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.

Erm...no you are still wrong. The electoral college and the elections does not equal a straight up yes or no poll.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
As far as "majority" goes:

Presidents have been elected with *less* than a 50% majority popular vote.

Majority does not necessarily equal 50%. Yes, a simple majority does...but its not always that simple.
(Bush v Gore, Clinton v Dole, Clinton v Bush, Nixon v Humphrey....as examples)

IIRC, the term there is plurality... It is the largest single portion of a given population without being the majority.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.

So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?

Yes, that is exactly what can happen. Right now they can be charged with lewd behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Tell me, what "crime" have trans people committed that we need to legislate against them going to the bathroom?

Other Non-Transgenders have committed crimes claiming they are Transgender. That has spoiled the outcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
D-USA,

In one of your previous posts, I believe you said that maybe I'm a rapist.

Ad Hominem attack incarnate.

Are you a male capable of having an erection who is physically able to overpower women?

Doesn't that fit your own definition of the type of person that is a potential threat to women?

Sir, you called me a potential rapist. I have nothing further to discuss with you.

He just used your own definition of a potential rapist on you and found you met the definition. If that bothers you maybe you should stop accusing all transgenders of being potential rapists.

And I would say that ALOT would change for women especially if laws are changed, d-usa.

Right now, if they see some shady looking dude dressed as a lady *go into* a locker room or bathroom...women who have concerns can report him. Managment/police come and they can investigate.

If you make access open and easier, same shady dude looking like a lady can freely come and go and nobody can complain about him because "I feel like a woman today".

Guess what I am trying to say, simply, is that right now problems can be more easily prevented, reported, and investigated because biological men are not supposed to be in the biological female areas....women are more on guard when they see a dude like that enter their space (in my opinion).

Ok, I just want to know something....
People here are honestly arguing that
1: Allowing men into womens bathrooms will result in more rapes of women.
2: A child seeing the genetalia of the opposite sex will scar them for life.
my respone
1: Ummm, why are you not concerned for the opposite? Men raping boys?
2: What damn locker rooms where adults change with the kids?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, I just want to know something....
People here are honestly arguing that
1: Allowing men into womens bathrooms will result in more rapes of women.

(I have never said that..that is Md)

2: A child seeing the genetalia of the opposite sex will scar them for life.
(Extreme over generalization and never once did I say or infer that)

my respone
1: Ummm, why are you not concerned for the opposite? Men raping boys?
2: What damn locker rooms where adults change with the kids?

you pretty much said you think your 12 yr old daughter will be scarred for seeing a penis.

Sure you didn't say it but you heavily implied it DM

No....I said that adolescents are already dealing with enough bodily, hormonal, emotional changes of their own...on top of all the sexuality that society throws upon them.

I never inferred any such "scarring"...not once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You want to say I inferred it because it supports your position...but that is dirty pool and a misrepresentation of what I actually DID say and have clarified any number of times.

 TheMeanDM wrote:


If you make access open and easier, same shady dude looking like a lady can freely come and go and nobody can complain about him because "I feel like a woman today".

Of course they could still complain.

The street out front of my house is a public space. I can still call the police to come and check out someone 'shady-looking' loitering out there.

Allowing people to use the bathroom doesn't negate anyone's right to report anything dodgy.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
No....I said that adolescents are already dealing with enough bodily, hormonal, emotional changes of their own...on top of all the sexuality that society throws upon them.

I never inferred any such "scarring"...not once..

Ok, than tell me this.
What do you think will happen to your 12yr if you think she sees a penis?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
No....I said that adolescents are already dealing with enough bodily, hormonal, emotional changes of their own...on top of all the sexuality that society throws upon them.

So you are afraid a girl can't handle the slim chance of a woman in the woman's bathroom that has a penis...

But see no problem with the a confused, pubescent boy seeing a woman in the man's bathroom where he will undoubtedly be paying attention to an 'out of place' person, and then being 'confused' or 'having sex thrown upon him' by seeing a woman with a penis... That is just fine for you?

Again, you seem to be thinking possibly seeing a genital as having sexuality 'thrown' onto them when that is not the case at all... If you want to reduce the exposure, then people should go into the bathroom where they are inconspicuous as no one will see their genitals as no one is expecting to see anything different.

This has always been a non-issue. This is so bigots can force transgender people all into the males bathroom where they can be victims of harassment and abuse. They don't want 'male-looking females' in the women's room, they don't want penises in the women's room. They want them all in the men's room where they can get what they deserve. Violence against transgenders is supported by statistics... unlike strangers raping children in bathrooms which is not supported. Parents and family members are more likely to rape their own children than a stranger is. Maybe we need laws to prevent parents from being in bathrooms/lockerrooms with their own kids? It follows the same logic and is actually supported by data.

I have never heard of the term "plurality" before...thanks for introducing me to that concept. I learned something new today!

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Majority_Rule.aspx

After researching that and teading more, I thought that this was interesting, and supports my idea that sometimes a majority does not necessarily = 50%:

This theory spread rapidly and became the foundation of political liberalism. Rousseau adopted it, with the important refinement that he specifically indicated that the support of more than a bare majority for all important political decisions should be insisted upon, unless the urgency of reaching a decision dictated otherwise [seeRousseau].

 TheMeanDM wrote:
As far as "majority" goes:

Presidents have been elected with *less* than a 50% majority popular vote.

Majority does not necessarily equal 50%. Yes, a simple majority does...but its not always that simple.
(Bush v Gore, Clinton v Dole, Clinton v Bush, Nixon v Humphrey....as examples)

Actually, that would be a plurality, not a majority.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Actually, that would be a plurality, not a majority.

I believe that's the case in US English. In British English, 'majority' can mean either 'more than every other group combined', or 'the largest single group within the whole'... So 40% could be a majority if no other group makes up a greater percentage.


Crops up all the time in 40K rules discussions, because GW use the word 'majority' in a way that most Americans don't...





Having said that, when used in the context here, the former meaning would be the more commonly read one.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Sir, you called me a potential rapist. I have nothing further to discuss with you.

... in this thread you literally painted any man stronger than someone else as a potential rapist.

Your arguments are some of the most bizarre I've ever seen put forth on this forum, full stop.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
If you make access open and easier, same shady dude looking like a lady can freely come and go and nobody can complain about him because "I feel like a woman today".

So what? What is this man actually going to do? Doing anything but using the bathroom/locker room normally is going to get someone called, and "I feel like a woman today" is not going to be an excuse if they're caught with a hidden camera/blatantly exposing themselves to other people/etc. So what exactly are you scared of?

I'm still very confused by this thread.

Are the current signs on bathroom and changing room doors some kind of magic sigil that keep society in check and repel ne'r do wells?

Do 'normals' keep a look out for rogue junk?

If I think of the children am I statistically more or less likely to attack them than family members or close family friends?

Does needing to number one or number two mean I am a psychopath?

As much as they claim to be trying to see an opposite point of view, they really arent, merely saying so to try and make themselves look like the good guys....nor is there any intention of compromise...it's all or nothing...to hell with the majority female population...to hell with any concerns that a parent may have....to hell with anybody that disagrees with them on any grounds, really.

This is true. LIke most issues, the vast majority are ok if everyone is accommodated, but the fanatics don't want that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You don't speak for the majority female population, nor have the majority female population actually been polled so you have no data to refer to.

So there is no pandemic of attacks in changing rooms in Europe?

There haven't been in the US either.

 d-usa wrote:
So there is no pandemic of attacks in changing rooms in Europe?

Unisex toilets, Putin playing hockey. Is there a connection???

 Frazzled wrote:
Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and SJWs have seized upon it to get their various groups angry, because we need to distract from real issues facing the US

I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and skeletons have seized upon it to get their various groups angry, because we need to distract from real issues facing the US

I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as skeleton's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.

I've got to say, I have the SJW to skeleton chrome extension installed, and this thread has been an absolute goldmine.

Either way, I would suggest that maybe my friends being treated as lesser than other citizens qualifies as a real issue for me? Just a wacky theory.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its a weird thread. Its a weird issue, and frankly an extremely rare one. Politicians and SJWs have seized upon it to get their various groups angry, because we need to distract from real issues facing the US

I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.

At the risk of derailing were these states doubly outraged at the lifting of segregation as well?
Truly I can imagine some in this thread outraged at the thought of starring at different coloured junk...

I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.

Both Houston and Charlotte passed laws mandating protections for Ts. Recent court cases also mandated that Ts could use the same locker rooms as women. The rest is politicain inspired blowback. Now the DOJ is threatening all school districts everywhere to get with the program.

Either way, I would suggest that maybe my friends being treated as lesser than other citizens qualifies as a real issue for me? Just a wacky theory.

How are they treated as less than citizens? I do note you completely ignore any concerns of women, which is joyously typical of the normal paternalistic culture. They need to just get with the program eh?

I believe this might be the first time that various conservative administrations pushing these laws have been referred to as SJW's. Truly, when I think of social justice, the first states that come to mind are Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and so on.

At the risk of derailing were these states doubly outraged at the lifting of segregation as well?
Truly I can imagine some in this thread outraged at the thought of starring at different coloured junk...

I do not believe Arizona, Nevada, or South Dakota ever had Jim Crow segregation. Its like, someone made a statement before looking at a map.

 Frazzled wrote:

Either way, I would suggest that maybe my friends being treated as lesser than other citizens qualifies as a real issue for me? Just a wacky theory.

How are they treated as less than citizens? I do note you completely ignore any concerns of women, which is joyously typical of the normal paternalistic culture. They need to just get with the program eh?

Funny you should mention that considering in this case I was talking about an FtM friend, so he would be going into the Mens' toilets. So I guess in that case it's pretty okay to ignore the concerns of women, because they're entirely uninvolved with the process!

As to the "treated less than other citizens" point, when was the last time you had to justify to strangers as to why you wanted to use a specific toilet? When was the last time that thousands of people (including those on this forum) referred to you as part of a group of objects rather than a group of people (specifically the use of the term "it")? When was the last time that you had to completely update all of your documentation to match your legal name-change, only to have people randomly refer to you using your old name? Have people asked you which genitals you have recently? Advocated that you should have your children confiscated? Argued that you caused 9/11 because god was angry at your existence?

To try and argue that trans people are treated as equal to everyone else either in the eyes of the law or the general population is, quite frankly, laughable.

if she FTM is she comfortable going into a men's locker room?

When was the last time you had a schlong and wanted to change in the women's locker room?

 Frazzled wrote:
if she FTM is she comfortable going into a men's locker room?

When was the last time you had a schlong and wanted to change in the women's locker room?

Okay, I specifically used the pronoun "HE", as in, HE would be using the MEN's toilets. He identifies as a dude, so he would, I assume, be more comfortable using the men's toilets than going into the women's whilst presenting as a guy.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make with that second sentence.

I've not wanted to change in the women's locker room, because I was born as, and identify as, a guy. I have a dick, I use the men's toilets/locker room/whatever.

 Goliath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
if she FTM is she comfortable going into a men's locker room?

When was the last time you had a schlong and wanted to change in the women's locker room?

Okay, I specifically used the pronoun "HE", as in, HE would be using the MEN's toilets. He identifies as a dude, so he would, I assume, be more comfortable using the men's toilets than going into the women's whilst presenting as a guy.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make with that second sentence.

I've not wanted to change in the women's locker room, because I was born as, and identify as, a guy. I have a dick, I use the men's toilets/locker room/whatever.

*Its not difficult. Did your friend, while still having female parts, use the men's locker room in a school?

*Why are you ok with someone who still has male parts, using the female locker room in a school?

I could care less what restroom they use, thats up to them. The issue I have for consideration is locker rooms, primarily in public schools which are open environments for changing and showering, and nonvoluntary.