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.

Asterios wrote:
I'm getting tired when i'm at a concert using the urinal in a men's restroom and a bunch of women rush into one of the stalls :p

happens more times then you would imagine.

When I was in college women would use the men's restroom all the time, including for showers, they basically just picked whichever one was closest to their dorm room. During my senior year the school even started allowing cohabitation in suites.

 Alpharius wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But did they rape you?

no but it is disconcerting when I'm trying to use the facilities and the opposite sex comes rampaging in, I like my privacy, but on the other hand I don't care if gay males are in the same facilities I'm in, go figure.

Why would that even be an issue?

Girls are icky? Duh.

They also have cooties!

 dogma wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I'm getting tired when i'm at a concert using the urinal in a men's restroom and a bunch of women rush into one of the stalls :p

happens more times then you would imagine.

When I was in college women would use the men's restroom all the time, including for showers, they basically just picked whichever one was closest to their dorm room. During my senior year the school even started allowing cohabitation in suites.

well see that is the issue I have, i have no problem with men and women sharing the showers, but consider the bathroom different.

Asterios wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But did they rape you?

no but it is disconcerting when I'm trying to use the facilities and the opposite sex comes rampaging in, I like my privacy, but on the other hand I don't care if gay males are in the same facilities I'm in, go figure.

Why would that even be an issue?

because it is.

Stop the presses! We have a winner! That is right. You sir, have just won best argument of the millennium award.

Back to reality, why is it a problem? They aren't staring at on your swinging manhood (unless you turn around and gyrate), they are just in there to enter a closed stall, relieve themselves, wash their hands (hopefully), and then leave. Nowhere in this process do either of you have to interact with each other or even acknowledge the other party's existence.

Alpharius wrote:Why would that even be an issue?

They don't belong there.

It's really that simple.

Reasons why this is so:

Reason 1: The sign on the bathroom door says "men," and that person who just walked in is not a man. This is the bathroom equivalent of someone running a stop sign.

Reason 2: It's socially taboo, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "custom has the force of law."

Reason 3: It's clearly improper. Bathrooms, even involving closed stalls, involve semi-nude persons. As such, it is only proper that there be gender-segregation in such cases so as to guard against (among other reasons) our animal concupiscence. Furthermore, these semi-nude persons are committing acts which appertain to their vegetative nature (namely, excretion of waste), the observation of which only serves to lower the personal respect due to persons of the opposite gender.


Related to the last line of what I just wrote:

Reason 4: It just ain't chivalrous.

The entrance of a homosexual into a bathroom does not violate 1, 2 or 4, but it does violate 3.

The entrance of a transgendered person into a bathroom which does not correspond to his or her biological sex/gender (I simply deny the psychological/sociological distinction between them) violates all 4.

So using that logic Unisex toilets are an abomination because humans are sex driven animals who might not be able to control their urges and poop (even though they're in closed stalls you can't look into unless you're trying to) is icky.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So using that logic Unisex toilets are an abomination because humans are sex driven animals who might not be able to control their urges and poop (even though they're in closed stalls you can't look into unless you're trying to) is icky.

What do you mean by unisex toilets? In a broad sense, every bathroom in the average household in a unisex toilet. I assume that when you were a child, you used the same bathroom as, say, your mother.

Not, of course (I assume), at the same time.

This is generally what the term "unisex" bathroom evokes for Americans. There is a single bathroom which facilitates a single occupant at a time.

I find no difficulty with this, nor do such bathrooms violate any of the reasons I set out earlier.

Unless you mean, by "unisex bathroom," bathrooms in which persons of any gender may "do their business" at the same time, yes, I consider such things to be positively "out of the question," based on all of the reasons I've set out earlier.

Just for starters, it's completely heterodox. It's just not a thing. The suggestion that it even should be a thing is counter-cultural, counter-historical and, in a word, ideologically revolutionary (I don't mean this in any "good" sense).

 Traditio wrote:
Reason 1: The sign on the bathroom door says "men," and that person who just walked in is not a man. This is the bathroom equivalent of someone running a stop sign.

So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous, the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.

Reason 2: It's socially taboo, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "custom has the force of law."

So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.

Reason 3: It's clearly improper. Bathrooms, even involving closed stalls, involve semi-nude persons.

Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people. Unless you're being creepy and looking under doors (followed shortly by being removed from the bathroom and likely subject to criminal charges) you just aren't going to see anything very interesting.

As such, it is only proper that there be gender-segregation in such cases so as to guard against (among other reasons) our animal concupiscence.

Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation, or do you have something else in mind here? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're arguing, and that argument simply does not match reality.

Furthermore, these semi-nude persons are committing acts which appertain to their vegetative nature (namely, excretion of waste), the observation of which only serves to lower the personal respect due to persons of the opposite gender.

Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?

The entrance of a transgendered person into a bathroom which does not correspond to his or her biological sex/gender (I simply deny the psychological/sociological distinction between them) violates all 4.

You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Reason 1: The sign on the bathroom door says "men," and that person who just walked in is not a man. This is the bathroom equivalent of someone running a stop sign.

So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous, the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.

what if there is a sign that says mens restroom and other one says womens restroom?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Reason 2: It's socially taboo, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "custom has the force of law."

So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.

So what if child molesters demand the right to be with kids under 18? or 15? or if sexual devients want to be with Animals, or if blood brother and sister want to marry? transgenders were lumped into these same categories, so why shouldn't they be allowed their rights?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Reason 3: It's clearly improper. Bathrooms, even involving closed stalls, involve semi-nude persons.

Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people. Unless you're being creepy and looking under doors (followed shortly by being removed from the bathroom and likely subject to criminal charges) you just aren't going to see anything very interesting.

actually i've seen a few restrooms where the stall doors were removed so privacy was not really an option, furthermore urinal stalls are not private.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
As such, it is only proper that there be gender-segregation in such cases so as to guard against (among other reasons) our animal concupiscence.

Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation, or do you have something else in mind here? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're arguing, and that argument simply does not match reality.

i'm not under the illusion of men will run in and rape women, albeit will only take one to make this whole affair turn ugly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Furthermore, these semi-nude persons are committing acts which appertain to their vegetative nature (namely, excretion of waste), the observation of which only serves to lower the personal respect due to persons of the opposite gender.

Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?

women in general do not like to share bathrooms with strange men.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
The entrance of a transgendered person into a bathroom which does not correspond to his or her biological sex/gender (I simply deny the psychological/sociological distinction between them) violates all 4.

You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.

its simple, ya got tally wacker you are male, if you have a wahoo you are a female(words changed to avoid issues of using genital specific terms), if you have both, you are a hermaphrodite and can use which ever bathroom you choose since ya got both parts.

Peregrine wrote:So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous

Except, this isn't always true. Consider the following case:

It is 2 AM and nobody else is on the road. You come to a traffic light, and the light is just turning red. Coming to a complete stop, you look both ways and determine that the streets are empty, and there is no incoming traffic.

Ought you to run the red light? You might be inclined to say "yes." But the cop parked in the nearby parking lot, watching said intersection, might beg to differ.

the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.

Signs like "STOP" and "Men" and "Don't walk on the grass" indicate publicly expressed norms which are intended to be followed.

Insofar as a woman just walked into the men's bathroom, she has just violated a publicly expressed norm, and this, probably intentionally (I'm assuming, of course, that she's neither blind nor illiterate).

So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.

ST I-II, q. 97, a. 3.

In order to confirm the truth of what St. Thomas Aquinas is saying, consider the fact that the speed limit sign says 70, but everybody is going at least 75, including the police officers tasked with enforcing traffic laws.

Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people.

Note the bolded. I didn't make the claim that you are here denying.

Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation

No: that would just be silly. I'm arguing that the entrance of a woman into a man's bathroom violates propriety, not public safety.

Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?

If this were another board with a more "mixed" audience, I'd propose a public poll.

"Are you pathologically disposed in the same way to a woman pooping in the stall next to you as a man pooping in the stall next to you?"

I imagine that most people would say no.

Personally, I find both abhorrent, but the same-sex pooping to be somewhat less abhorrent than inter-sex pooping.

You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.

It's an ad hoc distinction (a distinction without a real difference) made up on the spot by relatively recent psychologists and sociologists, in large part to advance a revolutionary social/ideological agenda.

If you think that they are indisputably different, then by all means, I'm open to hearing arguments for why it's so.

Because among conservatives, they are indisputably not really different. Ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about it, for example. Or Trump.

Asterios wrote:
what if there is a sign that says mens restroom and other one says womens restroom?

What if there is? The question is "why should it matter which bathroom a person uses", not "what does the sign say". Simply pointing out that the sign saying "men" or "women" exists does not tell us why we should care that the sign exists.

So what if child molesters demand the right to be with kids under 18? or 15? or if sexual devients want to be with Animals, or if blood brother and sister want to marry? transgenders were lumped into these same categories, so why shouldn't they be allowed their rights?

WTF. Do you honestly not understand the difference between those things, or are you just trying to see how offensive you can be?

actually i've seen a few restrooms where the stall doors were removed so privacy was not really an option, furthermore urinal stalls are not private.

Yeah, that's a rather definite minority of bathrooms and I doubt many people use them willingly. And urinals are still pretty private. There's usually a divider wall between them, and from the back you can't see anything. Unless you think that people are dropping their pants entirely to use them?

i'm not under the illusion of men will run in and rape women, albeit will only take one to make this whole affair turn ugly.

Sure, it will be ugly, but what exactly do you think that bathroom laws are going to do to prevent this? Rape is already illegal, and a serious felony. If someone is willing to risk years in prison to rape a person then why exactly do you think they're going to be afraid of being punished for being in the wrong bathroom?

women in general do not like to share bathrooms with strange men.

Counter-point: you just complained about women going into the men's room and how annoying it is when that happens. So either you're lying about the complaint or there seem to be plenty of women who don't mind sharing your bathroom with you.

its simple, ya got tally wacker you are male, if you have a wahoo you are a female(words changed to avoid issues of using genital specific terms), if you have both, you are a hermaphrodite and can use which ever bathroom you choose since ya got both parts.

That doesn't have anything to do with sex vs. gender. Nor does whether a person is male or female really tell you much about which bathroom they should be in, even if you want to enforce gender segregation in bathrooms. Or do I need to go back a few pages and get those pictures of trans men (people with "wahoo"s, as you so maturely put it) who look just like any other men (complete with muscles, beards, etc) unless they take their pants off?

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:So what? The reason running a stop sign is punished is because failure to stop at an intersection is dangerous

Except, this isn't always true. Consider the following case:

It is 2 AM and nobody else is on the road. You come to a traffic light, and the light is just turning red. Coming to a complete stop, you look both ways and determine that the streets are empty, and there is no incoming traffic.

Ought you to run the red light? You might be inclined to say "yes." But the cop parked in the nearby parking lot, watching said intersection, might beg to differ.

the stop sign is simply a reminder of this fact. We don't punish it just because the poor sign might have its feelings hurt if someone doesn't pay attention to it. Same thing with bathrooms. You're going to have to do more than just point out that there's a sign on the door if you want to convince everyone.

Signs like "STOP" and "Men" and "Don't walk on the grass" indicate publicly expressed norms which are intended to be followed.

Insofar as a woman just walked into the men's bathroom, she has just violated a publicly expressed norm, and this, probably intentionally (I'm assuming, of course, that she's neither blind nor illiterate).

So what? Taboos can change, and should change in many cases. And your quote is clearly false because you can't be fined or thrown in jail for merely breaking a custom.

ST I-II, q. 97, a. 3.

In order to confirm the truth of what St. Thomas Aquinas is saying, consider the fact that the speed limit sign says 70, but everybody is going at least 75, including the police officers tasked with enforcing traffic laws.

Err, lol? I don't know what happens in the bathrooms you're in, but in every bathroom I've been in there are no semi-nude persons visible to other people.

Note the bolded. I didn't make the claim that you are here denying.

Sorry, but what? Are you repeating the absurd myth that humans are mindless sex beasts who will rape anyone they encounter if given a hint of flesh as temptation

No: that would just be silly. I'm arguing that the entrance of a woman into a man's bathroom violates propriety, not public safety.

Why is there special respect due to persons of the opposite gender that isn't due to persons of the same gender? Is it not a problem that I think "ugh, gross" about a person of the same gender doing their business in the adjacent stall?

If this were another board with a more "mixed" audience, I'd propose a public poll.

"Are you pathologically disposed in the same way to a woman pooping in the stall next to you as a man pooping in the stall next to you?"

I imagine that most people would say no.

Personally, I find both abhorrent, but the same-sex pooping to be somewhat less abhorrent than inter-sex pooping.

You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Sex and gender are indisputably two different things.

It's an ad hoc distinction (a distinction without a real difference) made up on the spot by relatively recent psychologists and sociologists, in large part to advance a revolutionary social/ideological agenda.

If you think that they are indisputably different, then by all means, I'm open to hearing arguments for why it's so.

Because among conservatives, they are indisputably not really different. Ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about it, for example. Or Trump.

Actually Trump told Jenner he/she could use his hotel bathrooms whenever, but then again think he/she got the operation so it would make her a woman then, so she can use the women's restroom then.

Asterios wrote:Actually Trump told Jenner he/she could use his hotel bathrooms whenever, but then again think he/she got the operation so it would make her a woman then, so she can use the women's restroom then.

This is news to me. At any rate, among those of you who have conservative facebook friends, especially in traditionally conservative parts of the country, I'm sure you'll find that memes protesting integrated bathrooms (especially transgendered persons going into the wrong bathrooms) have been fairly rampant.

Target is being boycotted, no?

But here, I respectfully must disagree with both you and Mr. Trump. The bathroom door says "women." Mr. Jenner is a man. "Man" and "woman" are ontological, not psychological claims. They do not express opinions, estimations or feelings about oneself. Saying "I am a man" is not like saying "I am tired" or "I am a lover of paintings." Saying "I am a man" is like saying "I am an animal" or "I am alive." Persons in persistent-vegetative states, or otherwise, asleep, do not have an ambiguous "gender-identity." Manhood or womanhood is independent of our thoughts about it.

 Traditio wrote:
Ought you to run the red light? You might be inclined to say "yes." But the cop parked in the nearby parking lot, watching said intersection, might beg to differ.

And? That's still a question of safety, not whether or not the poor red light's feelings were hurt when you didn't pay attention to it. It's much better for safety if running a red light is illegal at all times instead of allowing drivers to choose when they should stop.

Signs like "STOP" and "Men" and "Don't walk on the grass" indicate publicly expressed norms which are intended to be followed.

Insofar as a woman just walked into the men's bathroom, she has just violated a publicly expressed norm, and this, probably intentionally (I'm assuming, of course, that she's neither blind nor illiterate).

You're missing the point entirely. Obviously the sign indicates that something should happen, but the question is WHY that thing should happen. WHY is the thing the sign indicates a thing that we should want to do? Merely citing the existence of the sign is not an answer to that question.

In order to confirm the truth of what St. Thomas Aquinas is saying, consider the fact that the speed limit sign says 70, but everybody is going at least 75, including the police officers tasked with enforcing traffic laws.

And if that cop tickets you for going 71 in a 70 you're going to get laughed out of court if you try to claim "but St. Thomas Aquinas said that custom is law".

Note the bolded. I didn't make the claim that you are here denying.

Then what exactly is your point? If a person is semi-nude in an enclosed space where nobody else can see them then why does it matter who is in the surrounding space?

Personally, I find both abhorrent, but the same-sex pooping to be somewhat less abhorrent than inter-sex pooping.

And I find both abhorrent, but I don't care what gender the producer of the disgusting smells and/or sounds next door is. Perhaps this is a personal issue for you, rather than a universal truth?

If you think that they are indisputably different, then by all means, I'm open to hearing arguments for why it's so.

Simple: consider the difference between "being a male" and "being a man". Being a male is clearly a straightforward thing: check between a person's legs, run a DNA test if there's any doubt. Being a man is a much more complicated concept, involving standards for things like honor, courage, chivalry, etc. We very often say that a male person is not a man because they fail to live up to those standards. So clearly "male" and "man" can not be the same thing. And therefore sex and gender can not be the same thing.

Because among conservatives, they are indisputably not really different. Ask Rush Limbaugh what he thinks about it, for example. Or Trump.

Neither of whom are experts in any relevant scientific field. Being a raving lunatic who gets a lot of media attention does not mean that your opinions on scientific matters have any value.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
what if there is a sign that says mens restroom and other one says womens restroom?

What if there is? The question is "why should it matter which bathroom a person uses", not "what does the sign say". Simply pointing out that the sign saying "men" or "women" exists does not tell us why we should care that the sign exists.

so if a sign says authorized personal only? then we should just ignore it and go in then?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
So what if child molesters demand the right to be with kids under 18? or 15? or if sexual devients want to be with Animals, or if blood brother and sister want to marry? transgenders were lumped into these same categories, so why shouldn't they be allowed their rights?

WTF. Do you honestly not understand the difference between those things, or are you just trying to see how offensive you can be?

actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
actually i've seen a few restrooms where the stall doors were removed so privacy was not really an option, furthermore urinal stalls are not private.

Yeah, that's a rather definite minority of bathrooms and I doubt many people use them willingly. And urinals are still pretty private. There's usually a divider wall between them, and from the back you can't see anything. Unless you think that people are dropping their pants entirely to use them?

doesn't help when the sinks are across from those stalls.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
i'm not under the illusion of men will run in and rape women, albeit will only take one to make this whole affair turn ugly.

Sure, it will be ugly, but what exactly do you think that bathroom laws are going to do to prevent this? Rape is already illegal, and a serious felony. If someone is willing to risk years in prison to rape a person then why exactly do you think they're going to be afraid of being punished for being in the wrong bathroom?

look at it this way, most bathrooms in big stores are right by registers or personal are near there (more of a LP thing), they see a male go into womens restroom it will ring a bell, if the law passes they can't do anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
women in general do not like to share bathrooms with strange men.

Counter-point: you just complained about women going into the men's room and how annoying it is when that happens. So either you're lying about the complaint or there seem to be plenty of women who don't mind sharing your bathroom with you.

yes just like some men wouldn't mind rushing into a womens restroom, does not mean women want a man in their restroom.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
its simple, ya got tally wacker you are male, if you have a wahoo you are a female(words changed to avoid issues of using genital specific terms), if you have both, you are a hermaphrodite and can use which ever bathroom you choose since ya got both parts.

That doesn't have anything to do with sex vs. gender. Nor does whether a person is male or female really tell you much about which bathroom they should be in, even if you want to enforce gender segregation in bathrooms. Or do I need to go back a few pages and get those pictures of trans men (people with "wahoo"s, as you so maturely put it) who look just like any other men (complete with muscles, beards, etc) unless they take their pants off?

gender is based on what tools ya got, your sex is based on what tools ya got. males can get a woman pregnant with no outside help of any kind, females can bare children, what part of that don't you understand?

 Peregrine wrote:
Simple: consider the difference between "being a male" and "being a man". Being a male is clearly a straightforward thing: check between a person's legs, run a DNA test if there's any doubt. Being a man is a much more complicated concept, involving standards for things like honor, courage, chivalry, etc. We very often say that a male person is not a man because they fail to live up to those standards. So clearly "male" and "man" can not be the same thing. And therefore sex and gender can not be the same thing.

so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a man to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error also being a man does not guarantee you are chivalrous, nor have honor nor courage.

Asterios wrote:


women in general do not like to share bathrooms with strange men.

Yet they also keep on running into your bathroom while you are using it.

Reading your posts is like listening to Trump speak

Asterios wrote:
so if a sign says authorized personal only? then we should just ignore it and go in then?

That depends on WHY there is such a sign. Merely citing the existence of a sign tells us nothing, the reason we shouldn't go in is provided by asking what dangerous/sensitive/whatever thing exists beyond that point that justifies limiting access.

actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

doesn't help when the sinks are across from those stalls.

So what? Looking at the back of a person using a urinal in a mirror is no different from looking at them directly. And, unless people where you live are in the habit of dropping their pants entirely to use a urinal then you aren't going to see anything in either case.

look at it this way, most bathrooms in big stores are right by registers or personal are near there (more of a LP thing), they see a male go into womens restroom it will ring a bell, if the law passes they can't do anything.

...

You do realize that the biggest danger of being raped in a bathroom is when nobody is around to notice, right? Your hypothetical rapist isn't going to choose a public bathroom right next to the registers, they're going to pick an isolated spot with nobody around to hear anything and call the police.

yes just like some men wouldn't like rushing into a womens restroom, does not mean women want a man in their restroom.

...

So, women don't want a man in their restroom, but they have no problem going into a restroom with men in it. These seem to be some very confused women that you are talking about.

gender is based on what tools ya got, your sex is based on what tools ya got. males can get a woman pregnant with no outside help of any kind, females can bare children, what part of that don't you understand?

I understand that you don't seem to know the difference between sex and gender. Here's a hint: if you're talking about having children you're talking about sex, not gender.

so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a woman to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error

I said no such thing. In fact, I don't even endorse these claims about what "being a man" means. I am simply pointing out that the concept is commonly used like that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:

actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a woman to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error

I said no such thing. In fact, I don't even endorse these claims about what "being a man" means. I am simply pointing out that the concept is commonly used like that.

you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.

heres a riddle for you, wondering if you can even answer this simple riddle: a father and a son get in an accident, the father is taken to one hospital, the son is taken to another hospital, the surgeon for the son comes in and says I cannot operate on this boy he is my son. who is the Surgeon?

If you have nothing to post but snide remarks and off topic riddles, you're best off not posting. Either post on topic and politely or take a voluntary breather. Thanks

Asterios wrote:
no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.

Sorry, but posting random semi-coherent tangents and claiming victory when anyone asks what they have to do with the subject being discussed is not the same thing as winning.

you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between "people say X" and "I agree with people who say X"? At no point did I say that I agree with those concepts about "being a man", I simply stated that they are concepts that are commonly used in society (and therefore the difference between sex and gender is not one that is limited to some far-left fringe).

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.

Sorry, but posting random semi-coherent tangents and claiming victory when anyone asks what they have to do with the subject being discussed is not the same thing as winning.

you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between "people say X" and "I agree with people who say X"?

first i said what if child molesters(adults) wanted to be with young children, (under 18 and even 15) shouldn't they be allowed to since transgenders have their rights, you said they were different, but i say they are not since state law allows them to, the only way it is against the law is if certain laws are broken, but legally the federal minimum age for consent is 12, its not so different when you think about it.

you used it to defend your stance, stand by it, or don't use it, plain and simple, which is it? or are you agreeing you have a certain women are weak attitude? or that they cannot have honor? or that they cannot be Chivalrous?, or they can't do things men can do? while also stating all men do those things.

also noticed you didn't answer my riddle.

Just for those who are arguing no difference between gender and sex:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ravishly/neuroscience-proves-what-_b_6494820.html

http://www.academia.edu/7346016/What_s_in_a_Gender_Studies_of_Brain_Structure_Find_Evidence_for_Neurological_Basis_of_Transgender_Identity


Obviously, the first one being HuffPo, take with grains of salt, but there are plenty of links to follow should you wish to gain further knowledge.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:

actually as to the first part you should read some state laws, those things are actually permitted, its only when the younguns are taken across state borders it becomes an issue, furthermore the federal minimum age of consent is 12, so chew on that one, now what were you saying again?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

no, you have no answer to that obvious flaw in your thesis, you failed, game over.

One of the problems with your sentence is that it uses too many pronouns and uses unclear language. This generates confusion as we try and muddle through to what "part", "those", "some", "things", "it", and "one" are supposed to refer. Clarify your sentence first, and then it can be calmly refuted.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so a woman cannot have honor?, be courageous?, chivalrous? you mean she has to identify as a woman to have these things? you good sir are a sexist and know some women who identify as women who would like to explain to you your error

I said no such thing. In fact, I don't even endorse these claims about what "being a man" means. I am simply pointing out that the concept is commonly used like that.

you say you don't endorse them yet use them as your argument, sounds like you are confused, you defend a statement with that and yet fail to defend your own statement and state it is something used commonly, your common is only used by sexists which obviously you are if you believe what you posted.

heres a riddle for you, wondering if you can even answer this simple riddle: a father and a son get in an accident, the father is taken to one hospital, the son is taken to another hospital, the surgeon for the son comes in and says I cannot operate on this boy he is my son. who is the Surgeon?

The child's mother, other father, other legal guardian that considers the child to be like a son, legal adopter for the purposes of paperwork, robotic caretaker that raises all humans from embryos in a giant human farm, etc.

Honestly this may be the worst riddle ever.

Actually our insect overlords is the correct answer.

I'm having a lot of "wait...what?" moments in this thread.

Arguments aren't making any sense, and honestly the main argument isn't even coherent enough to make out what the actual argument is.

When someone is arguing against someone that transgender people in bathrooms are like pedophiles with children because of a federal age of consent and surgeon riddles, then it's time to just lock the damn thread to safe us all some sanity.

If we're at the point where one side is saying there's no difference between transgenders using a bathroom and adults molesting children, this thread is done because we have moved so far past reasonable discussion that it can't be corrected. We haven't seen a new argument for a long while, just the same ones recycled again and again, so that's that.

Don't start another one on this subject or drag it into any other threads for a while, let it cool off.