. Demonstrably. Whether it's common or not isn't the issue, it's that it has happened. Most people just simply need assurances, and let's be completely honest: "Have faith in humanity" isn't really reassuring right now.

You have linked two stories.

One of those stories includes the person being arrested and charged, because what he did was a crime regardless of any laws protecting LGBT from discrimination. Turns out that assaulting people is illegal if you are a man, or a woman, or a man pretending to be a woman, or a man pretending to be transgender, or any combination of anything.

The other article also doesn't serve as an example of someone getting away with it due to these laws. As per the article:

On Monday, Feb. 8, around 5:30 p.m., an individual, a young adult, came into the pool lobby, paid the fee for lap swim, and went into the woman’s locker room to change. At no time did he verbally “identify” as female. Staff didn’t see which locker room he entered as it was a busy time of day with a lot of swimmers coming and going. Previous to lap swim time at the pool was a local youth swim team practice. After lap swim was another children’s swim time.

Seeing this individual in the locker room, parents of swim team members (girls) and women who had paid for lap swim became alarmed and alerted our front desk staff. In response, an Evans pool staff member entered the women’s locker room and asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room. Other patrons were also offered the alternative of the family changing room. He eventually left the women’s locker room. After the lap swim, he again entered the women’s locker room to change. Front desk staff again asked him to leave and he eventually did.

This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was “identifying” as a woman. We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities.”

He was kicked out of the locker room, twice. At no point did he use laws protecting LGBT as an excuse, and at no point did laws protecting LGBT result in people allowing him to continue.

So in the end, you have yet to provide an example where someone got away with it because of those laws. There is no reason to restrict protections for LGBT because people somewhere are afraid that perverts are going to get away with being perverts.

 d-usa wrote:
You have linked two stories.

One of those stories includes the person being arrested and charged, because what he did was a crime regardless of any laws protecting LGBT from discrimination. Turns out that assaulting people is illegal if you are a man, or a woman, or a man pretending to be a woman, or a man pretending to be transgender, or any combination of anything.

The other article also doesn't serve as an example of someone getting away with it due to these laws. As per the article:
.....

He was kicked out of the locker room, twice. At no point did he use laws protecting LGBT as an excuse, and at no point did laws protecting LGBT result in people allowing him to continue.

So in the end, you have yet to provide an example where someone got away with it because of those laws. There is no reason to restrict protections for LGBT because people somewhere are afraid that perverts are going to get away with being perverts.

And that's a fair point, but let's look at the context with a different subject entirely:

A man buys an AR-15 and shoots a bunch of people. He does not get away with it. But the damage has been done, right?

Now, some would say "Well, that's no reason to ban AR-15's for everyone, this was a rare case". And they'd be right, to a degree.

But, when the damage is done- people prefer preventive measures to reactive measures... if those measures are possible.

No, they didn't get away with it. They shouldn't have gotten away with it. But the damage is already done to a victim. That's what 'Grandma' sees in her facebook feed, and she wants to know 'how are you going to prevent this from happening again?"

And as I've said before, the response is "Grandma- this isn't really a crime that's exclusive to transgenders. They're more likely to be the victims by a long shot. A guy in the bathroom in a dress harassing a child is no different than a woman in a bathroom in a dress harassing a child. This isn't a cause for panic, but these rare cases are newsworthy because they're rare. You just need to talk to little Johnny or little Suzie about how to deal with strangers when something like this happens so she doesn't develop this irrational fear of a transgendered person."

But, "Stop being stupid about this, it won't happen, it is not cause for concern" is not reassuring to these people. It's brushing off their fears. It's invalidating them, when showing them information and educating them- addressing their concern- is much more effective.

At the end of the day, your objective should be resolution and peacekeeping, not looking for a platform to call someone intolerant and treat their experiences or fears like they aren't valid.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You have linked two stories.

One of those stories includes the person being arrested and charged, because what he did was a crime regardless of any laws protecting LGBT from discrimination. Turns out that assaulting people is illegal if you are a man, or a woman, or a man pretending to be a woman, or a man pretending to be transgender, or any combination of anything.

The other article also doesn't serve as an example of someone getting away with it due to these laws. As per the article:
.....

He was kicked out of the locker room, twice. At no point did he use laws protecting LGBT as an excuse, and at no point did laws protecting LGBT result in people allowing him to continue.

So in the end, you have yet to provide an example where someone got away with it because of those laws. There is no reason to restrict protections for LGBT because people somewhere are afraid that perverts are going to get away with being perverts.

And that's a fair point, but let's look at the context with a different subject entirely:

A man buys an AR-15 and shoots a bunch of people. He does not get away with it. But the damage has been done, right?

Now, some would say "Well, that's no reason to ban AR-15's for everyone, this was a rare case". And they'd be right, to a degree.

But, when the damage is done- people prefer preventive measures to reactive measures... if those measures are possible.

No, they didn't get away with it. They shouldn't have gotten away with it. But the damage is already done to a victim. That's what 'Grandma' sees in her facebook feed, and she wants to know 'how are you going to prevent this from happening again?"

And as I've said before, the response is "Grandma- this isn't really a crime that's exclusive to transgenders. They're more likely to be the victims by a long shot. A guy in the bathroom in a dress harassing a child is no different than a woman in a bathroom in a dress harassing a child. This isn't a cause for panic, but these rare cases are newsworthy because they're rare. You just need to talk to little Johnny or little Suzie about how to deal with strangers when something like this happens so she doesn't develop this irrational fear of a transgendered person."

But, "Stop being stupid about this, it won't happen, it is not cause for concern" is not reassuring to these people. It's brushing off their fears. It's invalidating them, when showing them information and educating them- addressing their concern- is much more effective.

At the end of the day, your objective should be resolution and peacekeeping, not looking for a platform to call someone intolerant and treat their experiences or fears like they aren't valid.

Care to elaborate how any of that has anything to do at all with legislation preventing discrimination of LGBT people?

Edit: After rereading that entire post again I want to clarify the argument again.

The argument is not "it's rare", the argument is "the laws have nothing to do with the crime that is rare to begin with".

 d-usa wrote:


Care to elaborate how any of that has anything to do at all with legislation preventing discrimination of LGBT people?

It was the same discussion in a different context. Take your time reading it.

Allow me to frame my argument in an even simpler way.

-I am not arguing against any law that protects LGBT persons. I support them.

-I understand people who have concerns about this, and believe those concerns should be addressed instead of attacking these people.

-Just because it's 'rare' doesn't mean it is invalid, it won't happen again, or isn't worth consideration.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Care to elaborate how any of that has anything to do at all with legislation preventing discrimination of LGBT people?

It was the same discussion in a different context. Take your time reading it.

I have, and it still makes no sense to me.

If you could do without the whole "guns" thing, which has nothing to do with anything here, and explain how passing laws that have nothing to do with exposing yourself to anyone have anything to do with perverts exposing themselves to people, that would be great.

If you could go as far as providing a single source for your claim that people have actually used these laws to commit crimes and got away with it, that would be even better.

And just for fairness I will post my argument again:

Edit: Saw your edit.

I usually don't shoot people down. I do try to point out when people make an argument that equates perverts with transgender people, but often that equation is the result of a poorly worded argument and not an intend to say that transgender people are perverts. I think some of your earlier posts felt like you may have been equating those two, but you have clarified your posts IMO so I don't think that you are trying to do that.

And I honestly don't try to use the "it's rare" argument. But I do try to point out that if someone tries to exploit laws protecting LGBT laws, they haven't been successful because these laws don't protect criminals. I might mention that it is rare, but it will always be in conjunction with "it's a rare instance, but it's an instance that is still illegal regardless of the law".

Laws protecting LGBT from discrimination have nothing to do with people committing crimes, because the laws don't protect criminals committing crimes.

 d-usa wrote:


I have, and it still makes no sense to me.

If you could do without the whole "guns" thing, which has nothing to do with anything here, and explain how passing laws that have nothing to do with exposing yourself to anyone have anything to do with perverts exposing themselves to people, that would be great.

If you could go as far as providing a single source for your claim that people have actually used these laws to commit crimes and got away with it, that would be even better.

And just for fairness I will post my argument again:

Laws protecting LGBT from discrimination have nothing to do with people committing crimes, because the laws don't protect criminals committing crimes.

And I will post mine again. I will elaborate just a bit.

-There is no problem with a law that allows transgenders to use a bathroom or changing room.

-Some folks are concerned that sexual predators will attempt to exploit this to watch girls change, etc.

-While this is -possible-, and some have attempted it before- addressing this concern (as you did- 'it's still illegal to do pervert stuff, no matter your gender identity') is more productive than just shouting these people down as intolerant bigots.

-Shouting them down adds fuel to the fire.

-At the end of the day, a parent that doesn't feel comfortable having their daughter change in front of a stranger with a penis is a valid concern of that parent. The option for private changing booths should be available.

I saw your post above and edited mine, so please see above.

I think we are mostly on the same page now.

 d-usa wrote:
I saw your post above and edited mine, so please see above.

I think we are mostly on the same page now.

I got the feeling you were thinking that I was saying:

"What about perverts that go in there wearing dresses just to watch girls change?"

My statement was, "Hey, things like this have happened and it scares people, that's why things like this get push-back."

Like I said, man- there's this dude and a couple of his friends that do that near where I live. They just lurk in public bathrooms like that, it makes people uncomfortable. And yes, chances are- they're just perverts and probably also mentally ill vagrants, maybe even addicts (I'd love to get my phone sent over and show a picture, you'd agree that something other than gender identity is at play here- but that'd be kinda wrong). People say something, and eventually someone will handle it, but in the area it's almost kind of a running joke. Some ladies will be like, "Well, come with me to the bathroom just in case our Divas are in there."

The problem is, you bring the issue up around some folks, and you get the loaded reaction: "Who are you to determine that they aren't really identifying as women?", or "Is it illegal to sit in a restroom? Maybe it's where they feel safe!", and other things such as "Not everyone can fit your standards for what a woman looks like!"

It's kinda one of those things you have to take a breath and be careful. The police don't want to bring undue attention on the city for this and get people riled up. To a certain degree, their hands are tied because they can't legally tell these guys to 'go somewhere else'... and they have to actually 'do' something to get arrested. IMHO, it's probably more of a mental health issue than a legal one.

Considering that we've got plenty of Transgendered people in town, none of which have been anything short of cool, fun people- it's certainly not a 'transgendered' issue, but I can see how someone who hasn't been around them before would see the weirdos in the bathrooms and get uncomfortable about the laws.

 Jihadin wrote:
Bran. That's totally excusable. I did the same to coming back from South Korea and hitting Seattle. Was a knee grabber and felt like I hovered off the lid four inches for seconds at a time

Oh yeah, how big was he? You little peeker you!

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
It doesn't just have to happen, it has to happen to a realistic enough degree for the actions taken to prevent it to be at all reasonable compared to the problems said actions will create.

There was a man who was struck by lightning seven times in his lifetime, only to have an eighth strike his gravestone, but this is not something anyone else has to really factor in in their burial plans even if I am sure it caused much discomfort to the undertaker.

You will also forgive me if I have some doubt for your personal anecdote given that it seems like a very unlikely thing.

Not to get on someone else's bandwagon, but the same logic when applied to banning a specific type of weapon is met with disgust and outrage.

And your doubt, or belief thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the reality of it. And it isn't completely unheard of, either...

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/man-undresses-in-front-of-girls-in-seattle-locker-room-cites-gender-identity-regulation/

But hey, it doesn't happen often. Let's ignore that, right?

Maybe also this one.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault

Perverts gonna perv, breh.

I also must admit, it's a bit comical when someone who appears to be somewhat progressive is now on the side of 'not believing' when a woman is sexually harassed.

In addition to what the others said while I slept, you are posting a very biased source on the Seattle case that is getting key facts wrong.

Allow me to post a source that does not.

http://www.transadvocate.com/colleen-francis-and-the-infamous-evergreen-state-college-incident_n_10765.htm

So, you have not even given us two anecdotes, just one.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.

I was in Germany with a school trip in the mid 90s and I discovered that their pools, or at least the on one Oberstdorf, had a mixed open plan changing room. An interesting experience for a 14 year old.

Germany (and most of Europe, and Asia, actually) seems to be a lot less backwards than the UK/US when it comes to decency. Nudity is perfectly acceptable, it's a normal natural thing after all. Violence is heavily censored, because it's an awful thing. Being a Brit I'm not the most comfortable in open changing rooms due to 30 years of conditioning, but the way the rest of the world handles it makes perfect sense.

I've used mixed-gender bathrooms with minimal hassle, including a few with urinals (it takes a few seconds to get over the confusion of there being women in there), and a few urinals that aren't exactly discrete (from personal experience there are plenty in Poland and pretty much every other one in Japan where you're side on to the door if there even is a door). You just realise that seeing someone pee isn't a big deal and get on with it (after being desperate enough, and twisting away from the crowds).

There's nothing stopping you having urinals in cubicles either, even if they are longer versions of the dividers with no door. It's probably worth having both for the water saving (seems to be the norm in Poland).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Armiger wrote:

Like I said, man- there's this dude and a couple of his friends that do that near where I live. They just lurk in public bathrooms like that, it makes people uncomfortable. And yes, chances are- they're just perverts and probably also mentally ill vagrants, maybe even addicts (I'd love to get my phone sent over and show a picture, you'd agree that something other than gender identity is at play here- but that'd be kinda wrong). People say something, and eventually someone will handle it, but in the area it's almost kind of a running joke. Some ladies will be like, "Well, come with me to the bathroom just in case our Divas are in there."

Wouldn't they be just as much of a nuisance if they were actually female though? Would that nuisance actually decrease if it was mixed gender?

You've got a problem with some people being inappropriate around other people, why not try and address it like that? If you suspect the problem involves drugs and the people are potentially dangerous, maybe an attendant is required, or making police reports that don't start with "There's a man in a dress in ladies bathrooms".

Your new immigrants may redefine what is "backwards" and appropriate.

Everything changes. Europe is changing to.