Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

Recommended Posts

Over the line Spatial Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some of you people have some serious issues. Too bad you don't seem to know it which is why you are always on about everyone else. I have only known a few transgender people (that I know about) and growing up they were pretty screwed up. Not hard to understand reading some of the shit posted here.

 

morons.

My extremely attractive daughter is 19 and lives in NC. One of her best friends in High School here in CT was - if not "Trans" - a flamboyant young man who was partial to makeup and cowgirl boots and totally kicked ass in the town talent show.

Point being - my daughter loved the guy, but would be hugely uncomfortable showering with him.

Would your hot 19 year old daughter be hugely comfortable showering with another girl? Could I watch?

 

 

Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

We're not talking about letting little Sol Jr. put on a dress and run into the locker room to go peep some boobies, though quite frankly I am a bit shocked that I didn't think of that when I was a kid.

 

 

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

But what you state above WILL happen. And how do you prove otherwise unless the kid is being a total dick (pun intended)? If he says he IDs as a girl that day, who are we to judge otherwise?

Of course it is going to happen. And I hope it does very soon to highlight this gender-neutral PC idiocy.

Can I call separate bathrooms "Politically Correct", and that those who want them to be needing " safe zones".

 

Both are bullshit meaningless terms tossed around here constantly and I want to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember back in the day when Obama and Hillary were against men marrying men and women becoming betrothed to women? Good times.

 

I remember saying here "marry whoever you want and then shut the fuck up"

 

Now we've got Obama sending letters to every school district in the country threatening to cut funding if they abide by the law?

 

He's a retard with a following.

 

These fuckers are Stalinistic cunts.

They want fed money, follow fed rules. Or be bigots and do without. Sounds like a choice to me

 

 

But the funny thing is the schools that attempt to accommodate trannies are actually following title IX's "separate but equal" mandate. Title 9 is all about keeping the genders segregated as long as they allow equal opportunities and one is not discriminated against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

 

 

Whatever. feel free to be outraged. It seems to get you all off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

 

 

Whatever. feel free to be outraged. It seems to get you all off.

 

 

Again, I'm not outraged in the slightest. I just don't think this whole thing has been thought through very well. What is the Solution when straight girls or guys say they are not comfortable when a tranny wants to shower with them? Its honestly a very simple and straight forward question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

 

 

Whatever. feel free to be outraged. It seems to get you all off.

 

 

Again, I'm not outraged in the slightest. I just don't think this whole thing has been thought through very well. What is the Solution when straight girls or guys say they are not comfortable when a tranny wants to shower with them? Its honestly a very simple and straight forward question.

 

its honestly a question that I will never have to answer.

 

What will happen when Tea Partiers fall in love with Hillary? Higher odds than the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

 

 

Whatever. feel free to be outraged. It seems to get you all off.

 

 

Again, I'm not outraged in the slightest. I just don't think this whole thing has been thought through very well. What is the Solution when straight girls or guys say they are not comfortable when a tranny wants to shower with them? Its honestly a very simple and straight forward question.

 

its honestly a question that I will never have to answer.

 

 

 

Wanna bet? Are you talking you personally or that this will never come up in the US? If the latter..... I have a ten spot that says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the distinguished panel:

 

What would you think/do if you saw a kinda burly dude with facial hair go into the womens bathroom?

 

That's what it would look like if my brother in law used the bathroom that matches his body's plumbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

 

Not answering questions because to do so would destroy their narrative? I've answered all of yours. I'm waiting for you to answer mine.

 

How many times have we had the problem of exposed girl weenies in girl's bathrooms or changing rooms, actually happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

 

Not answering questions because to do so would destroy their narrative? I've answered all of yours. I'm waiting for you to answer mine.

 

How many times have we had the problem of exposed girl weenies in girl's bathrooms or changing rooms, actually happened?

 

 

I haven't answered that because I do not know. I guess by that bar, then we shouldn't ban private citizen's possession of nuclear ICBMs because nothing bad has happened yet, eh?

 

BTW - I asked for your opinion of a hypothetical, but not unlikely in the new environment, what if. Are you no longer able or willing to answer what if questions? That's what the SCOTUS is asked to rule on everyday..... to make a decision based on how it might affect whatever groups of people the ruling will affect. Are you saying as a lawyer, you can't do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

 

Not answering questions because to do so would destroy their narrative? I've answered all of yours. I'm waiting for you to answer mine.

 

How many times have we had the problem of exposed girl weenies in girl's bathrooms or changing rooms, actually happened?

 

 

I haven't answered that because I do not know. I guess by that bar, then we shouldn't ban private citizen's possession of nuclear ICBMs because nothing bad has happened yet, eh?

 

BTW - I asked for your opinion of a hypothetical, but not unlikely in the new environment, what if. Are you no longer able or willing to answer what if questions? That's what the SCOTUS is asked to rule on everyday..... to make a decision based on how it might affect whatever groups of people the ruling will affect. Are you saying as a lawyer, you can't do the same?

 

Are you advocating government action to prevent girl weenies from being exposed to girls, despite not knowing if such a thing ever happened? Are our government resources not better spent on addressing problems that actually happen? The list of calamities that could happen is pretty exhaustive.

 

There is nothing new about the environment. Girl weenies have been around longer than election year wedge issues. I've told you any number of times that I would not be comfortable with my kid being in that situation, but what I have not said is that there are a hell of a lot of things about which I would be more uncomfortable, things that actually happen. For example, I would be far more worried about my kid being exposed to people who would teach her to discriminate against others. That's a far more likely scenario, and a problem that actually exists.

 

Megyn Kelly debunked your talking points with one question. "Allow men in the ladies' rooms, or allow trans women in ladies' rooms?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the egg man, I am the walrus, but Wm. Briggs is the Yak:

 

3405476348_edffb8b317_o.jpg

 

... I self identify as a yak. I can’t help thinking I am yak. I remember wearing fuzzy coats when I was a boy and feeling how right they were for me. I didn’t realize I was a yak, though, until at age six on a fateful trip to the zoo when I lost nurse’s hand.

 

Oh, sure, I flirted with the idea that I was a colobus, especially as my hair began streaking grey. Once I even formed the notion that I might be a kakapo, a flightless bird native to New Zealand. But since I have never been to New Zealand I realized that my notion was false. I was confused because the kakapo, like myself, has a big nose and can’t fly. I blame society for these mix-ups.

Some of you will object that I am not a yak because I am not “genetically” a yak. This goes to show how much you know. You don’t have to be genetically a thing if you believe you are the thing. If you doubt this, just ask Bruce Jenner who taught us all If You Believe, You Are (this is the title of my next book). No more proof than belief is needed.

This slogan must be so, as is easily demonstrated. Scientists can show (through simple scientific tests) that folks like Bruce Jenner are genetically men, yet his belief that he is a woman turned him into a woman. He is, therefore, a woman—-because he believes he is one.

It helps to have others believe, too. This, I and Bruce have discovered, reinforces our own belief, which—I whisper this confidentially, dear reader—sometimes flags. Nobody can be ardent all the time!, especially while embedded in a hostile society.

Yet when I have these doubts, I seek an ally, somebody who agrees that I am a yak because I say I am a yak. I ask this person, “Am I really a yak?” and they say to me, “Yes, you are a yak.” So I am a yak. We live in a democracy.

Here’s the surprise. Although I am a yak, I am not sexually attracted to yaks (though I have experimented with yak milk). Sexual attraction, as academics teach us, need not be identical to identity. Some academics say it’s even a form of discrimination to be exclusionary and stay within the boundaries set by bigots. Bigots say, “If he thinks he’s a yak, let him breed with yaks.” But this is bigoted because it’s the kind of thing bigots say.

It isn’t unusual, then, that I am not attracted to others like myself; other yaks, I mean. My announcement is that I am attracted to human females, especially blondes of Dutch extraction. I am a yak, and I know it, but still I have these desires. I was born with them. I don’t even want them, yet there they are. And because they are, because they exist, they are therefore true and good desires.

That they are good and true is proved by noticing that I say I was born with these desires, or that I formed them at some point in time earlier than last week. Since I have had these desires since I was a young (mostly hairless) yak, you know they are true and good.

Yaks, you might not know, can only pee in herds. Lone yaks aren’t capable of the act. Scientists say this is a sort of inverse “shy bladder” syndrome. The point is this. In order for me to pee, I must be in a herd. But since I am not sexually attracted to yaks, I therefore need to be granted perpetual access to the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader1 shower room.

I expect my readers, and especially the NFL, to be fully supportive and to threaten to boycott the Cowboys if they do not accede to this request.

——————————————————————–

1I’d also accept the Rockettes facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We're not talking about letting little Sol Jr. put on a dress and run into the locker room to go peep some boobies, though quite frankly I am a bit shocked that I didn't think of that when I was a kid.

 

 

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

But what you state above WILL happen. And how do you prove otherwise unless the kid is being a total dick (pun intended)? If he says he IDs as a girl that day, who are we to judge otherwise?

Of course it is going to happen. And I hope it does very soon to highlight this gender-neutral PC idiocy.

Can I call separate bathrooms "Politically Correct", and that those who want them to be needing " safe zones".

 

Both are bullshit meaningless terms tossed around here constantly and I want to play.

 

 

I like where you're goin' with this Ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Can I call separate bathrooms "Politically Correct", and that those who want them to be needing " safe zones".

 

Both are bullshit meaningless terms tossed around here constantly and I want to play.

 

 

I like where you're goin' with this Ben.

 

+1

Nanny government suckers want to create safe zones so they don't get offended by the politically correct. Some might even call that a micro aggression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can I call separate bathrooms "Politically Correct", and that those who want them to be needing " safe zones".

 

Both are bullshit meaningless terms tossed around here constantly and I want to play.

 

 

I like where you're goin' with this Ben.

 

+1

Nanny government suckers want to create safe zones so they don't get offended by the politically correct. Some might even call that a micro aggression.

 

 

I actually want to go the opposite direction. If its ok for a tiny minority to impose their will on the rest and that all dandy with the rest of you, then hell - let's go all in. If its no big deal for a biological male who says (s)he's a female and they can use the shower room of their choice - then just make it one big open gender neutral affair.

 

The more I think about it, Title IX and its "separate but equal" facilities are discriminatory. If separate but equal wasn't good enough for the negros, then it ain't good enough for the women folk neither. Stites Rats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Can I call separate bathrooms "Politically Correct", and that those who want them to be needing " safe zones".

 

Both are bullshit meaningless terms tossed around here constantly and I want to play.

 

 

I like where you're goin' with this Ben.

 

+1

Nanny government suckers want to create safe zones so they don't get offended by the politically correct. Some might even call that a micro aggression.

 

 

I actually want to go the opposite direction. If its ok for a tiny minority to impose their will on the rest and that all dandy with the rest of you, then hell - let's go all in. If its no big deal for a biological male who says (s)he's a female and they can use the shower room of their choice - then just make it one big open gender neutral affair.

 

The more I think about it, Title IX and its "separate but equal" facilities are discriminatory. If separate but equal wasn't good enough for the negros, then it ain't good enough for the women folk neither. Stites Rats!

 

 

All attempts to create 'equality' through law are discriminatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, this whole gender segregation thing is old skool, antiquated thinking. To coin a phrase from Reagan..... "Mr Obama, Tear down those walls!"

 

I've long called for a color-blind society. We can add gender-blind to it as well. I'm serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All attempts to create 'equality' through law are discriminatory.

 

 

Who was discriminated against by legalizing interracial marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, this whole gender segregation thing is old skool, antiquated thinking. To coin a phrase from Reagan..... "Mr Obama, Tear down those walls!"

 

I've long called for a color-blind society. We can add gender-blind to it as well. I'm serious.

There's not a male America and a female America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nah, this whole gender segregation thing is old skool, antiquated thinking. To coin a phrase from Reagan..... "Mr Obama, Tear down those walls!"

 

I've long called for a color-blind society. We can add gender-blind to it as well. I'm serious.

There's not a male America and a female America.

 

That's what Nanny Government Suckers want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point for me isn't about bathrooms, nor would I tolerate discriminating against a gender confused kid. Providing separate facilities to accommodate a gender-confused kid's different needs isn't discrimination. I think that Jeff's question earlier in the thread is one that you and others are conveniently ignoring: Why is it OK to infringe upon the many kids who[d be made uncomfortable by the presence of the gender confused kid in the changing room, just to assuage the feelings of the gender confused kid?

 

They conveniently ignore it because to do so would destroy their narrative. And saying they will cross that bridge IF it ever happens is a huge cop-out. It has already happened as IIRC there are some parents suing schools in a few areas to not allow tranny kids into showers of the opposite sex. And now with Obama's illegal directive - it will happen on a much larger scale now.

 

So again, what's the SOLution if a straight girl says she is uncomfortable showering next to or being naked in a changing room with a chick with a dick?

 

Who's rights come first here? The one or the many? Especially if there is already an accommodation available for the one.

Not answering questions because to do so would destroy their narrative? I've answered all of yours. I'm waiting for you to answer mine.

 

How many times have we had the problem of exposed girl weenies in girl's bathrooms or changing rooms, actually happened?

I haven't answered that because I do not know. I guess by that bar, then we shouldn't ban private citizen's possession of nuclear ICBMs because nothing bad has happened yet, eh?

 

BTW - I asked for your opinion of a hypothetical, but not unlikely in the new environment, what if. Are you no longer able or willing to answer what if questions? That's what the SCOTUS is asked to rule on everyday..... to make a decision based on how it might affect whatever groups of people the ruling will affect. Are you saying as a lawyer, you can't do the same?

The second amendment to the Constitution SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS infringing on our right to possess and bear ICBMs. If those aren't arms, nothing is considered arms.

 

Back from your hijack...

I did answer your question about the hypothetical student who asks for accommodation because of the presence of a different anatomy between some other person's legs.

 

WHEN IT HAPPENS we most certainly need to make reasonable accommodations for that person.

 

Considering the rare occurrence of trans people in society and the rare occurrence of anyone who would need accommodation if they did encounter such a person, I doubt we will need to do much accommodating.

Why?

Many have already commented in this thread, "I wouldn't mind if some person with a vaguna showed up in my locker room shower."

I think it is a safe bet zero or near zero guys are going to ask for relief from having to share.

 

This leaves women as the only remaining people who might ask for accommodation.

 

Considering the behavior of people with or uses who are trying to live as women and the diversity already oresent in women's locker rooms, my bet is the incidence of females needing accommodation because of the presence of trans girls will closely approach zero.

 

Therefore, when it happens, I do not believe it will be a problem to accommodate those whose lives are impacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USG is literally in the fucking toilet now..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's twice that the Nannygoat ran away from Megyn's question.... Maybe she is onto something. To be fair, she stumped her guest too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no words.

 

 

39 year old Donna Wright (born Donald Wright) was shot to death in a Bradford’s Department store in Colorado this weekend. The incident happened when Wright, who was dressed as a woman, attempted to use the women’s bathroom. A fellow shopper, 55-year old Kathleen Workman, politely asked Wright to use the Men’s room, since Wright was visibly a man.

 

This allegedly angered Wright and she became combative while following Workman into the women’s restroom. Workman says that Wright lost control and became using explicit language while continuing to follow her into the restroom. While they were both in the restroom, Workman says that Wright started to display what Mrs. Workman considered aggressive body language along with the verbal assault.

Workman said she became scared and she pulled her handgun from her purse, again asking Wright to leave. The sight of the gun allegedly enraged Wright, and that’s when Wright charged at Workman.

Fearing for her life, Workman fired three shots with her Kimber 1911 Ultra .45 caliber handgun in self defense. Donna Wright had stopped breathing and was pronounced dead upon arrival of emergency respondents.

Since there were no cameras or witnesses, no charges have been filed against Workman. Workman was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and the incident is being ruled as a shooting in self-defense, although an investigation is still pending. http://dcgazette.com/2016/transgender-female-shot-death-department-store/

Edit to add: Scratch it. Snopes says the report is false. Looks like rw media likes stirring the pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nah, this whole gender segregation thing is old skool, antiquated thinking. To coin a phrase from Reagan..... "Mr Obama, Tear down those walls!"

 

I've long called for a color-blind society. We can add gender-blind to it as well. I'm serious.

There's not a male America and a female America.

 

obviously you're not married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's twice that the Nannygoat ran away from Megyn's question.... Maybe she is onto something. To be fair, she stumped her guest too.

What did Meghan say about cats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's twice that the Nannygoat ran away from Megyn's question.... Maybe she is onto something. To be fair, she stumped her guest too.

What did Meghan say about cats?

 

She said that once you cut their balls off they turn into a docile little nanny and stop asking questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's twice that the Nannygoat ran away from Megyn's question.... Maybe she is onto something. To be fair, she stumped her guest too.

What did Meghan say about cats?

 

She said that once you cut their balls off they turn into a docile little nanny and stop asking questions.

 

 

That's pretty rude, Sol. (Also unresponsive.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

 

 

What would be the problem with cisgender males using the female bathroom. What if they felt feminine that day and just needed to sit in a stall that didn't reek of ball-sweat, urine sprayed on the floor and instead wanted the couch and the nice smell of candles in the ladies restroom? Why would you deny him that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

 

 

What would be the problem with cisgender males using the female bathroom. What if they felt feminine that day and just needed to sit in a stall that didn't reek of ball-sweat, urine sprayed on the floor and instead wanted the couch and the nice smell of candles in the ladies restroom? Why would you deny him that?

 

I know you are pretending to not understand the difference between cisgender and transgender. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

 

 

What would be the problem with cisgender males using the female bathroom. What if they felt feminine that day and just needed to sit in a stall that didn't reek of ball-sweat, urine sprayed on the floor and instead wanted the couch and the nice smell of candles in the ladies restroom? Why would you deny him that?

 

I know you are pretending to not understand the difference between cisgender and transgender. Why?

 

 

What you're intentionally refusing to accept is that the difference is self-declared, and if so, then no enforcement of separation is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

 

 

What would be the problem with cisgender males using the female bathroom. What if they felt feminine that day and just needed to sit in a stall that didn't reek of ball-sweat, urine sprayed on the floor and instead wanted the couch and the nice smell of candles in the ladies restroom? Why would you deny him that?

 

I know you are pretending to not understand the difference between cisgender and transgender. Why?

 

and that is the gist of this, which Ms. Kelly so aptly demonstrated. Remove the fallacy by which cisgender males are substituted for transgender females, and the whole outrage festival falls apart.

 

Who has suggested that cisgender males should be allowed in female restrooms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

 

 

What would be the problem with cisgender males using the female bathroom. What if they felt feminine that day and just needed to sit in a stall that didn't reek of ball-sweat, urine sprayed on the floor and instead wanted the couch and the nice smell of candles in the ladies restroom? Why would you deny him that?

 

I know you are pretending to not understand the difference between cisgender and transgender. Why?

 

 

I know exactly what it is. It is the opposite of transgender. Its essentially a double negative. Its a normal dude with a dick who knows he's a dude. I'm asking what is the issue with a cisgender dude using the women's restroom or shower? Are you now saying that it would be wrong to have a dude's dick swinging around in the women's shower but a "sorta woman's" dick is OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

 

 

What would be the problem with cisgender males using the female bathroom. What if they felt feminine that day and just needed to sit in a stall that didn't reek of ball-sweat, urine sprayed on the floor and instead wanted the couch and the nice smell of candles in the ladies restroom? Why would you deny him that?

 

I know you are pretending to not understand the difference between cisgender and transgender. Why?

 

 

I know exactly what it is. It is the opposite of transgender. Its essentially a double negative. Its a normal dude with a dick who knows he's a dude. I'm asking what is the issue with a cisgender dude using the women's restroom or shower? Are you now saying that it would be wrong to have a dude's dick swinging around in the women's shower but a "sorta woman's" dick is OK?

 

i figure the rules that have existed for millennia have been working just fine. I'm the Conservative here. It's worked, It works, it will continue to work. No Change necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Nobody is suggesting that cisgender males should be allowed to use the female bathroom. That is a red herring.

 

 

What would be the problem with cisgender males using the female bathroom. What if they felt feminine that day and just needed to sit in a stall that didn't reek of ball-sweat, urine sprayed on the floor and instead wanted the couch and the nice smell of candles in the ladies restroom? Why would you deny him that?

 

I know you are pretending to not understand the difference between cisgender and transgender. Why?

 

 

I know exactly what it is. It is the opposite of transgender. Its essentially a double negative. Its a normal dude with a dick who knows he's a dude. I'm asking what is the issue with a cisgender dude using the women's restroom or shower? Are you now saying that it would be wrong to have a dude's dick swinging around in the women's shower but a "sorta woman's" dick is OK?

 

Maybe let the blacks into the same bathrooms too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i figure the rules that have existed for millennia have been working just fine. I'm the Conservative here. It's worked, It works, it will continue to work. No Change necessary.

 

The unwritten rules we have been operating under up to this point essentially said if you looked like a woman, you used the women's room, if you looked like a man, you used the men's room. The new written regulations make no such requirement. I understand that apparently a lot of people have much higher expectations for human behavior. Unfortunately, I don't. Even if 99.9% of teenagers are upstanding citizens with the highest integrity, that still leaves the door open for the 3 or 4 creepers who are not to abuse a law meant to protect against discrimination, and instead use it to create a hostile environment for the other 99.9% of the students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

 

As usual, spot fucking on, Len. Which has been my whole point from the beginning of this thread.

 

But, its not happened yet - so sol, razr and the rest are going to stick their heads in the sand until it does. Another ten spot says it happens in the next 6 months or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know exactly what it is. It is the opposite of transgender. Its essentially a double negative. Its a normal dude with a dick who knows he's a dude. I'm asking what is the issue with a cisgender dude using the women's restroom or shower? Are you now saying that it would be wrong to have a dude's dick swinging around in the women's shower but a "sorta woman's" dick is OK?

 

i figure the rules that have existed for millennia have been working just fine. I'm the Conservative here. It's worked, It works, it will continue to work. No Change necessary.

 

 

Then why did Charlotte and then later Obama change it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

 

As usual, spot fucking on, Len. Which has been my whole point from the beginning of this thread.

 

But, its not happened yet - so sol, razr and the rest are going to stick their heads in the sand until it does. Another ten spot says it happens in the next 6 months or less.

 

let's say it happens once every six months.

 

twice a year

 

how many peeping tom cases are filed every year

 

probably more than 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

 

As usual, spot fucking on, Len. Which has been my whole point from the beginning of this thread.

 

But, its not happened yet - so sol, razr and the rest are going to stick their heads in the sand until it does. Another ten spot says it happens in the next 6 months or less.

 

let's say it happens once every six months.

 

twice a year

 

how many peeping tom cases are filed every year

 

probably more than 2

 

 

Why, especially as it pertains to kids, would you support anything that even remotely increased the possibility for the kids' to be subjected to such a thing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I know exactly what it is. It is the opposite of transgender. Its essentially a double negative. Its a normal dude with a dick who knows he's a dude. I'm asking what is the issue with a cisgender dude using the women's restroom or shower? Are you now saying that it would be wrong to have a dude's dick swinging around in the women's shower but a "sorta woman's" dick is OK?

 

Maybe let the blacks into the same bathrooms too.

 

 

Fine with me. But I didn't realize the negros were not allowed into the bathrooms. Maybe only in N FL is that a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

 

As usual, spot fucking on, Len. Which has been my whole point from the beginning of this thread.

 

But, its not happened yet - so sol, razr and the rest are going to stick their heads in the sand until it does. Another ten spot says it happens in the next 6 months or less.

 

let's say it happens once every six months.

 

twice a year

 

how many peeping tom cases are filed every year

 

probably more than 2

 

 

But there are laws which protect against peeping toms, apples and oranges. Here we are talking about removing a schools ability to deal with it, unless it blatantly crosses into sexual harassment or assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

 

As usual, spot fucking on, Len. Which has been my whole point from the beginning of this thread.

 

But, its not happened yet - so sol, razr and the rest are going to stick their heads in the sand until it does. Another ten spot says it happens in the next 6 months or less.

 

Bass ackwards. The Charlotte ordinance did not protect the right of cisgender males to violate the sanctity of the women's pisser. Similarly, the NC law does not address cisgender rights. We are not talking about cisgender rights, other than the effort to use cisgenders as a red herring to distract from the conversation, as Ms. Kelly noted.

 

It's a tough topic. We're not talking about a few pervy pranksters here, there are 700,000 people in the category, in the US. How many must there be to be entitled to protection from folks dusting off the same arguments for discrimination that were used in the 50s and 60s and 00s? Doing some reading and learning about it might help. http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8483561/transgender-gender-identity-expression

 

 

 

 

I know exactly what it is. It is the opposite of transgender. Its essentially a double negative. Its a normal dude with a dick who knows he's a dude. I'm asking what is the issue with a cisgender dude using the women's restroom or shower? Are you now saying that it would be wrong to have a dude's dick swinging around in the women's shower but a "sorta woman's" dick is OK?

 

Maybe let the blacks into the same bathrooms too.

 

 

Fine with me. But I didn't realize the negros were not allowed into the bathrooms. Maybe only in N FL is that a problem?

 

The folks fighting it used much the same arguments as folks are using here.

 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit11_4.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

 

As usual, spot fucking on, Len. Which has been my whole point from the beginning of this thread.

 

But, its not happened yet - so sol, razr and the rest are going to stick their heads in the sand until it does. Another ten spot says it happens in the next 6 months or less.

 

let's say it happens once every six months.

 

twice a year

 

how many peeping tom cases are filed every year

 

probably more than 2

 

 

But there are laws which protect against peeping toms, apples and oranges. Here we are talking about removing a schools ability to deal with it, unless it blatantly crosses into sexual harassment or assault.

 

no, we are not removing the schools ability to "deal with it"

 

IF a kid is transgender, which is pretty obvious, they choose which bathroom they use.

 

That's it. not, Johnny, "I wanna see a Vag", who says out of the blue "i'm a girl today"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Sure they can. When they realize that little Johnny is using the girls room, and hasn't let the administration know about being transgender.

 

I can't imagine the amount of crap these people have to endure, or that anyone would want to go through it for fun. The lack of real world problems indicates that such is the case. Of course, we will now get a rash of men causing problems in women's bathrooms, to try to prove the point, a number I predict will far exceed the number of transgender people causing trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Sure they can. When they realize that little Johnny is using the girls room, and hasn't let the administration know about being transgender.

 

I can't imagine the amount of crap these people have to endure, or that anyone would want to go through it for fun. The lack of real world problems indicates that such is the case. Of course, we will now get a rash of men causing problems in women's bathrooms, to try to prove the point, a number I predict will far exceed the number of transgender people causing trouble.

 

 

Well, yeah. That is kinda my point, and without any criteria for determining when someone is really a transgender, I think there is little that schools could do to deal with Johnny whether he tells them he is transgendered or not. I am not expecting the trouble to come from actual transgendered people, at least not for the most part. Primarily, I expect trouble to come from troublemakers who use hastily written and poorly thought out laws and regulations as cover for being deviants and dickheads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Sure they can. When they realize that little Johnny is using the girls room, and hasn't let the administration know about being transgender.

 

I can't imagine the amount of crap these people have to endure, or that anyone would want to go through it for fun. The lack of real world problems indicates that such is the case. Of course, we will now get a rash of men causing problems in women's bathrooms, to try to prove the point, a number I predict will far exceed the number of transgender people causing trouble.

 

 

Well, yeah. That is kinda my point, and without any criteria for determining when someone is really a transgender, I think there is little that schools could do to deal with Johnny whether he tells them he is transgendered or not. I am not expecting the trouble to come from actual transgendered people, at least not for the most part. Primarily, I expect trouble to come from troublemakers who use hastily written and poorly thought out laws and regulations as cover for being deviants and dickheads.

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How could one determine if the person is a cisgender who is lying about his gender identity or a transgender. There is no functional difference for purposes of the directive from the feds. If you questioned whether someone was truly a transgender or a jerk doing it on a dare, you would be opening up yourself to a civil rights lawsuit. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, but I don't believe that a lot of this was well thought out. Sure in the past transgenders would often use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, but the reason it was never, or rarely, a problem was that they appeared to be the gender they identify with. I don't see anything in the new directives which could be construed as allowing schools to have a test or criteria for determining whether someone is really a transgender or not. I do not think it is a red herring. Teenagers can be immature, and will do stupid inappropriate things on a dare. As with any population, a subset of them are going to be maladjusted sexually and have voyeuristic or exhibitionist tendencies. Without some type of real criteria to sort out who is a "real" transgender, there are bound to be cases where these directives result in unintended consequences.

 

As usual, spot fucking on, Len. Which has been my whole point from the beginning of this thread.

 

But, its not happened yet - so sol, razr and the rest are going to stick their heads in the sand until it does. Another ten spot says it happens in the next 6 months or less.

 

let's say it happens once every six months.

 

twice a year

 

how many peeping tom cases are filed every year

 

probably more than 2

 

 

But there are laws which protect against peeping toms, apples and oranges. Here we are talking about removing a schools ability to deal with it, unless it blatantly crosses into sexual harassment or assault.

 

no, we are not removing the schools ability to "deal with it"

 

IF a kid is transgender, which is pretty obvious, they choose which bathroom they use.

 

That's it. not, Johnny, "I wanna see a Vag", who says out of the blue "i'm a girl today"

 

 

That's not what Obama says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Sure they can. When they realize that little Johnny is using the girls room, and hasn't let the administration know about being transgender.

 

I can't imagine the amount of crap these people have to endure, or that anyone would want to go through it for fun. The lack of real world problems indicates that such is the case. Of course, we will now get a rash of men causing problems in women's bathrooms, to try to prove the point, a number I predict will far exceed the number of transgender people causing trouble.

 

 

Well, yeah. That is kinda my point, and without any criteria for determining when someone is really a transgender, I think there is little that schools could do to deal with Johnny whether he tells them he is transgendered or not. I am not expecting the trouble to come from actual transgendered people, at least not for the most part. Primarily, I expect trouble to come from troublemakers who use hastily written and poorly thought out laws and regulations as cover for being deviants and dickheads.

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

Charlotte opened the box with their whiney little bathroom law. Without the bathroom issue the 2015 law would have passed.

 

Whiney little shits usually get what they want to shut them up. But people are getting a little fed up with the tantrums and taking action. The whiner in chief looks pretty silly on this one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

It is partially them, but I don't think the case in IL helped much either. I think there are activists on both sides who are going to push the issue in a direction that most of us won't find appealing in the end. I can understand why some parents and students would not feel comfortable in the same common shower and changing area with a transgender who has not transitioned or only partially transitioned. I don't think that makes them bigots. I think the NC law was just as poorly thought out, or even more poorly thought out, than the latest directive from the feds, but I think it is silly to blame the feds failure to think things through on the legislature in NC. Both can be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Sure they can. When they realize that little Johnny is using the girls room, and hasn't let the administration know about being transgender.

 

I can't imagine the amount of crap these people have to endure, or that anyone would want to go through it for fun. The lack of real world problems indicates that such is the case. Of course, we will now get a rash of men causing problems in women's bathrooms, to try to prove the point, a number I predict will far exceed the number of transgender people causing trouble.

 

 

Well, yeah. That is kinda my point, and without any criteria for determining when someone is really a transgender, I think there is little that schools could do to deal with Johnny whether he tells them he is transgendered or not. I am not expecting the trouble to come from actual transgendered people, at least not for the most part. Primarily, I expect trouble to come from troublemakers who use hastily written and poorly thought out laws and regulations as cover for being deviants and dickheads.

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

That's BS. This is squarely on the CLT City council. In an exceedingly LGBT friendly city, why did they have to pass the bathroom law. It had been working fine to this point. What problem were they solving? None, they were trying to set precedent and start the seeds of a nationwide movement into less-LGBT friendly areas.

 

All you who are saying there is no current problem, why does it need to be addressed are shooting yourselves in the foot. If that is the case, then the LGBT initiatives are going to lose their impetus. Best you just hush up if you want to help them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

It is partially them, but I don't think the case in IL helped much either. I think there are activists on both sides who are going to push the issue in a direction that most of us won't find appealing in the end. I can understand why some parents and students would not feel comfortable in the same common shower and changing area with a transgender who has not transitioned or only partially transitioned. I don't think that makes them bigots. I think the NC law was just as poorly thought out, or even more poorly thought out, than the latest directive from the feds, but I think it is silly to blame the feds failure to think things through on the legislature in NC. Both can be wrong.

 

As I understand it, the Feds are using a watered down NYC school policy, which hasn't had any issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Sure they can. When they realize that little Johnny is using the girls room, and hasn't let the administration know about being transgender.

 

I can't imagine the amount of crap these people have to endure, or that anyone would want to go through it for fun. The lack of real world problems indicates that such is the case. Of course, we will now get a rash of men causing problems in women's bathrooms, to try to prove the point, a number I predict will far exceed the number of transgender people causing trouble.

 

 

Well, yeah. That is kinda my point, and without any criteria for determining when someone is really a transgender, I think there is little that schools could do to deal with Johnny whether he tells them he is transgendered or not. I am not expecting the trouble to come from actual transgendered people, at least not for the most part. Primarily, I expect trouble to come from troublemakers who use hastily written and poorly thought out laws and regulations as cover for being deviants and dickheads.

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

That's BS. This is squarely on the CLT City council. In an exceedingly LGBT friendly city, why did they have to pass the bathroom law. It had been working fine to this point. What problem were they solving? None, they were trying to set precedent and start the seeds of a nationwide movement into less-LGBT friendly areas.

 

All you who are saying there is no current problem, why does it need to be addressed are shooting yourselves in the foot. If that is the case, then the LGBT initiatives are going to lose their impetus. Best you just hush up if you want to help them.

 

i don't know what the issues were in Charlotte. But they seemed to have a local solution. It's the big gov't types that are happy now, on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Charlotte opened the box with their whiney little bathroom law. Without the bathroom issue the 2015 law would have passed.

 

Whiney little shits usually get what they want to shut them up. But people are getting a little fed up with the tantrums and taking action. The whiner in chief looks pretty silly on this one too.

 

 

 

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true Minister. Charlottes ordinance did not have the power of law. Words matter. Except to propagandists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

 

That's BS. This is squarely on the CLT City council. In an exceedingly LGBT friendly city, why did they have to pass the bathroom law. It had been working fine to this point. What problem were they solving? None, they were trying to set precedent and start the seeds of a nationwide movement into less-LGBT friendly areas.

 

All you who are saying there is no current problem, why does it need to be addressed are shooting yourselves in the foot. If that is the case, then the LGBT initiatives are going to lose their impetus. Best you just hush up if you want to help them.

 

i don't know what the issues were in Charlotte. But they seemed to have a local solution. It's the big gov't types that are happy now, on both sides.

 

 

Then fucking educate yourself. You've been spouting off here for days that there is no issue so why did this have to come to a head. Well tell me the issue in CLT that prompted their push of their bathroom law. The reality was there was no issue. The CLT city council was manufacturing a solution to a non-issue so they could push an agenda. And that agenda was:

 

"Hey look at us. Look how fucking progressive and LGBT friendly we are".

 

I also think they correctly anticipated the NC legislature reaction and deliberately kicked the hornets nest to get attention to this "non" issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

225 cities have forms of gender anti-discrimination laws. This is how it works - the minority is protected from the whims of the majority. the "problem" that exists is discrimination. Thats real

 

 

 

 

Alaska

Anchorage, City of

Arizona
Phoenix, City of
Tempe, City of
Tucson, City of

Arkansas
Fayetteville, City of
Eureka Springs, City of

California
Los Angeles, City of
Oakland, City of
Palm Springs, City of
Sacramento, City of California
San Diego, City of
San Francisco, City of
Santa Cruz County
West Hollywood, City of

Colorado
Boulder, City of
Denver, City of

District of Columbia
Washington, City of

Florida
Atlantic Beach, City of
Alachua County
Broward County
Gainesville, City of
Gulfport, City of
Key West, City of
Lake Worth, City of
Leon County
Miami Beach, City of
Miami-Dade County
Monroe County
Palm Beach County
Pinellas County
Orlando, City of
Tampa, City of
Volusia County
West Palm Beach, City of

Georgia
Atlanta, City of

Idaho
Boise, City of
Coeur d’Alene, City of
Idaho Falls, City of
Ketchum, City of
Moscow, City of
Pocatello, City of
Sandpoint, City of
Victor, City of

Illinois
Aurora, City of
Carbondale, City of
Champaign, City of
Chicago, City of
Cook County
Decatur, City of
DeKalb, City of
Evanston, City of
Peoria, City of
Springfield, City of

Indiana
Bloomington, City of
Evansville, City of
Indianapolis, City of
Marion County
Monroe County
South Bend, City of

Iowa
Ames, City of
Cedar Rapids, City of
Council Bluffs, City of
Davenport, City of
Des Moines, City of
Iowa City
Johnson County
Sioux, City of
Waterloo, City of

Kansas
Lawrence, City of
Roeland Park, City of

Kentucky
Covington, City of
Danville, City of
Frankfort, City of
Jefferson County
Lexington, City of
Lexington-Fayette County
Louisville, City of
Morehead, City of
Vicco, City of

Louisiana
New Orleans, City of
Shreveport, City of

Maryland
Baltimore, City of
Baltimore County
College Park, City of
Howard County
Hyattsville, City of
Montgomery County

Massachusetts
Boston, City of
Cambridge, City of
Northampton, City of
Salem, City of
Worcester, City of

Michigan
Ann Arbor, City of
Detroit, City of
East Lansing, City of
Ferndale, City of
Grand Rapids, City of
Huntington Woods, City of
Kalamazoo, City of
Lansing, City of
Pleasant Ridge, City of
Saugatuck, City of
Sterling Heights, City of
Traverse, City of
Ypsilanti, City of

Minnesota
Minneapolis, City of
St. Paul, City of

Missouri
Columbia, City of
Clayton, City of
Kansas City
Kirkwood, City of
Olivette, City of
St. Louis County
St. Louis, City of
University City

Montana
Bozeman, City of
Butte-Silver Bow, City of
Helena, City of
Missoula, City of

Nebraska
Omaha, City of

New York
Albany, City of
Binghamton, City of
Buffalo, City of
Ithaca, City of
New York City
Rochester, City of
Suffolk County
Syracuse, City of
Tompkins County
Westchester County

North Carolina
Chapel Hill, City of

Ohio
Athens, City of
Bowling Green, City of
Cincinnati, City of
Cleveland, City of
Columbus, City of
Coshocton, City of
Dayton, City of
East Cleveland, City of
Newark, City of
Oxford, City of
Summit County
Toledo, City of
Yellow Springs, Village of

Oregon
Beaverton, City of
Bend, City of
Benton County
Corvallis, City of
Eugene, City of
Hillsboro, City of
Lake Oswego, City of
Lincoln City
Multnomah County
Portland, City of
Salem, City of

Pennsylvania
Abington Township
Allegheny County
Allentown, City of
Bethlehem, City of
Cheltenham Township
Doylestown, City of
East Norriton, City of
Easton, City of
Erie County
Harrisburg, City of
Hatboro, City of
Haverford Township
Jenkinstown Borough
Lansdowne Borough
Lower Marion Township
New Hope Borough
Newton Borough
Philadelphia, City of
Pittsburgh, City of
Pittston, City of
Scranton, City of
Reading, City of
Springfield Township
State College Borough
Susquehanna Township
Swarthmore, City of
Upper Merion Township
West Chester Borough
Whitemarsh Township
York, City of

Rhode Island
Providence, City of

South Carolina
Myrtle Beach, City of

Texas
Austin, City of
Dallas County
Dallas, City of
Fort Worth, City of
Plano, City of

Utah
Alta, City of
Grand County
Harrisville, City of
Logan, City of
Midvale, City of
Moab, City of
Murray City
Ogden, City of
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake County
Springdale, City of
Summit County
Taylorsville, City of
West Valley, City

Washington
Burien, City of
King County
Seattle, City of
Spokane, City of
Tacoma, City of

West Virginia
Charleston, City of
Huntington, City of

Wisconsin
Dane County
Madison, City of
Milwaukee, City of
Dane County
Madison, City of
Milwaukee, City of

Wyoming
Laramie, City of


 

 

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

 

That's BS. This is squarely on the CLT City council. In an exceedingly LGBT friendly city, why did they have to pass the bathroom law. It had been working fine to this point. What problem were they solving? None, they were trying to set precedent and start the seeds of a nationwide movement into less-LGBT friendly areas.

 

All you who are saying there is no current problem, why does it need to be addressed are shooting yourselves in the foot. If that is the case, then the LGBT initiatives are going to lose their impetus. Best you just hush up if you want to help them.

 

i don't know what the issues were in Charlotte. But they seemed to have a local solution. It's the big gov't types that are happy now, on both sides.

 

 

Then fucking educate yourself. You've been spouting off here for days that there is no issue so why did this have to come to a head. Well tell me the issue in CLT that prompted their push of their bathroom law. The reality was there was no issue. The CLT city council was manufacturing a solution to a non-issue so they could push an agenda. And that agenda was:

 

"Hey look at us. Look how fucking progressive and LGBT friendly we are".

 

I also think they correctly anticipated the NC legislature reaction and deliberately kicked the hornets nest to get attention to this "non" issue.

 

 

 

What was "her" name Jeff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I am definitely not trying to distract from the conversation. I am serious in asking how does one, in a written regulation or law, differentiate between a cisgender pretending to be transgender and a real transgender? I don't think it is possible, and it certainly is not contained in the directive from the feds.

Sure they can. When they realize that little Johnny is using the girls room, and hasn't let the administration know about being transgender.

 

I can't imagine the amount of crap these people have to endure, or that anyone would want to go through it for fun. The lack of real world problems indicates that such is the case. Of course, we will now get a rash of men causing problems in women's bathrooms, to try to prove the point, a number I predict will far exceed the number of transgender people causing trouble.

 

 

Well, yeah. That is kinda my point, and without any criteria for determining when someone is really a transgender, I think there is little that schools could do to deal with Johnny whether he tells them he is transgendered or not. I am not expecting the trouble to come from actual transgendered people, at least not for the most part. Primarily, I expect trouble to come from troublemakers who use hastily written and poorly thought out laws and regulations as cover for being deviants and dickheads.

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

That's BS. This is squarely on the CLT City council. In an exceedingly LGBT friendly city, why did they have to pass the bathroom law. It had been working fine to this point. What problem were they solving? None, they were trying to set precedent and start the seeds of a nationwide movement into less-LGBT friendly areas.

 

All you who are saying there is no current problem, why does it need to be addressed are shooting yourselves in the foot. If that is the case, then the LGBT initiatives are going to lose their impetus. Best you just hush up if you want to help them.

 

They didn't pass a bathroom law. They added categories to the pre-existing non discrimination ordinance. It was the NC law that got all interested in bathrooms. Why did Charlotte do it? Good for business, for one thing. There's a good discussion of the reasons behind it here, if you really want an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So - why did North Carolina decide to open pandora's box?

 

Looks like Sol is right. There was no issue before, now there is a forced solution which won't work as well as when folks just dealt with it. Or much more likely, didn't know they were dealing with it.

 

I lay this squarely on the bigots in the NC statehouse.

 

 

 

That's BS. This is squarely on the CLT City council. In an exceedingly LGBT friendly city, why did they have to pass the bathroom law. It had been working fine to this point. What problem were they solving? None, they were trying to set precedent and start the seeds of a nationwide movement into less-LGBT friendly areas.

 

All you who are saying there is no current problem, why does it need to be addressed are shooting yourselves in the foot. If that is the case, then the LGBT initiatives are going to lose their impetus. Best you just hush up if you want to help them.

 

i don't know what the issues were in Charlotte. But they seemed to have a local solution. It's the big gov't types that are happy now, on both sides.

 

 

Then fucking educate yourself. You've been spouting off here for days that there is no issue so why did this have to come to a head. Well tell me the issue in CLT that prompted their push of their bathroom law. The reality was there was no issue. The CLT city council was manufacturing a solution to a non-issue so they could push an agenda. And that agenda was:

 

"Hey look at us. Look how fucking progressive and LGBT friendly we are".

 

I also think they correctly anticipated the NC legislature reaction and deliberately kicked the hornets nest to get attention to this "non" issue.

 

In places where discrimination is legal, there is not likely to be a record of discrimination, at least until we start seeing transgender people hanging from trees. THe rationale for Charlotte's addition of categories to its non discrimination ordinance is spelled out here: http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpted from Sol's article:
"

Are there past examples of discrimination in the City of Charlotte?
Charlotte’s Community Relations Committee receives and reviews formal complaints from citizens who feel they have been discriminated against in a public place or in housing because of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, family status or disability. However, the city does not keep track of cases of discrimination based on other factors such as a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or marital status.

 

 

Why should the City of Charlotte, and not the state or federal government, pass non-discrimination ordinances?

...... It is Charlotte’s responsibility to ensure that all residents of and visitors to Charlotte are treated with dignity and respect, and passing inclusive non-discrimination ordinances would be a statement of the city’s values. Proclaiming that Charlotte is a city where diversity is celebrated and people respect one another is a fundamental part of the city’s character and has many powerful reverberations; however, updating non-discrimination ordinances would be more than a symbol. Such public statements have very real consequences.


For example, in a recent survey conducted by the Human Rights Campaign, 92% of LGBT
youth said that they hear negative messages about being LGBT.

Sixty percent of these youth said that they hear such messages from their elected leaders.

About a third of LGBT youth surveyed said that their local government is not accepting, and
63% said that they will need to move to another town or part of the country to feel
accepted (they are twice as likely as their straight peers to say that they will need to move
to feel accepted).
Inclusive non-discrimination ordinances would provide these young people, as well as the many other individuals who face discrimination, with a city where they could feel accepted. (end excerpted copy/paste)
*****************************************************************************************************************
So - it would appear that the problem the Charlotte City Council was trying to address was people responding to the T-community's behavior and appearance in a way that made them feel socially unaccepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is this:

 

 

 

Why should Charlotte update its non-discrimination ordinances now?
  • All residents of and visitors to Charlotte should be treated fairly and equally by the laws of our city.
  • Arbitrary discrimination against any individual or group is detrimental to the peace, progress, and welfare of the city and ill-suits a community that values diversity.
  • Updated non-discrimination ordinances will strengthen the community by fostering an atmosphere of respect and inclusivity. It will send the message that Charlotte is a welcoming place to live, work, and raise a family.
  • Recent demographic research by Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class, and others shows that cities that are perceived to be welcoming, inclusive communities are better able to attract and retain top talent and cutting-edge businesses.
  • The “creative class”—the entrepreneurs and big thinkers who engage in the business of innovation—take a city’s commitment to diversity seriously when deciding where to locate.
  • Cities with inclusive non-discrimination ordinances signal to employers and employees alike that their communities welcome and celebrate diversity.
  • 94% of FORTUNE 500 companies have inclusive nondiscrimination policies because they know that these policies help attract and retain the best talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What cases of discrimination can you show that was happening in CLT to prompt this measure?

 

Remember that the bar YOU and Rzr set was that this had to be actually happening in the real world before politicians were allowed to act and pass laws. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What cases of discrimination can you show that was happening in CLT to prompt this measure?

 

Remember that the bar YOU and Rzr set was that this had to be actually happening in the real world before politicians were allowed to act and pass laws. Just saying.

See post 571. Discrimination was legal in Charlotte. Why would there be a record of it? The justification for adding categories to the Charlotte NDO was as stated above, it's good for business. The justification for the NC Potty Bill was to keep our wimminfolk safe from the pervy people who ain't like us'ns, because they would use their newfound rights to peep on our wimmin. The rationale for one of those enactments is based on imagining what could happen. That would be the potty bill, which strips not just the right to pick a potty, but the right for a number of groups to access courts for discrimination.

 

I'm not going to apologize for being unwilling to wink and nod and say that stripping people of their rights is the fault of the people stripped. We've been down that path before with those pesky nigras who caused all the trouble by sitting at lunch counters and refusing to sit in the back of the bus. It was all their fault!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

 

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

 

Its that what you're saying?

Neither seems like a very nice solution

 

Bear in mind, I believe you are asking for a detailed solution to an extremely unlikely hypothetical.

 

You are suggesting some female is going to claim a need for access to a solution to a problem

I don't believe will ever exist.

 

"There is a person in the locker room I would like to use whose presence violates my freedom. "

 

"How does this person's presence violate your freedom"

 

"The person has a dangly thing between the legs."

 

"And?"

 

"?????? OK.... I can't fill in this part because I have no idea why anyone would possibly give a rat's parootie about a dangly thing hanging off a person who is in every other way playing the time of a female

 

 

So, I have no idea what accommodations such a person might need.

She might be grossed out, frightened, amazed, jealous, turned on, revolted...

I don't have Ny idea what the hypothetical petitioner wants, needs, or any way to predict what might be fair.

 

I can guarantee this. If I were a teacher or administrator T her school Snd confronted with this situation, I would sit down and chat with the petitioner and do my very best to serve her needs.

 

 

In fact, I am fully confident I could work with her to absolutely solve the problem in a way she would find acceptable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Myth #3: Letting trans people use the bathroom matching their gender identity is dangerous

Transgender people generally prefer using the bathroom that matches their gender identity, not the one that corresponds with the gender they were assigned at birth. But critics argue that this could expose others to sexual voyeurism and assault in bathrooms — even though there's no evidence to support this claim.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee perpetuated this myth at a 2015 convention, stating, "Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.'"

But as Media Matters pointed out, experts from 12 states that protect trans rights have thoroughly refuted this talking point. In the US, there's not a single reported instance of this kind of voyeurism occurring in states with legal protections for trans people.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11692494/transgender-bathrooms-creepy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose Sol decides he' a cat today. Does he deserve a litter box accommodation?

Interesting question.

Sort of off topic??

This discussion could fill another thread.

 

Does he ?

 

 

Maybe? Maybe not.

Litter boxes are not sexually segregated.

 

If Sol is of the opinion he is a cat and begins doing his very best to live as a cat he will NEED a litter box or he will go shit in the neighborhood sandboxes, mulch, leaf piles and similar.

Sol would willingly shit with the female cats but he might tend to get in fights with the males.

Unless Sol thinks he is a girl cat

 

Would Sol think he is a house cAt or would he believe he is a cat that is more his size?

 

Would Sol attack people? Would he jump

In their laps and knead his paws while purring?

 

Would Sol play with your balls?

 

Would Sol have nine lives and should we expect 480,000 additional posts?

 

Would Sol be neutered??

 

Etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites