The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[nannygovtsucks]

Once we get the trans-gender bathroom issue under control, let's not forget that there are other gender identities which also deserve special consideration.

In the world of biology, there are two genders. In the world of fucking idiocy there are at least 31, according to the NYC Commission on Human Rights:

1. BI-GENDERED

2. CROSS-DRESSER

3. DRAG KING

4. DRAG QUEEN

5. FEMME QUEEN

6. FEMALE-TO-MALE

7. FTM

8. GENDER BENDER

9. GENDERQUEER

10. MALE-TO-FEMALE

11. MTF

12. NON-OP

13. HIJRA

14. PANGENDER

15. TRANSEXUAL/TRANSSEXUAL

16. TRANS PERSON

17. WOMAN

18. MAN

19. BUTCH

20. TWO-SPIRIT

21. TRANS

22. AGENDER

23. THIRD SEX

24. GENDER FLUID

25. NON-BINARY TRANSGENDER

26. ANDROGYNE

27. GENDER GIFTED

28. GENDER BLENDER

29. FEMME

30. PERSON OF TRANSGENDER EXPERIENCE

31. ANDROGYNOUS

You forgot "Intersex" http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex

Missed this one too, the "Eco-Sexual". http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/26/watch-eco-sexual-wedding-college-prof-leads-students-to-marry-the-ocean-not-a-joke/

Professor at Santa Monica College led students in an ‘EcoSexual Sextravaganza’ in which participants ‘married the ocean.’

'With this ring, I bestow upon the sea the treasures of my mind heart and hands—as well as my body and soul. With the power vested in us, we now pronounce you ‘married to the sea.’

The Obama Circus tent Freak Show once known as the United States doesn't seem to be letting up anytime soon.

 

[poopie pants]

 

[Gouvernail]

People like that protect people who post here from being recognized as weirdos

 

[tuk tuk Joe]

Transgenders are not weirdos! It's perfectly normal.

 

[Guest]

So how do they consummate the marriage? And if they ever sleep with anyone else are they cheating? Or is an ecosexual marriage open? Maybe the ocean just doesn't care.

 

[Gouvernail]

Certain body parts will smell fishy

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Is this the thread to find out whether passing laws in response to a non-problem is bad?

 

[Saorsa]

 

[nannygovtsucks]

 

[Gouvernail]

Works for me!!

Better still would be to hang a "NO REPUBLICANS ALLOWED ON THESE PREMISES" SIGN.

 

[Bent Sailor]

Is this the thread to find out whether passing laws in response to a non-problem is bad?

No. It is a thread about whether or not people should pass laws for a specific "non-problem". It is not a thread about guns, gun ownership, gun storage, or any one of your other gun fetishes. Only a complete twat waffle would try derailing the conversation in that direction.

 

[Guest]

There are girls who don't want trannies in their bathroom and now their rights are being taken away in favor of one person who demands to bring their penis into the girls locker room where culturally and historically that was frowned upon.

And therein lies your problem - there is no "right" to a public bathrooms in which you can feel comfortable. The issue is that there is an "expectation" you feel is violated, but there never was a "right" to what you claim. When the "expectations" of two groups conflict, one tries to make accomodations that don't violate either of their actual "rights".

I never said there was a right to a bathroom or a right to be comfortable. I said there is a right and an expectation to privacy.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening - the rights of two groups are directly conflicting. An accommodation WAS made for the minority group that did not violate their rights. By refusing that accommodation, one group is now infringing on the other's rights.

What happens now? Who's rights rein (for tom ) supreme?

Your problem is the "right to privacy" is gender neutral. Nothing in the Constitution states that one's "right to privacy" applies differently to people of the opposite gender to you.

If you get stripped in a public bathroom or shower, then you are waiving your "right to privacy" as far as being nude in front of the people in there is concerned - male or female. You are getting stripped where an unknown third party can see you. Your "expectation" that everyone has the same plumbing as you is irrelevant.

Remember, we're talking about public amenities here, not a private residence. There are long established rules about how doing something where other members of the public are present waives the right to privacy.

OK, I'll put you down in the "men can walk into a public women's restroom and locker room anytime they feel like it" column. Good to know.

 

[Bent Sailor]

OK, I'll put you down in the "men can walk into a public women's restroom and locker room anytime they feel like it" column. Good to know.

You can do whatever you like to avoid the point. Doesn't make it so. As someone recently said "You would be wrong, but I won't let that stop you".

Fact remains, you're talking about public amenities & open change/shower . People using those rooms & getting naked in them are accepting that third-parties from the public may see them naked. You have well established case law about doing things in non-private locations and how that waives one's right to privacy. That's not my fault and has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings on the matter of who goes in what bathroom.

Stop whining like a bitch and deal with the facts. Not my fault your judiciary decided the precedential cases the way they did.

 

[Guest]

OK, I'll put you down in the "men can walk into a public women's restroom and locker room anytime they feel like it" column. Good to know.

You can do whatever you like to avoid the point. Doesn't make it so.

Fact remains, you're talking about public amenities & open change/shower . People using those rooms & getting naked in them are accepting that third-parties from the public may see them naked. You have well established case law about doing things in public spaces and how that waives one's right to privacy. That's not my fault and has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings on the matter of who goes in what bathroom.

You don't like the idea that doing something in a public bathroom/shower waives the right of privacy - take that up with the judiciary, not the person pointing it out.

Sorry, it doesn't and won't work like you think it does no matter what you say or think. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion nor be having any of these legal issues right now. The fact of the matter is that there IS an expectation of privacy in a same-sex PUBLIC restroom or shower facility that does not include members of the opposite sex. I guarantee you that if you tested that in any court in the US that a man could freely walk into a women's shower room and hang out naked - you would be laughed out by every judge in the land.

Or I should say that would be the case before Obama's executive order........ that just opened that up for that very thing to be pushed and tested. I sincerely hope that some fat, beer-bellied, grizzly old guy like Gouv does exactly that, gets arrested for it and it goes to the SCOTUS.

 

[Bent Sailor]

OK, I'll put you down in the "men can walk into a public women's restroom and locker room anytime they feel like it" column. Good to know.

You can do whatever you like to avoid the point. Doesn't make it so.

Fact remains, you're talking about public amenities & open change/shower . People using those rooms & getting naked in them are accepting that third-parties from the public may see them naked. You have well established case law about doing things in public spaces and how that waives one's right to privacy. That's not my fault and has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings on the matter of who goes in what bathroom.

You don't like the idea that doing something in a public bathroom/shower waives the right of privacy - take that up with the judiciary, not the person pointing it out.

Sorry, it doesn't and won't work like you think it does no matter what you say or think. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion nor be having any of these legal issues right now. The fact of the matter is that there IS an expectation of privacy in a same-sex PUBLIC restroom or shower facility that does not include members of the opposite sex. I guarantee you that if you tested that in any court in the US that a man could freely walk into a women's shower room and hang out naked - you would be laughed out by every judge in the land.

Or I should say that would be the case before Obama's executive order........ that just opened that up for that very thing to be pushed and tested. I sincerely hope that some fat, beer-bellied, grizzly old guy like Gouv does exactly that, gets arrested for it and it goes to the SCOTUS.

No-one is arguing there isn't an expectation of privacy. I was pointing out your argument about the right to privacy in a public shower doesn't hold water. Expectations are not rights. No matter how long you've had that expectation. You are complaining about one expectation being in conflict to another's expectation. That is not as clear cut as you'd like, I get that, but it doesn't change case law regarding the waiving of privacy rights.

By performing an action in an open area of a public amenity - you are accepting that people will see you doing that action. If you strip in the middle of an open change room or shower - you waive your right about others in that room seeing your junk. Your "expectations" about their race, religion, and/or internal biology don't come into it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

No-one is arguing there isn't an expectation of privacy. I was pointing out your argument about the right to privacy in a public shower doesn't hold water. Expectations are not rights. No matter how long you've had that expectation. .

..

That might be true down under, but we have a Bill of Rights. It has a fourth amendment. Where you have an expectation of privacy has a great legal effect on whether or not fourth amendment rights are violated.

It's a Bill of Rights thing. You wouldn't understand.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Is this the thread to find out whether passing laws in response to a non-problem is bad?

No. It is a thread about whether or not people should pass laws for a specific "non-problem". It is not a thread about guns, gun ownership, gun storage, or any one of your other gun fetishes. Only a complete twat waffle would try derailing the conversation in that direction.

Just checking for consistency.

You're consistent. You consistently fail to find your way to Tom Ray Anarchy for posts about me.

 

[Bent Sailor]

Just checking for consistency.

You're consistent.

Good of you to acknowledge that. So too are you but not in a good way.

You consistently fail to find your way to Tom Ray Anarchy for posts about me.

You haven't pissed me off enough to be an issue in & of yourself. So I don't even read that thread in the rare occasions it gets bumped. I understand the motivations of those who are fed up enough with your crap to discuss it in general, but you're just not that important to me nor entertaining enough to warrant that kind of energy.

I'll stick to pointing out you're being a dick in the threads you're actually being a dick in. I'm consistent that way.

P.S. Favre

 

[Spatial Ed]

Jeff, is it ok to dangle dicks in front of boys in locker rooms?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

OK, I'll put you down in the "men can walk into a public women's restroom and locker room anytime they feel like it" column. Good to know.

You can do whatever you like to avoid the point. Doesn't make it so.

Fact remains, you're talking about public amenities & open change/shower . People using those rooms & getting naked in them are accepting that third-parties from the public may see them naked. You have well established case law about doing things in public spaces and how that waives one's right to privacy. That's not my fault and has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings on the matter of who goes in what bathroom.

You don't like the idea that doing something in a public bathroom/shower waives the right of privacy - take that up with the judiciary, not the person pointing it out.

Sorry, it doesn't and won't work like you think it does no matter what you say or think. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion nor be having any of these legal issues right now. The fact of the matter is that there IS an expectation of privacy in a same-sex PUBLIC restroom or shower facility that does not include members of the opposite sex. I guarantee you that if you tested that in any court in the US that a man could freely walk into a women's shower room and hang out naked - you would be laughed out by every judge in the land.

Or I should say that would be the case before Obama's executive order........ that just opened that up for that very thing to be pushed and tested. I sincerely hope that some fat, beer-bellied, grizzly old guy like Gouv does exactly that, gets arrested for it and it goes to the SCOTUS.

Perhaps we should decide whether we want to discuss this in the context of a public bathroom or school locker room. The rights to privacy and/or expectations thereof, are quite likely different, given the custodial nature of the child in school, and the communal nature of school locker rooms.

Time to anchor those goalposts and get down to brass tacks.