General Trans bathroom thread, incl. target, federal involvement and more

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.

**agnosto**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
agnosto wrote:
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/02 15:02:09

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.

**Ashiraya**

Yeah no, sorry, those things are not really an option.

**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In other news, did this actually pass and is the original law repealed or is it still pending?

**Buttery Commissar**

agnosto wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
agnosto wrote:
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/02 15:02:09

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.

**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.

**Buttery Commissar**

Here's the interview: https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-sandy-rios-may-2-2016

**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.

**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.

**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

**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

Spoiler:

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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...

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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...

**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.

**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.

**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.