The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[Sol Rosenberg]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

Cultural traditions? Traditionally, we've let people use whatever facilities they feel comfortable with, and there have been few problems if any. There are laws to cover harassment, laws to cover lewd and lascivious behavior, laws to cover assault, etc. They have kept folks safe, and will continue to do so, until we force people who look like men to use the women's facilities and vice versa.

 

[slatfatf]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

Cultural traditions? Traditionally, we've let people use whatever facilities they feel comfortable with, and there have been few problems if any. There are laws to cover harassment, laws to cover lewd and lascivious behavior, laws to cover assault, etc. They have kept folks safe, and will continue to do so, until we force people who look like men to use the women's facilities and vice versa.

We have let people who look like women use the women's room, but a person who looked like a man using the same facilities would always cause a problem and calls to the police. That is why school policies have generally had transgendered students using private showers, as even if they appear feminine clothed, once naked they start to look a lot like a guy. I disagree that biological males were always welcome in women's facilities, even if they displayed good manners, it has never been accepted and would generally be prosecuted. In cases where they could pass as female, nobody made a fuss, but that is because they passed as females.

 

[Spatial Ed]

Should we have separate facilities for homosexual males from heterosexual males. I mean, homos are attracted to other males, hetros too. All this worry about trannies molesting women and we forget the homo-elephant in the bathroom.

Not a single person here has once mentioned (to my knowledge) anything about trannies molesting women or little girls. Why do you have to be such a specious, lying cunt all the time???

You mentioned men (trannies) dangling their dicks in girls faces. I consider that molesting.

 

[Guest]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

Cultural traditions? Traditionally, we've let people use whatever facilities they feel comfortable with, and there have been few problems if any. There are laws to cover harassment, laws to cover lewd and lascivious behavior, laws to cover assault, etc. They have kept folks safe, and will continue to do so, until we force people who look like men to use the women's facilities and vice versa.

We have let people who look like women use the women's room, but a person who looked like a man using the same facilities would always cause a problem and calls to the police. That is why school policies have generally had transgendered students using private showers, as even if they appear feminine clothed, once naked they start to look a lot like a guy. I disagree that biological males were always welcome in women's facilities, even if they displayed good manners, it has never been accepted and would generally be prosecuted. In cases where they could pass as female, nobody made a fuss, but that is because they passed as females.

Correct. I disagree with Sol's premise that traditionally we've let people use the facilities they most feel comfortable with. That's simply not true. We've let people use the facilities where they blended in the most seamlessly.

 

[Spatial Ed]

Correct. I disagree with Sol's premise that traditionally we've let people use the facilities they most feel comfortable with. That's simply not true. We've let people use the facilities where they blended in the most seamlessly.

Do you not see the problem with your statement?

 

[Snore]

I have tread lightly and avoided posting to this thread. But I have to ask a serious question.

How can you consider men's rooms gender neutral? Many urinals do not have "modesty panels", and the old school troughs are anything but discrete. If the goal is 100% stalls, that do offer isolation, there are always the pussies who refuse to lift the seat. This leaves the next person sitting in the previous user's pee. There is a sound sanitary reason for those with a penis to use a men's room.

And don't get me started on the first high school wise guy who says he identifies with girls, just to use their locker room. You know there will be at least one!

 

[Raz'r]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

This is a uniquely american issue.

Other countries just don't have these irrational fears.

 

[slatfatf]

I have tread lightly and avoided posting to this thread. But I have to ask a serious question.

How can you consider men's rooms gender neutral? Many urinals do not have "modesty panels", and the old school troughs are anything but discrete. If the goal is 100% stalls, that do offer isolation, there are always the pussies who refuse to lift the seat. This leaves the next person sitting in the previous user's pee. There is a sound sanitary reason for those with a penis to use a men's room.

And don't get me started on the first high school wise guy who says he identifies with girls, just to use their locker room. You know there will be at least one!

No more urinals, or they will be stuck in the side of the stall like in porta pottis.

 

[slatfatf]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

This is a uniquely american issue.

Other countries just don't have these irrational fears.

It has nothing to do with fear. Seriously, I am starting to wonder why this is so hard for people to understand. Is it an irrational fear for a Muslim woman to keep her Hijab on when in the presence of men? I don't think it has anything to do with fear, but refusing to accept her keeping it on is a sure sign of intolerance.

 

[Guest]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

This is a uniquely american issue.

Other countries just don't have these irrational fears.

It has nothing to do with fear. Seriously, I am starting to wonder why this is so hard for people to understand. Is it an irrational fear for a Muslim woman to keep her Hijab on when in the presence of men? I don't think it has anything to do with fear, but refusing to accept her keeping it on is a sure sign of intolerance.

When they are losing an argument, they always resort to the fear card. Or lying about us saying that "assaults by trannies" were the reason we object. TRANNY!

 

[Gouvernail]

The more you continue to post on this subject, the more you embarrass your reputation.

Step away from your keyboard and go sail something or fly something and when you return and this thread is off the top page, find a subject that has not been beaten to death by thise whose entrenched minds are no longer accepting input from the "other side."

Wait

That describes every thread in PA

Carry on

And don't forget to insert plenty of irrelevant but cleverly stated personal insults

 

[Raz'r]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

This is a uniquely american issue.

Other countries just don't have these irrational fears.

It has nothing to do with fear. Seriously, I am starting to wonder why this is so hard for people to understand. Is it an irrational fear for a Muslim woman to keep her Hijab on when in the presence of men? I don't think it has anything to do with fear, but refusing to accept her keeping it on is a sure sign of intolerance.

I would have no compunction of a Hijab having to be removed in a public security environment. Hell, we already all the gov't to look under our undies at the airport.

 

[slatfatf]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

This is a uniquely american issue.

Other countries just don't have these irrational fears.

It has nothing to do with fear. Seriously, I am starting to wonder why this is so hard for people to understand. Is it an irrational fear for a Muslim woman to keep her Hijab on when in the presence of men? I don't think it has anything to do with fear, but refusing to accept her keeping it on is a sure sign of intolerance.

When they are losing an argument, they always resort to the fear card. Or lying about us saying that "assaults by trannies" were the reason we object. TRANNY!

I think it is a matter of wanting to take a complex issue with competing needs, beliefs, and sensitivities and trying to some up with a simple answer. It is what happens on almost every subject here. The world does not really work that way, but that does not matter on the Internet.

 

[slatfatf]

We're gonna need to protect girls/women's facilities from lesbians. We wouldn't want lustly lasses perving on girls asses.

Not the same thing. We have a history of separating the sexes especially in places where nudity is involved, regardless of who they are attracted to. It is built into our culture, into most religions, and is part of our history. It seems revisionist to me to equate a biological male, who may or may not be attracted to women, with a lesbian in a common shower or locker room with biological women. I have no problem with lesbians in a women's locker room, and I don't think most women do, but a heterosexual male is a different story. Both the heterosexual male and the lesbian are attracted to women, it is not about their sexuality but about their sex (m/f). It has to do with cultural traditions and societal norms, rather than specifically sexuality. I do think the changes offers cover to males who specifically want to perv on girls, that is different than believing all hetero males are would be pervs or all lesbians are would be pervs given the opportunity. It just means we are expanding the opportunity for some hetero pervs to be pervs.

This is a uniquely american issue.

Other countries just don't have these irrational fears.

It has nothing to do with fear. Seriously, I am starting to wonder why this is so hard for people to understand. Is it an irrational fear for a Muslim woman to keep her Hijab on when in the presence of men? I don't think it has anything to do with fear, but refusing to accept her keeping it on is a sure sign of intolerance.

I would have no compunction of a Hijab having to be removed in a public security environment. Hell, we already all the gov't to look under our undies at the airport.

That is good to know, but not really relevant. When the TSA does one of the grope and poke sessions, they offer everyone the opportunity to have it performed by a member of the same sex. We do not force Muslim women to remove their Hijab in the presence of men. To do otherwise would display religious intolerance, which as a country we used to think was wrong. We still do when it is Trump displaying it.

 

[Rockdog]

And, some things don't require a written law because the 'law'. To prove why, go to a local popular sports bar and follow the biggest and meanest looking dudes wife into the ladies room.

Well, if you want it to be illegal & punishable by the justice department, you do need it to be a law. If you only want it to be something society frowns upon, then feel free to leave it unwritten. It's not illegal to fuck another man's wife either, and I sure as hell don't condone it, but the government shouldn't (& doesn't) get involved when it happens.

Around here if you followed someone's wife into the bathroom at a bar you leave in an ambulance. Probably true throughout The US.

The above is the reason the trans men desire written legal approval to use the Ladies Room. They already know their lifestyle is frowned upon.

 

[Raz'r]

And, some things don't require a written law because the 'law'. To prove why, go to a local popular sports bar and follow the biggest and meanest looking dudes wife into the ladies room.

Well, if you want it to be illegal & punishable by the justice department, you do need it to be a law. If you only want it to be something society frowns upon, then feel free to leave it unwritten. It's not illegal to fuck another man's wife either, and I sure as hell don't condone it, but the government shouldn't (& doesn't) get involved when it happens.

Around here if you followed someone's wife into the bathroom at a bar you leave in an ambulance. Probably true throughout The US.

The above is the reason the trans men desire written legal approval to use the Ladies Room. They already know their lifestyle is frowned upon.

and if a TRANNY! entered the mens room in that bar, the same would happen to her.

 

[Spatial Ed]

I have tread lightly and avoided posting to this thread. But I have to ask a serious question.

How can you consider men's rooms gender neutral? Many urinals do not have "modesty panels", and the old school troughs are anything but discrete. If the goal is 100% stalls, that do offer isolation, there are always the pussies who refuse to lift the seat. This leaves the next person sitting in the previous user's pee. There is a sound sanitary reason for those with a penis to use a men's room.

And don't get me started on the first high school wise guy who says he identifies with girls, just to use their locker room. You know there will be at least one!

No more urinals, or they will be stuck in the side of the stall like in porta pottis.

Why would a gender neutral bathroom require the removal of urinals? Have you ever been in a men's room that didn't have a toilet in addition to urinals? Or are we supposed to protect women from the site of urinals?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I have tread lightly and avoided posting to this thread. But I have to ask a serious question.

How can you consider men's rooms gender neutral? Many urinals do not have "modesty panels", and the old school troughs are anything but discrete. If the goal is 100% stalls, that do offer isolation, there are always the pussies who refuse to lift the seat. This leaves the next person sitting in the previous user's pee. There is a sound sanitary reason for those with a penis to use a men's room.

And don't get me started on the first high school wise guy who says he identifies with girls, just to use their locker room. You know there will be at least one!

No more urinals, or they will be stuck in the side of the stall like in porta pottis.

Why would a gender neutral bathroom require the removal of urinals? Have you ever been in a men's room that didn't have a toilet in addition to urinals? Or are we supposed to protect women from the site of urinals?

The "we'll just go gender neutral!" answer is this outrage's version of the "we just won't issue ANY marriage licenses at all!" response to the same sex marriage issue.

Somehow, we've managed to make it a good long while without wild penises breaking out of their stalls and stampeding around the pissoirs of our schools.

 

[Snore]

I have tread lightly and avoided posting to this thread. But I have to ask a serious question.

How can you consider men's rooms gender neutral? Many urinals do not have "modesty panels", and the old school troughs are anything but discrete. If the goal is 100% stalls, that do offer isolation, there are always the pussies who refuse to lift the seat. This leaves the next person sitting in the previous user's pee. There is a sound sanitary reason for those with a penis to use a men's room.

And don't get me started on the first high school wise guy who says he identifies with girls, just to use their locker room. You know there will be at least one!

No more urinals, or they will be stuck in the side of the stall like in porta pottis.

Why would a gender neutral bathroom require the removal of urinals? Have you ever been in a men's room that didn't have a toilet in addition to urinals? Or are we supposed to protect women from the site of urinals?

Unless there are urinals with "modesty panels" there is the real possibility of exposed penis. While this may not offend lesbians, it would offend those gentlemen who find it offensive. So now those who have a religious belief that makes having a women see their genital area wrong (sin whatever) are being offended.

Maybe I'm just a grump on this. But your plumbing determines what bathroom you use. PERIOD end of discussion. Want to change that? Change your plumbing---- and NO Obama Care ain't gonna pay.

The entire PC argument is bullshit- hence Dangerous Don's popularity.

Excuse me I gotta clean my shotgun now....

 

[Spatial Ed]

I have tread lightly and avoided posting to this thread. But I have to ask a serious question.

How can you consider men's rooms gender neutral? Many urinals do not have "modesty panels", and the old school troughs are anything but discrete. If the goal is 100% stalls, that do offer isolation, there are always the pussies who refuse to lift the seat. This leaves the next person sitting in the previous user's pee. There is a sound sanitary reason for those with a penis to use a men's room.

And don't get me started on the first high school wise guy who says he identifies with girls, just to use their locker room. You know there will be at least one!

No more urinals, or they will be stuck in the side of the stall like in porta pottis.

Why would a gender neutral bathroom require the removal of urinals? Have you ever been in a men's room that didn't have a toilet in addition to urinals? Or are we supposed to protect women from the site of urinals?

The "we'll just go gender neutral!" answer is this outrage's version of the "we just won't issue ANY marriage licenses at all!" response to the same sex marriage issue.

Somehow, we've managed to make it a good long while without wild penises breaking out of their stalls and stampeding around the pissoirs of our schools.

We can't have nice things because of the gender benders.