The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[Bent Sailor]

The problem still seems to me to be about government mandating people strip where others can see them. The situation of some lecherous bastard walking into the toilets to look at naked kids already exists, it's just some yanks seem to think it's only a problem if they identify as transgender. If it happens to be a man who likes looking at little boys - your problem is not going to be fixed by the knee jerk reaction of old men about the transgendered.

Simply put, stop the government mandating your kids to get stripped where others can see them and your contrived problem goes away. No-one has to get naked if they don't want to, so they can control who sees them by choosing when & where they take their clothes off. The fact that some people will still have a problem with the idea transgendered folks can use the bathrooms suiting their gender identity after the kids are already protected is not really an issue for me. The discomfort of bigots never really bothered me.

 

[Guest]

The problem still seems to me to be about government mandating people strip where others can see them. The situation of some lecherous bastard walking into the toilets to look at naked kids already exists, it's just some yanks seem to think it's only a problem if they identify as transgender. If it happens to be a man who likes looking at little boys - your problem is not going to be fixed by the knee jerk reaction of old men about the transgendered.

Simply put, stop the government mandating your kids to get stripped where others can see them and your contrived problem goes away. No-one has to get naked if they don't want to, so they can control who sees them by choosing when & where they take their clothes off. The fact that some people will still have a problem with the idea transgendered folks can use the bathrooms suiting their gender identity after the kids are already protected is not really an issue for me. The discomfort of bigots never really bothered me.

Under current law - a man could be chucked out of a girls bathroom and could be prosecuted under statutes that deal with voyeurism and lecherous conduct. I don't recall the exact titles of the statues.

Now, there is no way he can even be asked to leave. And the only way he could be prosecuted for perving is if he whips his dick out in the room and starts wanking off. Otherwise, he can just claim he feels like a woman and that would be his right to be there. I don't see how you could question it?

As for the gov't mandating people strip - you're missing the point. Most schools have requirements to participate in PE and to wear PE clothing. There will be some changing into and out of that gear at some point. Most US school facilities, IIRC although I can't speak to it now, are sex specific changing open rooms. Its never been an issue until this whole Tranny thing reared its ugly head. It would cost huge tax $$ to retrofit all schools to give every kid privacy that you suggest. Over time, it will likely go that way - but its not an immediate or cheap process.

And that doesn't solve all the other facilities that are not gov't mandated like above. Voluntary use facilities like gym locker rooms, hotel spas, beach and pool shower rooms run by the city, etc all would be affected by this. A perv guy could easily take advantage of this as evadent by the link that was posted in this thread a while back about the guy who went into the little girls shower room at the public pool. As long as he says he ID's as a woman, there is not a fucking thing that can be done to stop him.

So for a tiny tiny fraction of the population who truly are trans - we will spend billions of $$ as a nation to accommodate them at the expense of the rest of the people who are not comfortable being around them. WFD!

 

[Bent Sailor]

Under current law - a man could be chucked out of a girls bathroom and could be prosecuted under statutes that deal with voyeurism and lecherous conduct. I don't recall the exact titles of the statues.

Now, there is no way he can even be asked to leave. And the only way he could be prosecuted for perving is if he whips his dick out in the room and starts wanking off. Otherwise, he can just claim he feels like a woman and that would be his right to be there. I don't see how you could question it?

Once again, focusing on one gender to the exclusion of the other. Under those same statutes, can a man get chucked out of a male bathroom & prosecuted for voyeurism & lecherous conduct? If so, then the same applies for your example of the male who claims he is female. If not, you're not protecting the boys who are being perved on by gay men or girls being perved on by lesbians.

Having looked into it, like your less recent laws regarding who can & cannot enter a given toilet, gender is not specified when it comes to voyeurism. Same goes for lecherous conduct. At least in the three states I looked at. Happy to take an example where gender is specified, but given current indications, the conduct applies regardless of gender. Intent has a lot more to do with it as does expectations of privacy from & intrusion by third parties.

However, even assuming you're right (& I would need to see evidence of that given you were incorrect about gender specific toilet) and can find a statute that specifies genders in public facilities for those crimes, you're still not protecting the children. You're simply pretending that it's only a problem for the sexual feelings of one gender to the opposite. Sadly, we know that isn't the case.

As for the gov't mandating people strip - you're missing the point. Most schools have requirements to participate in PE and to wear PE clothing. There will be some changing into and out of that gear at some point. Most US school facilities, IIRC although I can't speak to it now, are sex specific changing open rooms. Its never been an issue until this whole Tranny thing reared its ugly head. It would cost huge tax $$ to retrofit all schools to give every kid privacy that you suggest. Over time, it will likely go that way - but its not an immediate or cheap process.

I'm not missing the point, I just don't think it is as strong as you think it is. You have, quite a few times now, focused on the protection of children. I can see some validity in that view but a proper solution is to address the root issue - involuntary nudity in front of strangers. If kids have a choice about taking their clothes off, they won't need to do it in front of strangers. Problem solved. You complain, at length, about solving the root problems of violence when it comes to gun control but then whine about people seeking to do the same for other issues. Consistency isn't your strong suit is it?

As for the cost, sorry but I don't really have much sympathy for that line of argument. The government wants to force students to get changed at school - the government can pay for the costs of doing that. The excuse wouldn't fly if the costs of abiding by the race or religion parts of the fourteenth amendment, it doesn't apply because you find the gender part inconvenient. Or in language you'd understand "Fuck you, Fourteenth Amendment"

And that doesn't solve all the other facilities that are not gov't mandated like above. Voluntary use facilities like gym locker rooms, hotel spas, beach and pool shower rooms run by the city, etc all would be affected by this. A perv guy could easily take advantage of this as evadent by the link that was posted in this thread a while back about the guy who went into the little girls shower room at the public pool. As long as he says he ID's as a woman, there is not a fucking thing that can be done to stop him.

Sure you can. One can arrest him on suspicion of a crime and then show in court his claims of identifying as female are false. That's the price the Fourteenth Amendment puts on treating genders equally - the fact you cannot (and the majority of the US currently does not) discriminate on gender when it comes to public legislation & facilities. The few times a case has made it to court and been appealed to the state supreme courts - those with issues against the transgendered persons have lost.

Clearly with that record, there must be some legal basis to their claims, though I reckon SCOTUS is going to get the last say. No-one wanted to take me up when I wagered same sex marriage would get the US Constitution tick of approval, anyone want to bet against SCOTUS pointing out that gender is not a valid discriminator for access to public bathrooms?

So for a tiny tiny fraction of the population who truly are trans - we will spend billions of $$ as a nation to accommodate them at the expense of the rest of the people who are not comfortable being around them. WFD!

Yup, and the South had to free their slaves too. Sometimes abiding by the law costs you. Imagine how much money would have been saved if the Republicans hadn't made this a national issue. One would likely have been able to continue make local exceptions to infringing the Fourteenth Amendment and let the locals deal with the costs as & when the issue was raised. Unfortunately, the big government panty police decided to make a big deal about it in the media, pass a law overriding local democracy, and now you are where you are. Nanny government sucks... sometimes.

 

[Raz'r]

The problem still seems to me to be about government mandating people strip where others can see them. The situation of some lecherous bastard walking into the toilets to look at naked kids already exists, it's just some yanks seem to think it's only a problem if they identify as transgender. If it happens to be a man who likes looking at little boys - your problem is not going to be fixed by the knee jerk reaction of old men about the transgendered.

Simply put, stop the government mandating your kids to get stripped where others can see them and your contrived problem goes away. No-one has to get naked if they don't want to, so they can control who sees them by choosing when & where they take their clothes off. The fact that some people will still have a problem with the idea transgendered folks can use the bathrooms suiting their gender identity after the kids are already protected is not really an issue for me. The discomfort of bigots never really bothered me.

Under current law - a man could be chucked out of a girls bathroom and could be prosecuted under statutes that deal with voyeurism and lecherous conduct. I don't recall the exact titles of the statues.

Now, there is no way he can even be asked to leave. And the only way he could be prosecuted for perving is if he whips his dick out in the room and starts wanking off. Otherwise, he can just claim he feels like a woman and that would be his right to be there. I don't see how you could question it?

As for the gov't mandating people strip - you're missing the point. Most schools have requirements to participate in PE and to wear PE clothing. There will be some changing into and out of that gear at some point. Most US school facilities, IIRC although I can't speak to it now, are sex specific changing open rooms. Its never been an issue until this whole Tranny thing reared its ugly head. It would cost huge tax $$ to retrofit all schools to give every kid privacy that you suggest. Over time, it will likely go that way - but its not an immediate or cheap process.

And that doesn't solve all the other facilities that are not gov't mandated like above. Voluntary use facilities like gym locker rooms, hotel spas, beach and pool shower rooms run by the city, etc all would be affected by this. A perv guy could easily take advantage of this as evadent by the link that was posted in this thread a while back about the guy who went into the little girls shower room at the public pool. As long as he says he ID's as a woman, there is not a fucking thing that can be done to stop him.

So for a tiny tiny fraction of the population who truly are trans - we will spend billions of $$ as a nation to accommodate them at the expense of the rest of the people who are not comfortable being around them. WFD!

Tell ya what Jeff. If you care about kids in the locker room, you would want to "do something" about the same sex pedophiles who are already there. You know, the Hasterts of the world. You wouldn't spend all this Imagine! time worrying about what-ifs.

But you don't. Why?

 

[frenchie]

are you ok with your young daughter showering next to a naked 50 yr old hairy dude in the public shower at your sailing club?

the law doesn't say a trans person has to use the bathroom / changing room that correlates to their genitals.

It says they have to use the bathroom / changing room that conforms to their birth certificate.

So... you're perfectly fine with forcing your daughter to see some hairy dude's dick in the shower / changing room... so long as that dude used to be a woman?

 

[Dog]

The problem still seems to me to be about government mandating people strip where others can see them. The situation of some lecherous bastard walking into the toilets to look at naked kids already exists, it's just some yanks seem to think it's only a problem if they identify as transgender. If it happens to be a man who likes looking at little boys - your problem is not going to be fixed by the knee jerk reaction of old men about the transgendered.

Simply put, stop the government mandating your kids to get stripped where others can see them and your contrived problem goes away. No-one has to get naked if they don't want to, so they can control who sees them by choosing when & where they take their clothes off. The fact that some people will still have a problem with the idea transgendered folks can use the bathrooms suiting their gender identity after the kids are already protected is not really an issue for me. The discomfort of bigots never really bothered me.

Under current law - a man could be chucked out of a girls bathroom and could be prosecuted under statutes that deal with voyeurism and lecherous conduct. I don't recall the exact titles of the statues.

Now, there is no way he can even be asked to leave. And the only way he could be prosecuted for perving is if he whips his dick out in the room and starts wanking off. Otherwise, he can just claim he feels like a woman and that would be his right to be there. I don't see how you could question it?

As for the gov't mandating people strip - you're missing the point. Most schools have requirements to participate in PE and to wear PE clothing. There will be some changing into and out of that gear at some point. Most US school facilities, IIRC although I can't speak to it now, are sex specific changing open rooms. Its never been an issue until this whole Tranny thing reared its ugly head. It would cost huge tax $$ to retrofit all schools to give every kid privacy that you suggest. Over time, it will likely go that way - but its not an immediate or cheap process.

And that doesn't solve all the other facilities that are not gov't mandated like above. Voluntary use facilities like gym locker rooms, hotel spas, beach and pool shower rooms run by the city, etc all would be affected by this. A perv guy could easily take advantage of this as evadent by the link that was posted in this thread a while back about the guy who went into the little girls shower room at the public pool. As long as he says he ID's as a woman, there is not a fucking thing that can be done to stop him.

So for a tiny tiny fraction of the population who truly are trans - we will spend billions of $$ as a nation to accommodate them at the expense of the rest of the people who are not comfortable being around them. WFD!

Tell ya what Jeff. If you care about kids in the locker room, you would want to "do something" about the same sex pedophiles who are already there. You know, the Hasterts of the world. You wouldn't spend all this Imagine! time worrying about what-ifs.

But you don't. Why?

That's a fair topic, why don't you start a thread about it, maybe he would weigh in.

 

[Raz'r]

The problem still seems to me to be about government mandating people strip where others can see them. The situation of some lecherous bastard walking into the toilets to look at naked kids already exists, it's just some yanks seem to think it's only a problem if they identify as transgender. If it happens to be a man who likes looking at little boys - your problem is not going to be fixed by the knee jerk reaction of old men about the transgendered.

Simply put, stop the government mandating your kids to get stripped where others can see them and your contrived problem goes away. No-one has to get naked if they don't want to, so they can control who sees them by choosing when & where they take their clothes off. The fact that some people will still have a problem with the idea transgendered folks can use the bathrooms suiting their gender identity after the kids are already protected is not really an issue for me. The discomfort of bigots never really bothered me.

Under current law - a man could be chucked out of a girls bathroom and could be prosecuted under statutes that deal with voyeurism and lecherous conduct. I don't recall the exact titles of the statues.

Now, there is no way he can even be asked to leave. And the only way he could be prosecuted for perving is if he whips his dick out in the room and starts wanking off. Otherwise, he can just claim he feels like a woman and that would be his right to be there. I don't see how you could question it?

As for the gov't mandating people strip - you're missing the point. Most schools have requirements to participate in PE and to wear PE clothing. There will be some changing into and out of that gear at some point. Most US school facilities, IIRC although I can't speak to it now, are sex specific changing open rooms. Its never been an issue until this whole Tranny thing reared its ugly head. It would cost huge tax $$ to retrofit all schools to give every kid privacy that you suggest. Over time, it will likely go that way - but its not an immediate or cheap process.

And that doesn't solve all the other facilities that are not gov't mandated like above. Voluntary use facilities like gym locker rooms, hotel spas, beach and pool shower rooms run by the city, etc all would be affected by this. A perv guy could easily take advantage of this as evadent by the link that was posted in this thread a while back about the guy who went into the little girls shower room at the public pool. As long as he says he ID's as a woman, there is not a fucking thing that can be done to stop him.

So for a tiny tiny fraction of the population who truly are trans - we will spend billions of $$ as a nation to accommodate them at the expense of the rest of the people who are not comfortable being around them. WFD!

Tell ya what Jeff. If you care about kids in the locker room, you would want to "do something" about the same sex pedophiles who are already there. You know, the Hasterts of the world. You wouldn't spend all this Imagine! time worrying about what-ifs.
But you don't. Why?

That's a fair topic, why don't you start a thread about it, maybe he would weigh in.

Why bother?

 

[Eric]

I gather from this thread that the more hair on a body the more damaging to the psyche of a young girl if she happens to see it.

 

[Raz'r]

This is a stupid thread.

Let's try some drift.

Durant to the GSW. Lebron, they're coming for you.

 

[Rockdog]

I agree children shouldn't be forced to undress in front of anyone they don't want to. Where I live it's required by the government.

And that requirement by government is the problem. You should be railing against the primary cause, not the transgender symptom.

I put my foot down when the government makes them do it front of a member of the opposite sex.

Interesting that you're happy with lesbians watching your kids get undressed. I personally want to protect my kids from unwanted voyeurism regardless of the person's gender, sexual preference, etc.

The case in front of the court in the state where I live will bring an end to PE classes in schools. I'm fine with that as my kids get plenty of exercise. The poor kids don't have that opportunity so they will go without. THANKS Transgenders!

Mind linking me to that court case?

It will be railed against pretty soon. I did my part for my oldest - drs note gets you out of PE.

SS far as the case hors - pretty easy to Google it. You recall the boy who had the federal judge mandate he be allowed to use the Girls locker room? The girls don't want him in there.

Like I said - good bye girls PE.

 

[Rockdog]

The problem still seems to me to be about government mandating people strip where others can see them. The situation of some lecherous bastard walking into the toilets to look at naked kids already exists, it's just some yanks seem to think it's only a problem if they identify as transgender. If it happens to be a man who likes looking at little boys - your problem is not going to be fixed by the knee jerk reaction of old men about the transgendered.

Simply put, stop the government mandating your kids to get stripped where others can see them and your contrived problem goes away. No-one has to get naked if they don't want to, so they can control who sees them by choosing when & where they take their clothes off. The fact that some people will still have a problem with the idea transgendered folks can use the bathrooms suiting their gender identity after the kids are already protected is not really an issue for me. The discomfort of bigots never really bothered me.

Actually if a man goes into a woman's bathroom, locker room he may be prosecuted. If laws are passed that he can go in there nothing can be done - short of being beaten.

 

[Hard On The Wind]

Beating is your prefered solution for everything?

 

[Bent Sailor]

It will be railed against pretty soon. I did my part for my oldest - drs note gets you out of PE.

SS far as the case hors - pretty easy to Google it. You recall the boy who had the federal judge mandate he be allowed to use the Girls locker room? The girls don't want him in there.

Like I said - good bye girls PE.

Ah, so the court case will not actually do anything about the mandate for PE, it simply addresses the use of the change room. Thought you had found one that actually addressed the issue you said it did.

Going to need another case to deal with the government mandated stripping of children in front of people they don't want to

(i.e. forcing children to change in front of each other and their teachers for PE). The one you reference doesn't concern itself with those laws - it simply addresses the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to change room usage (i.e. whether the government can prohibit / mandate actions based on gender alone).

 

[Bent Sailor]

Actually if a man goes into a woman's bathroom, locker room he may be prosecuted. If laws are passed that he can go in there nothing can be done - short of being beaten.

Still waiting for the law in question that specifies it is his gender that allows that prosecution to take place. The state laws I looked at specify that the criteria for having committed the crime are to do with intent and actions whilst in the bathroom / locker room. Simply entering the facility is not enough to prove the crime.

Given you are so adamant I'm wrong about that - I'm sure you'll be able to provide the statue in question that specifies the gender specifications of the crimes you claim he'll be prosecuted for. I await your inevitable spin when you realise that the laws don't say what you wish they did.

 

[Rockdog]

Under current law - a man could be chucked out of a girls bathroom and could be prosecuted under statutes that deal with voyeurism and lecherous conduct. I don't recall the exact titles of the statues.

Now, there is no way he can even be asked to leave. And the only way he could be prosecuted for perving is if he whips his dick out in the room and starts wanking off. Otherwise, he can just claim he feels like a woman and that would be his right to be there. I don't see how you could question it?

Once again, focusing on one gender to the exclusion of the other. Under those same statutes, can a man get chucked out of a male bathroom & prosecuted for voyeurism & lecherous conduct? If so, then the same applies for your example of the male who claims he is female. If not, you're not protecting the boys who are being perved on by gay men or girls being perved on by lesbians.

Having looked into it, like your less recent laws regarding who can & cannot enter a given toilet, gender is not specified when it comes to voyeurism. Same goes for lecherous conduct. At least in the three states I looked at. Happy to take an example where gender is specified, but given current indications, the conduct applies regardless of gender. Intent has a lot more to do with it as does expectations of privacy from & intrusion by third parties.

However, even assuming you're right (& I would need to see evidence of that given you were incorrect about gender specific toilet) and can find a statute that specifies genders in public facilities for those crimes, you're still not protecting the children. You're simply pretending that it's only a problem for the sexual feelings of one gender to the opposite. Sadly, we know that isn't the case.

As for the gov't mandating people strip - you're missing the point. Most schools have requirements to participate in PE and to wear PE clothing. There will be some changing into and out of that gear at some point. Most US school facilities, IIRC although I can't speak to it now, are sex specific changing open rooms. Its never been an issue until this whole Tranny thing reared its ugly head. It would cost huge tax $$ to retrofit all schools to give every kid privacy that you suggest. Over time, it will likely go that way - but its not an immediate or cheap process.

I'm not missing the point, I just don't think it is as strong as you think it is. You have, quite a few times now, focused on the protection of children. I can see some validity in that view but a proper solution is to address the root issue - involuntary nudity in front of strangers. If kids have a choice about taking their clothes off, they won't need to do it in front of strangers. Problem solved. You complain, at length, about solving the root problems of violence when it comes to gun control but then whine about people seeking to do the same for other issues. Consistency isn't your strong suit is it?

As for the cost, sorry but I don't really have much sympathy for that line of argument. The government wants to force students to get changed at school - the government can pay for the costs of doing that. The excuse wouldn't fly if the costs of abiding by the race or religion parts of the fourteenth amendment, it doesn't apply because you find the gender part inconvenient. Or in language you'd understand "Fuck you, Fourteenth Amendment"

And that doesn't solve all the other facilities that are not gov't mandated like above. Voluntary use facilities like gym locker rooms, hotel spas, beach and pool shower rooms run by the city, etc all would be affected by this. A perv guy could easily take advantage of this as evadent by the link that was posted in this thread a while back about the guy who went into the little girls shower room at the public pool. As long as he says he ID's as a woman, there is not a fucking thing that can be done to stop him.

Sure you can. One can arrest him on suspicion of a crime and then show in court his claims of identifying as female are false. That's the price the Fourteenth Amendment puts on treating genders equally - the fact you cannot (and the majority of the US currently does not) discriminate on gender when it comes to public legislation & facilities. The few times a case has made it to court and been appealed to the state supreme courts - those with issues against the transgendered persons have lost.

Clearly with that record, there must be some legal basis to their claims, though I reckon SCOTUS is going to get the last say. No-one wanted to take me up when I wagered same sex marriage would get the US Constitution tick of approval, anyone want to bet against SCOTUS pointing out that gender is not a valid discriminator for access to public bathrooms?

So for a tiny tiny fraction of the population who truly are trans - we will spend billions of $$ as a nation to accommodate them at the expense of the rest of the people who are not comfortable being around them. WFD!

Yup, and the South had to free their slaves too. Sometimes abiding by the law costs you. Imagine how much money would have been saved if the Republicans hadn't made this a national issue. One would likely have been able to continue make local exceptions to infringing the Fourteenth Amendment and let the locals deal with the costs as & when the issue was raised. Unfortunately, the big government panty police decided to make a big deal about it in the media, pass a law overriding local democracy, and now you are where you are. Nanny government sucks... sometimes.

Gym I used to work out at had a flaming openly gay giygiy. He was a nice guy and hilarious. Never used the locker room. I'm sure he knew better.

Only reasons a male wants to use the women's facilities are lisciviouse, looking for attention, or afraid of how the guys would treat them.

 

[Gouvernail]

 

[Bent Sailor]

Gym I used to work out at had a flaming openly gay giygiy. He was a nice guy and hilarious. Never used the locker room. I'm sure he knew better.

Uh huh. Thing is, despite your pitiful chest-beating about the matter, he is legally allowed to use that locker room. If one is serious about protecting the children, one would make a law that stops forcing kids to get stripped where men who have a thing for young boys can openly watch them. As people are not interested in addressing that, but are all up in arms about the transgendered, there is clearly another reason for their actions. As SCOTUS has shown repeatedly of late, that's going to get stomped on by the US Constitution.

Only reasons a male wants to use the women's facilities are lisciviouse, looking for attention, or afraid of how the guys would treat them.

Yes, we al know why you might use women's facilities. Thankfully for the world in general, not all men are like you. I use public toilets for one reason - to take a leak or a shit.

 

[frenchie]

Only reasons a male wants to use the women's facilities are lisciviouse, looking for attention, or afraid of how the guys would treat them.

Ding, ding, ding...

It's not like homophobic straight men haven't given them plenty of reason to be afraid.

 

[Rockdog]

Gym I used to work out at had a flaming openly gay giygiy. He was a nice guy and hilarious. Never used the locker room. I'm sure he knew better.

Uh huh. Thing is, despite your pitiful chest-beating about the matter, he is legally allowed to use that locker room. If one is serious about protecting the children, one would make a law that stops forcing kids to get stripped where men who have a thing for young boys can openly watch them. As people are not interested in addressing that, but are all up in arms about the transgendered, there is clearly another reason for their actions. As SCOTUS has shown repeatedly of late, that's going to get stomped on by the US Constitution.

Only reasons a male wants to use the women's facilities are lisciviouse, looking for attention, or afraid of how the guys would treat them.

Yes, we al know why you might use women's facilities. Thankfully for the world in general, not all men are like you. I use public toilets for one reason - to take a leak or a shit.

You use the Ladies Room?

 

[tuk tuk Joe]

Only reasons a male wants to use the women's facilities are lisciviouse, looking for attention, or afraid of how the guys would treat them.

Ding, ding, ding...

It's not like homophobic straight men haven't given them plenty of reason to be afraid.

They like to slap them on the ass or try to grab their nut sack. No, really.

Actually, the worse thing you can do to a transvestite is to ignore it.

That's what they fear the most...