Cops Raid Women’s Restroom, Assault and Drag Lesbian Out Thinking She’s a Man

[daws101]

If it is a female I feel kinda bad for her.

BUT.....if she goes out dressed and looking like a male....dont be shocked when people mistake you for one.


My gut says they went out that day with the INTENT to get something like this to happen.

Define "dressing like a male"? Are we supposed to all wear dresses now....to make it easier for you to put us in gender boxes?

Newsflash moron. Society has social norms. All societies do. And our society has a generally followed norm of how men and women typically dress. You don't HAVE to follow it. But...you'll confuse some people if you dont.

But sure....since you're asking....you need to always wear eye shadow and lipstick....Yall aren't as attractive without it. If your tits sag at least do us the courtesy of a push up bra if you can't afford plastic surgery. If you have a flat pancake ass....do some damn squats and glute work at the gym and firm that shit up. Lay off the wine and cake and lose some weight. And I'm a modern man so I don't expect you all to cook every meal....but since we work harder and make more money, at least have the decency to pick up Outback or a quality pizza on your way home. You can cook on the weekends to make up for it.

Anything else ma'am??

archaic much?

 

[daws101]

Supreme court doesnt have anything to do with your constant defense and promotion of escalation.

In other words, just because you can doesnt mean you should.

Lets see. Those cops probably had 90% of the women in their jurisdiction who DON'T WANT males in the women's restroom.

So....when those women call asking for the law to be effectively enforced.....should cops do it???

**** off dummy, cops make decisions. They arent forced to do whatever someone tells them like robots. What law were they enforcing there sparky?

Well....what jurisdiction was it? It's your link. Tell me where it happened and I'll cite their ordinance.


And you call it "an act" when I simply point out the law and procedure.


Yes....cops can choose what actions they take. They aren't the military so they can say no...even ton lawful order...and the worst that happens is getting fired (which makes their bravery is more noble since they don't have to rush into shootings and shit).

But again idiot....in their jurisdiction...in bet well over 80% of women WANT cops to ensure males don't enter the women's restroom.

They're doing what most of their taxpayers want.

Got any stats to corroborate that 80% claim?
Or are you talking out your ass?

That was his guess and therefor doesn't require any evidence.


Dishonest debate much?

False if you make a claim with specific numbers or statements it's only technically a guess.
There is nothing unfair about questioning the source.
Fail.

 

[daws101]

If it is a female I feel kinda bad for her.

BUT.....if she goes out dressed and looking like a male....dont be shocked when people mistake you for one.


My gut says they went out that day with the INTENT to get something like this to happen.

Define "dressing like a male"? Are we supposed to all wear dresses now....to make it easier for you to put us in gender boxes?

That was my question.!

10 Reasons Women Should Shop In The Men's Section (PHOTOS)

So your wife or girlfriend (assuming you have ever had either) never wore anything of yours?

She has. But she has a beautiful feminine face and body, and would never be mistaken for a man like some others might.

That's not what you said.
You made a dumbass blanket statement , now you're rationalizing.
Epic fail.

 

[bucs90]

Lets see. Those cops probably had 90% of the women in their jurisdiction who DON'T WANT males in the women's restroom.

So....when those women call asking for the law to be effectively enforced.....should cops do it???

**** off dummy, cops make decisions. They arent forced to do whatever someone tells them like robots. What law were they enforcing there sparky?

Well....what jurisdiction was it? It's your link. Tell me where it happened and I'll cite their ordinance.


And you call it "an act" when I simply point out the law and procedure.


Yes....cops can choose what actions they take. They aren't the military so they can say no...even ton lawful order...and the worst that happens is getting fired (which makes their bravery is more noble since they don't have to rush into shootings and shit).

But again idiot....in their jurisdiction...in bet well over 80% of women WANT cops to ensure males don't enter the women's restroom.

They're doing what most of their taxpayers want.

Got any stats to corroborate that 80% claim?
Or are you talking out your ass?

That was his guess and therefor doesn't require any evidence.


Dishonest debate much?

False if you make a claim with specific numbers or statements it's only technically a guess.
There is nothing unfair about questioning the source.
Fail.

I based it on all the women who hit on me each week. And each week....about 16 out of the 20 agree with me on everything...including this topic.

So....80%.

Next question?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Lets see. Those cops probably had 90% of the women in their jurisdiction who DON'T WANT males in the women's restroom.

So....when those women call asking for the law to be effectively enforced.....should cops do it???

**** off dummy, cops make decisions. They arent forced to do whatever someone tells them like robots. What law were they enforcing there sparky?

Well....what jurisdiction was it? It's your link. Tell me where it happened and I'll cite their ordinance.


And you call it "an act" when I simply point out the law and procedure.


Yes....cops can choose what actions they take. They aren't the military so they can say no...even ton lawful order...and the worst that happens is getting fired (which makes their bravery is more noble since they don't have to rush into shootings and shit).

But again idiot....in their jurisdiction...in bet well over 80% of women WANT cops to ensure males don't enter the women's restroom.

They're doing what most of their taxpayers want.

Got any stats to corroborate that 80% claim?
Or are you talking out your ass?

That was his guess and therefor doesn't require any evidence.


Dishonest debate much?

False if you make a claim with specific numbers or statements it's only technically a guess.
There is nothing unfair about questioning the source.
Fail.

only in the opinion of an idiot on a message board who has an axe to grind, no one else would ask for proof to back up a guess LOL

 

[daws101]

**** off dummy, cops make decisions. They arent forced to do whatever someone tells them like robots. What law were they enforcing there sparky?

Well....what jurisdiction was it? It's your link. Tell me where it happened and I'll cite their ordinance.


And you call it "an act" when I simply point out the law and procedure.


Yes....cops can choose what actions they take. They aren't the military so they can say no...even ton lawful order...and the worst that happens is getting fired (which makes their bravery is more noble since they don't have to rush into shootings and shit).

But again idiot....in their jurisdiction...in bet well over 80% of women WANT cops to ensure males don't enter the women's restroom.

They're doing what most of their taxpayers want.

Got any stats to corroborate that 80% claim?
Or are you talking out your ass?

That was his guess and therefor doesn't require any evidence.


Dishonest debate much?

False if you make a claim with specific numbers or statements it's only technically a guess.
There is nothing unfair about questioning the source.
Fail.

I based it on all the women who hit on me each week. And each week....about 16 out of the 20 agree with me on everything...including this topic.

So....80%.

Next question?

as I said you are talking out your ass ..

 

[daws101]

**** off dummy, cops make decisions. They arent forced to do whatever someone tells them like robots. What law were they enforcing there sparky?

Well....what jurisdiction was it? It's your link. Tell me where it happened and I'll cite their ordinance.


And you call it "an act" when I simply point out the law and procedure.


Yes....cops can choose what actions they take. They aren't the military so they can say no...even ton lawful order...and the worst that happens is getting fired (which makes their bravery is more noble since they don't have to rush into shootings and shit).

But again idiot....in their jurisdiction...in bet well over 80% of women WANT cops to ensure males don't enter the women's restroom.

They're doing what most of their taxpayers want.

Got any stats to corroborate that 80% claim?
Or are you talking out your ass?

That was his guess and therefor doesn't require any evidence.


Dishonest debate much?

False if you make a claim with specific numbers or statements it's only technically a guess.
There is nothing unfair about questioning the source.
Fail.

only in the opinion of an idiot on a message board who has an axe to grind, no one else would ask for proof to back up a guess LOL

again false! I have no ax to grind, in fact it's people like bucs doing all the grinding, but you had to say something,

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Well....what jurisdiction was it? It's your link. Tell me where it happened and I'll cite their ordinance.


And you call it "an act" when I simply point out the law and procedure.


Yes....cops can choose what actions they take. They aren't the military so they can say no...even ton lawful order...and the worst that happens is getting fired (which makes their bravery is more noble since they don't have to rush into shootings and shit).

But again idiot....in their jurisdiction...in bet well over 80% of women WANT cops to ensure males don't enter the women's restroom.

They're doing what most of their taxpayers want.

Got any stats to corroborate that 80% claim?
Or are you talking out your ass?

That was his guess and therefor doesn't require any evidence.


Dishonest debate much?

False if you make a claim with specific numbers or statements it's only technically a guess.
There is nothing unfair about questioning the source.
Fail.

only in the opinion of an idiot on a message board who has an axe to grind, no one else would ask for proof to back up a guess LOL

again false! I have no ax to grind, in fact it's people like bucs doing all the grinding, but you had to say something,

Of course you have an axe to grind, otherwise you wouldn't have done something as stupid as ask someone to back up their guess.

Just dumb.

Have a good day

 

[daws101]

January 25, 2016
Who’s Afraid of Gender-Neutral Bathrooms

Today’s most-prominent arguments against inclusive restrooms are remarkably consistent with the Victorian notions that led to sex-segregated bathrooms in the first place. When the ideology of separate spheres for male and female, public and private, the market and the home reigned, the growth of women’s presence in public life led to the desire to protect women from the crude dangers of the male world. Among the legal effects was the 1873 Supreme Court holding in Bradwell v. Illinois that it was not unconstitutional for a state to deny women admission to the bar on the basis of their sex, with a famous concurring opinion that stated, “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” The same separate-spheres paternalism led to the designation of certain physical spaces for women apart from those for men, including bathrooms in public venues. These were safe spaces, if you will, tucked in a world in which women were vulnerable. As our society is currently experiencing a resurgence of paternalist concern about women’s sexual vulnerability—especially in the context of that great equalizer, education—it is no surprise that there would also be a new emphasis on the Victorian phenomenon of separate restrooms.

The connection of public bathrooms with condemned sexual behavior also relates to our recent history of criminalizing homosexuality. For most of the twentieth century, gay sex was criminal, and public disclosure of a man’s homosexuality spelled the death of his reputation and career. Public restrooms were sites of clandestine sex among men, and undercover police engaged in bathroom surveillance to catch men seeking sex in toilet stalls. David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford, has argued that modern legal ideas of privacy were forged in the nineteen-sixties in part because of the Supreme Court’s distaste for this sordid police practice. According to his theory, bathroom sex is the “secret subtext” of Katz v. United States, which requires the police to have a warrant to eavesdrop electronically on a call made from a telephone booth, and is the source for the modern idea that the Constitution protects a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003, it has been unconstitutional to criminalize gay sex taking place in private, but this protection does not apply to sex (gay or straight) in public spaces. As late as 2007, Senator Larry Craig was arrested in an airport-restroom sex sting for signalling interest in sex with a stranger in an adjacent stall, and convicted of disorderly conduct.


Whereas homosexuality was until recently considered the paradigm of sexual deviance, today’s bathroom debate focusses on heterosexual deviance. The undercover figures we imagine are not snooping cops but rather heterosexual men who might pretend to be women “that day” to follow women and girls into restrooms. I’m not aware of reliable statistics that would indicate that public bathrooms are more sexually dangerous than any other places—or would be, were they to be desegregated—though the history of bathroom sex does associate the space with sexual conduct. Even if the sexual-assault argument against allowing transgender restroom access is implausible, it is still hard to come up with an account of why public bathrooms should be gender-segregated that does not rely on a gendered version of privacy and safety that recapitulates “separate spheres” and sexual vulnerability.

Today, men and women, not assumed to be only heterosexual, are expected to function at work alongside one another, eat at adjacent seats in restaurants, sit cheek by jowl in buses and airplanes, take classes, study in libraries, and, with some exceptions, even pray together. Why is the multi-stall bathroom the last public vestige of gendered social separation? When men, gay or straight, can stand shoulder to shoulder at urinals without a second thought, is there much to back up the view that men and women must not pee or poop next to one another, especially if closed stalls would shield them from view? Women may have some distinctive sanitation needs, but why does that require a wholly separate space from men?

Perhaps the point is precisely that the public restroom is the only everyday social institution remaining in which separation by gender is the norm, and undoing that separation would feel like the last shot in the “war on gender” itself. As we consider the possibility of electing our first female President, the bathroom as the site of sex difference has been underlined by another candidate, Donald Trump, who said, “I don’t want to think about” the “disgusting” things Hillary Clinton was doing in the bathroom, in a comment widely understood to be about her female sex. Though both men and women must perform private bodily functions in public bathrooms, the mere thought of a woman doing it implied an irreducible sex difference that made plain a gross incongruity with the ultimate public role. Public restrooms are not just toilets; for more than a hundred years, they have implicated questions of who really belongs in public, civic, and professional life.

Who’s Afraid of Gender-Neutral Bathrooms? - The New Yorker

 

[daws101]

Got any stats to corroborate that 80% claim?
Or are you talking out your ass?

That was his guess and therefor doesn't require any evidence.


Dishonest debate much?

False if you make a claim with specific numbers or statements it's only technically a guess.
There is nothing unfair about questioning the source.
Fail.

only in the opinion of an idiot on a message board who has an axe to grind, no one else would ask for proof to back up a guess LOL

again false! I have no ax to grind, in fact it's people like bucs doing all the grinding, but you had to say something,

Of course you have an axe to grind, otherwise you wouldn't have done something as stupid as ask someone to back up their guess.

Just dumb.

Have a good day

false !but again you just had to say something

 

[daws101]

spec·u·la·tion (spĕk'yə-lā'shən) n.
1. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition; Ex:I think we’ll be let out of school tomorrow after the aliens land.

 

[bucs90]

spec·u·la·tion (spĕk'yə-lā'shən) n.
1. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition; Ex:I think we’ll be let out of school tomorrow after the aliens land.

Psssss....hey....we stopped reading your stuff 4 posts ago.....

 

[Skylar]

If the right wing got their way and a potty patrol was in place that had felt the woman up before she entered the bathroom, this would never have happened.

Well, the wingers asked 'what bathroom police'.

These bathroom police. Where you have to show ID to be able to pee. And once again, the layered stupidity of conservative policy is played out to its predictable, logical end.

 

[daws101]

spec·u·la·tion (spĕk'yə-lā'shən) n.
1. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition; Ex:I think we’ll be let out of school tomorrow after the aliens land.

Psssss....hey....we stopped reading your stuff 4 posts ago.....

really then why did you read this?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What a load of crap.

Until the law is clarified, the old ways still prevail and those old ways included public restrooms being limited to folks of the same gender. Ladies' rooms for women and men's rooms for men.

Hell, there was even a desire by women to make sure that males were restricted from the ladies' rooms. Something about safety and security?

I'm sorry if a lesbian who perhaps looks too much like a male got mistaken for being a male. (And even that assumes that the OP story was not itself simply staged agitprop crap). But I wouldn't blame the police or the "RW" for removing any male from any women's restroom.

The left wing agitators call that "hate." But what will they call it when some asshole rapist uses a transgender cover story to gain access to the ladies room someday and it leads to the "sex-crime" victimization of women?

 

[Pop23]

Shocking Footage Shows Police Forcing Lesbian to Leave Women's Bathroom

License, registration and proof of Genitalia please



Footage has surfaced alleging to show police officers forcing an unidentified woman to leave a women's restroom facility, once again proving the dire impactof the recent swath of anti-LGBT laws across the country. The woman, reportedly a lesbian, is called "sir" by the officers as she's unfairly tasked with attempting to convince them she's a woman. The footage, uploaded to Facebook by Tamara McDaniel, has quickly garnered millions of views since first being shared last week.

The officers are heard demanding ID from the woman, who reveals she doesn't have one on her. A male officer is then seen screaming in the woman's face as friends plead for the officers to properly deescalate the situation. These pleas, however, are instead met with hostility and repeated requests for an ID. Of course, this loudly begs the question: Why the hell should anyone have to show an ID just to use the restroom? The exact location of the footage, which made it to the Daily Star after surfacing on Facebook, is unknown.

How many times will this obvious hoax be posted.

 

[Skylar]

What a load of crap.

Until the law is clarified, the old ways still prevail and those old ways included public restrooms being limited to folks of the same gender. Ladies' rooms for women and men's rooms for men.

Hell, there was even a desire by women to make sure that males were restricted from the ladies' rooms. Something about safety and security?

I'm sorry if a lesbian who perhaps looks too much like a male got mistaken for being a male. (And even that assumes that the OP story was not itself simply staged agitprop crap). But I wouldn't blame the police or the "RW" for removing any male from any women's restroom.

If only she'd been able to show her 'papers', she would have been given permission by the government to urinate.Since when has the documentation necessary to empty your bladder risen to the level of a TSA screening?

And 'safety and security'? Who was protected by this woman being harrassed by police? What 'danger' was the public protected from? Do you realize how *utterly* a non-issue this is? That poor, stupid conservatives have swallowed yet *another* brain dead wedge issue to protect NO ONE while harming actual people?

Is it the law now that a woman has to wear pigtails and pink dresses to use the bathroom if she doesn't carry ID?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I would not have blamed her if she had peed on the cops shoe....

 

[Skylar]

I would not have blamed her if she had peed on the cops shoe....

If they protested, she could argue she was just just showing them her 'ID'.

 

[Rustic]

Shocking Footage Shows Police Forcing Lesbian to Leave Women's Bathroom

License, registration and proof of Genitalia please



Footage has surfaced alleging to show police officers forcing an unidentified woman to leave a women's restroom facility, once again proving the dire impactof the recent swath of anti-LGBT laws across the country. The woman, reportedly a lesbian, is called "sir" by the officers as she's unfairly tasked with attempting to convince them she's a woman. The footage, uploaded to Facebook by Tamara McDaniel, has quickly garnered millions of views since first being shared last week.

The officers are heard demanding ID from the woman, who reveals she doesn't have one on her. A male officer is then seen screaming in the woman's face as friends plead for the officers to properly deescalate the situation. These pleas, however, are instead met with hostility and repeated requests for an ID. Of course, this loudly begs the question: Why the hell should anyone have to show an ID just to use the restroom? The exact location of the footage, which made it to the Daily Star after surfacing on Facebook, is unknown.

It's funny how the lgbt freaks want to force their way of life on normal people... ******* control freaks.