CDZ Do we really need laws about what restroom transgender people use?

[320 Years of History]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District

TY for the links. I'll read them soon, but not immediately. I will respond as I feel seems suitable.

Please, if it matters to you that I reply to them and you've not seen a reply from me, hit me up (conversation or in the thread -- I don't care) with a reminder. I'm not intending to forget, but that's a lot of links, I have (right now) no idea what I'll find there, what due diligence I'll need to perform upon finding "whatever" there, and I have a fair bit of reading to do for a different thread as well, and that reading is for a topic about which I know little right now, so I can't plow through it as quickly as I might documents pertaining to far more familiar topics. The links you provided do have a place on my "tickler list."

 

[GaryDog]

He's expressing a bigoted, hateful opinion. I'm allowed to express mine.

No, it didn't. If he jumped off a bridge, would you do so too? I'm sure you would not, but I could be wrong....

This doesn't even make any sense. My post didn't mirror his. It wasn't hateful or bigoted. For your dumbass observation to be cogent, I'd have to say something along the lines of "I think Marines should have to use different bathrooms than the rest of us."

Are you telling me that you really don't understand that your statements to which I responded mean, "He's expressing a bigoted, hateful opinion. I'm allowed to express [my bigoted, hateful opinion.]"?

It's not the content of your remarks with which I take exception. It's your framing of it as being "bigoted and hateful." I was tacitly requesting that you not weaken/confuse your argument that way.

I didn't intend the parenthetical that you (not me) added. And no, my response was neither hateful, nor bigoted. I honestly don't know what the hell the big deal is. Are we done?

 

[GaryDog]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District

It's not about "comfort". It's about someone IDENTIFYING as a different gender than their birth gender. They should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify, regardless of their birth sex.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's about someone IDENTIFYING as a different gender than their birth gender.

Aside from folks undergoing gender identity therapy, who the heck does? And are there enough of them to warrant having a law keeping them out of a given (class of ) restroom? The way I see it, the law, the cost of enforcing it, etc. is just making a mountain out of a molehill. And for what?

They should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify, regardless of their birth sex.

I agree.

I mean folks need to get real. No woman on the way to being a man is going to mosey up to a urinal and pee. Sure one can do so, but they're going to be pissing all down their leg too unless they come by one of those extra low "boys" urinals, and even they try that, they are going to be facing forward just like a guy would.

 

[baileyn45]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District

It's not about "comfort". It's about someone IDENTIFYING as a different gender than their birth gender. They should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify, regardless of their birth sex.

I've said repeatedly, it's not about bathrooms to me. It's about locker rooms. If you read some of the links I've posted the fed govt is threatening high schools with withholding title IX funding if they don't let boys in the girls locker room. It's how things morph in this country, transgenders should be able to choose which bathroom to use, oh and by the way your 14 year old daughter now has to shower with boys. In Washington you're talking about a 45 year old man in a locker room with girls as young as 6. Does that make sense to you? Do you have daughters? I do and I have a serious problem with it.

 

[GaryDog]

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District

It's not about "comfort". It's about someone IDENTIFYING as a different gender than their birth gender. They should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify, regardless of their birth sex.

I've said repeatedly, it's not about bathrooms to me. It's about locker rooms. If you read some of the links I've posted the fed govt is threatening high schools with withholding title IX funding if they don't let boys in the girls locker room. It's how things morph in this country, transgenders should be able to choose which bathroom to use, oh and by the way your 14 year old daughter now has to shower with boys. In Washington you're talking about a 45 year old man in a locker room with girls as young as 6. Does that make sense to you? Do you have daughters? I do and I have a serious problem with it.

You mean a 45-year-old transgender woman? No, I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with people using fear to motivate all of their political decisions.

 

[baileyn45]

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District

It's not about "comfort". It's about someone IDENTIFYING as a different gender than their birth gender. They should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify, regardless of their birth sex.

I've said repeatedly, it's not about bathrooms to me. It's about locker rooms. If you read some of the links I've posted the fed govt is threatening high schools with withholding title IX funding if they don't let boys in the girls locker room. It's how things morph in this country, transgenders should be able to choose which bathroom to use, oh and by the way your 14 year old daughter now has to shower with boys. In Washington you're talking about a 45 year old man in a locker room with girls as young as 6. Does that make sense to you? Do you have daughters? I do and I have a serious problem with it.

You mean a 45-year-old transgender woman? No, I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with people using fear to motivate all of their political decisions.

No. he's a 45 year old male that "identifies" as a woman. As far as fear goes. I'm protective of my daughters which seems to bother the left to no end.

Let me ask you, what is the criteria that allows an adult male into a locker room with young girls? From every thing I've seen it comes down to uttering the words "I identify as a woman".

 

[320 Years of History]

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District

It's not about "comfort". It's about someone IDENTIFYING as a different gender than their birth gender. They should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify, regardless of their birth sex.

I've said repeatedly, it's not about bathrooms to me. It's about locker rooms. If you read some of the links I've posted the fed govt is threatening high schools with withholding title IX funding if they don't let boys in the girls locker room. It's how things morph in this country, transgenders should be able to choose which bathroom to use, oh and by the way your 14 year old daughter now has to shower with boys. In Washington you're talking about a 45 year old man in a locker room with girls as young as 6. Does that make sense to you? Do you have daughters? I do and I have a serious problem with it.

You mean a 45-year-old transgender woman? No, I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with people using fear to motivate all of their political decisions.

No. he's a 45 year old male that "identifies" as a woman. As far as fear goes. I'm protective of my daughters which seems to bother the left to no end.

Let me ask you, what is the criteria that allows an adult male into a locker room with young girls? From every thing I've seen it comes down to uttering the words "I identify as a woman".

Well, absent guards for restroom/locker room doors, yes, it's largely a matter of one's self asserting they identify as a man or woman. The thing is that:

• If the person (presumably a man on the way to becoming a woman) truly identifies as a woman, they pose no threat (gender wise) to the females in the restroom or locker room and they are going to be thoroughly conscious and respectful of the concerns females would have about males being in the restroom/locker room with females. How could they not if they indeed identify as a woman? Understanding that and identifying, empathizing with it, is part of what it means to be a woman.
• If the person does not truly identify as a woman and instead has untoward objectives for entering the females' restroom/locker room, well, we already have legal ways and means for dealing with that. A new law such as NC's, for example, isn't changing that. The non-discrimination law Charlotte enacted didn't change that.

Those two realities are why there is no need for a law expressly aimed at transgender people.

(Like baileyn45, you have directed your question toward the act of males entering female facilities, but not with regard to females entering male facilities. Do you have no objection to the latter occurring? I don't think you do, but I'm asking to be sure. I've asked the same of baileyn45, but I haven't yet seen a direct answer.)

Personally, what I think is going on, but that some folks won't admit, is that supporters of laws like NC's, MS', and TN's just don't accept (1) that transgender folks do consider themselves and comport themselves as the opposite sex from that they were born with, and/or those supporters (2) don't accept that sex reassignment surgery actually does make a man be a woman or vice versa. I think too that insofar as those folks aren't and can't envision themselves as being gender dysphoric/transgender, they just cannot separate the idea of someone's being gender dysphoric as being anything other than one's having some sort of ulterior and untoward motive for asserting that they identify as the opposite sex. And the reason for their thinking that, IMO, is that if they were to enter a, say, women's locker room, all that'd be on their minds pertains to the sex act or something leaded to/related to it. What I think is at the heart of the debate is that men and women who accept the objectification of women quite simply are okay with that and expect the rest of the world to also be. Thus why else would a man want to enter a ladies locker room or restroom but for objectifying reasons: to ogle and leer at them, to get turned on by them, etc?

I also realize that folks, particularly men, who are of that mindset, consciously or unconsciously, will deny being so. Short of conducting an involved psychiatric examination of them, there's no way for us in general to know whether that's really what is going on.

 

[Ravi]

I wonder how much rape happens in the toilets in France? There are many gender neutral restrooms there.

 

[320 Years of History]

I wonder how much rape happens in the toilets in France? There are many gender neutral restrooms there.

About all I can say about that is that I've never been raped or made uncomfortable in a French restroom or locker room. LOL FWIW, I've been in many of them over the past score of years, particularly over the last decade.

Off Topic:
Then again, the French, like most of the rest of the world doesn't have the gender/sex "hang-up" Americans/America does. From what I've observed, the other large culture that, in general, has gender/sex driven "issues" similar to those we have in the U.S., is Islam and many of its adherents. Some of them are more extreme than ours, but when, where and to whom they apply, as in America, varies from region to region and person to person. And yet, because "it/they" is/are Islam/Muslims, and that alone, many Americans take exception with them/it. Hmmm.....

 

[baileyn45]

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District

It's not about "comfort". It's about someone IDENTIFYING as a different gender than their birth gender. They should be able to use the bathroom for which they identify, regardless of their birth sex.

I've said repeatedly, it's not about bathrooms to me. It's about locker rooms. If you read some of the links I've posted the fed govt is threatening high schools with withholding title IX funding if they don't let boys in the girls locker room. It's how things morph in this country, transgenders should be able to choose which bathroom to use, oh and by the way your 14 year old daughter now has to shower with boys. In Washington you're talking about a 45 year old man in a locker room with girls as young as 6. Does that make sense to you? Do you have daughters? I do and I have a serious problem with it.

You mean a 45-year-old transgender woman? No, I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with people using fear to motivate all of their political decisions.

No. he's a 45 year old male that "identifies" as a woman. As far as fear goes. I'm protective of my daughters which seems to bother the left to no end.

Let me ask you, what is the criteria that allows an adult male into a locker room with young girls? From every thing I've seen it comes down to uttering the words "I identify as a woman".

Well, absent guards for restroom/locker room doors, yes, it's largely a matter of one's self asserting they identify as a man or woman. The thing is that:

• If the person (presumably a man on the way to becoming a woman) truly identifies as a woman, they pose no threat (gender wise) to the females in the restroom or locker room and they are going to be thoroughly conscious and respectful of the concerns females would have about males being in the restroom/locker room with females. How could they not if they indeed identify as a woman? Understanding that and identifying, empathizing with it part of what it means to be a woman.
• If the person does not truly identify as a woman and instead has untoward objectives for entering the females' restroom/locker room, well, we already have legal ways and means for dealing with that. A new law such as NC's, for example, isn't changing that. The non-discrimination law Charlotte enacted didn't change that.

Those two realities are why there is no need for a law expressly aimed at transgender people.

(Like baileyn45, you have directed your question toward the act of males entering female facilities, but not with regard to females entering male facilities. Do you have no objection to the latter occurring? I don't think you do, but I'm asking to be sure. I've asked the same of baileyn45, but I haven't yet seen a direct answer.)

Personally, what I think is going on, but that some folks won't admit, is that supporters of laws like NC's, MS', and TN's just don't accept (1) that transgender folks do consider themselves and comport themselves as the opposite sex from that they were born with, and/or those supporters (2) don't accept that sex reassignment surgery actually does make a man be a woman or vice versa. I think too that insofar as those folks aren't and can't envision themselves as being gender dysphoric/transgender, they just cannot separate the idea of someone's being gender dysphoric as being anything other than one's having some sort of ulterior and untoward motive for asserting that they identify as the opposite sex. And the reason for their thinking that, IMO, is that if they were to enter a, say, women's locker room, all that'd be on their minds pertains to the sex act or something leaded to/related to it. What I think is at the heart of the debate is that men and women who accept the objectification of women quite simply are okay with that and expect the rest of the world to also be. Thus why else would a man want to enter a ladies locker room or restroom but for objectifying reasons: to ogle and leer at them, to get turned on by them, etc?

I also realize that folks, particularly men, who are of that mindset, consciously or unconsciously, will deny being so. Short of conducting an involved psychiatric examination of them, there's no way for us in general to know whether that's really what is going on.

Well, absent guards for restroom/locker room doors, yes, it's largely a matter of one's self asserting they identify as a man or woman.

There in lies the issue, it wasn't that long ago men would be prevented from entering a facility with naked little girls, now it's legal. Hell now the left seems to want to promote it. The basic fact is that neither you nor I have the foggiest idea what the beliefs or intentions are of the 40 year old man that just walked into the bathroom behind my 14 year old daughter. I guess I'll just have to wait and hope for the best.

If the person (presumably a man on the way to becoming a woman) truly identifies as a woman, they pose no threat (gender wise) to the females in the restroom or locker room and they are going to be thoroughly conscious and respectful of the concerns females would have about males being in the restroom/locker room with females. How could they not if they indeed identify as a woman? Understanding that and identifying, empathizing with it part of what it means to be a woman.

Those are awfully big assumptions. In the case in Washington the person is an anatomically correct 45 year old male. Would you want your teenage daughter standing next to him in a shower? This man walks around buck naked in front of little girls, it exhibits absolutely no respect for the children. If he were to expose himself to those same girls in a park he'd go to jail, in a shower it's all good. Absurd.

If the person does not truly identify as a woman and instead has untoward objectives for entering the females' restroom/locker room, well, we already have legal ways and means for dealing with that. A new law such as NC's, for example, isn't changing that. The non-discrimination law Charlotte enacted didn't change that.

We used to have a legal way of dealing with that, keep men out of the facilities, not any more. The NC law, again is irrelevant to me. If a man goes into a girls locker room to gawk at naked girls and expose himself to them, what legal recourse is there? All he has to do is utter the words "I identify as a woman", and there is zero legal recourse presently.

Like baileyn45, you have directed your question toward the act of males entering female facilities, but not with regard to females entering male facilities. Do you have no objection to the latter occurring? I don't think you do, but I'm asking to be sure. I've asked the same of baileyn45, but I haven't yet seen a direct answer.

Actually I do have issues with the above and again it has to do with kids. Have you ever been around teenagers? Kids have been known to have issues with their bodies, including boys. What better way to make them even more self conscious than to make them shower and change in front of the opposite sex.

Personally, what I think is going on, but that some folks won't admit, is that supporters of laws like NC's, MS', and TN's just don't accept (1) that transgender folks do consider themselves and comport themselves as the opposite sex from that they were born with, and/or those supporters (2) don't accept that sex reassignment surgery actually does make a man be a woman or vice versa. I think too that insofar as those folks aren't and can't envision themselves as being gender dysphoric/transgender, they just cannot separate the idea of someone's being gender dysphoric as being anything other than one's having some sort of ulterior and untoward motive for asserting that they identify as the opposite sex. And the reason for their thinking that, IMO, is that if they were to enter a, say, women's locker room, all that'd be on their minds pertains to the sex act or something leaded to/related to it. What I think is at the heart of the debate is that men and women who accept the objectification of women quite simply are okay with that and expect the rest of the world to also be. Thus why else would a man want to enter a ladies locker room or restroom but for objectifying reasons: to ogle and leer at them, to get turned on by them, etc?

Personally I do not accept no.2, by all logical rationale such a person has not changed their original sex. They have changed their physical appearance and their behavior but that does not change reality. Now they may live their lives as the opposite sex and may be accepted by society as such, it still does not change reality. Now keep in mind I don't really care, if it makes them happy, good for them but don't expect me to go along with the redefinition of physical reality.

Back to the locker room, it's not only about my 14 year old daughter being ogled or put into potential danger, but also having her put into the position of being exposed to adult male genitalia. You may not agree but when was the left or the govt given the discretion to decide when my daughter is exposed to adult cock? There's an arrogance that nauseates me. The political left and the govt are the last people on the face of the earth that I want having discretion over what morality that is to be impressed on my children.

 

[baileyn45]

I wonder how much rape happens in the toilets in France? There are many gender neutral restrooms there.

About all I can say about that is that I've never been raped or made uncomfortable in a French restroom or locker room. LOL FWIW, I've been in many of them over the past score of years, particularly over the last decade.

Off Topic:
Then again, the French, like most of the rest of the world doesn't have the gender/sex "hang-up" Americans/America does. From what I've observed, the other large culture that, in general, has gender/sex driven "issues" similar to those we have in the U.S., is Islam and many of its adherents. Some of them are more extreme than ours, but when, where and to whom they apply, as in America, varies from region to region and person to person. And yet, because "it/they" is/are Islam/Muslims, and that alone, many Americans take exception with them/it. Hmmm.....

I'm curious, how do you think the French would feel about young muslim men in a shower with their daughters?

 

[320 Years of History]

Those are awfully big assumptions. In the case in Washington the person is an anatomically correct 45 year old male.

??? Big assumptions? Puh-lease. You are advocating for a policy affecting whole states, perhaps a whole nation of 318+ million people on the basis of there being one "quack" who exposed himself? Really?

I actually Googled "how many people are arrested [not convicted] for indecent exposure. I couldn't find one tabulation of that data point among the first two pages of results. The best I could come up with is a site that says, "In recent years, incidences of public nudity have increased." And that was on a site that seems focused especially on sex and sex related crimes. There mere fact that an event occurs more often is no consequence. So when it comes to making assumptions

I realize that there is likely more than one guy in the country indecently exposing himself, no matter who does the exposing, men or women. I'm far from convince we need special laws to deal with them beyond the existing one.

Those are awfully big assumptions. In the case in Washington the person is an anatomically correct 45 year old male. Would you want your teenage daughter standing next to him in a shower? This man walks around buck naked in front of little girls, it exhibits absolutely no respect for the children. If he were to expose himself to those same girls in a park he'd go to jail, in a shower it's all good. Absurd.

Red:
I had a teenage daughter; she's now married. I don't and didn't give a damn if she and a grown man showered side by side or not. She had certainly seen nude men by the time she was 14 -- heck she walked in on her mother and I "gettin' busy" before she was 14 -- so it's not as though I had any reason to think the mere presence of a penis was going to damage her somehow. Indeed, I think she's rather keen on penises, to be perfectly honest.

What I care about is that they both conduct themselves in a mutually respectful and mature manner while doing so. That goes for males or females who find themselves in a public locker room or restroom, whether my child be there or not.

We used to have a legal way of dealing with that, keep men out of the facilities, not any more. The NC law, again is irrelevant to me. If a man goes into a girls locker room to gawk at naked girls and expose himself to them, what legal recourse is there? All he has to do is utter the words "I identify as a woman", and there is zero legal recourse presently.

Red:
Were you to seek them out, like the truth, you may find that they are there, even though they aren't dragging you to their cave or hitting you over the head with hammers.

• Indecent Exposure: Laws & Penalties | Criminal Law
  
• Public Lewdness and Indecent Exposure: Crimes Penalties and Laws | Criminal Law
  
• Crime Overview Indecent Exposure - LegalInfo.com
  
• One example of an indecent exposure statute: 13-1402 - Indecent exposure; exception; classification

Blue:
Well, for him to not be found guilty of indecent exposure, his claim to that effect would need to be true and whether it is or is not is well within the scope of what a prosecutor can have determined. Whether you think so or not, it's just not that easy to fake gender dysphoria.

Do you have a good reason to think that an "emergency phone," similar to the ones in parking garages, placed in locker rooms is insufficient concerned parties to use in the event there is someone there indecently exposing themselves? For Christ's sake. Folks, most especially kids, take photos and videos of everything else on the planet. Let them take a pic/vid of that too to use as proof in the trial that'd result from their using that phone and lodging a complaint. There simply is not a pressing need for a law.

Have you ever been around teenagers? Kids have been known to have issues with their bodies, including boys. What better way to make them even more self conscious than to make them shower and change in front of the opposite sex.

Red:
Yes. I had three whom I sired, two of whom are now no longer teens. I have also been a fully engaged mentor for over a dozen kids, I sometimes refer to them as "my kids" as well, all of whom were pre-teens when I began to mentor them, and some of whom have gone on to careers and lives of their own as one'd expect given their ages.

Blue:
That would be those kids' problems and their parents'/guardians' problems to help them overcome. It is not yours, mine or society's in general problem to address other than being respectful of their need for adequate and effective treatment resources.

It may not have crossed your mind, but some of those self-conscious kids are quite probably the boys who think they should be girls more so than be boys, and vice versa, therein lie the reasons why they don't want to use the facilities labeled with the sex of their birth.

it's not only about my 14 year old daughter being ogled or put into potential danger, but also having her put into the position of being exposed to adult male genitalia.

Pardon me for seeming judgmental, but to some extent I am, and in other ways, I'm not.

• Judgmental bit:
  What, pray tell, is a 14 year old girl or boy doing alone in an uncontrolled, unsupervised locker room (since you are concerned about locker rooms) anyway? Just how does that happen to your daughter?
  
  My daughter participated in scads of sports as a kid -- dressage, field hockey, tennis, and swimming. She never had any occasion following her practices or events to go to shower in an unsupervised/unguarded locker room. I didn't allow her to go alone to a public gym (something like, say, Gold's Gym, the YMCA, or "whatever") or fitness facility. The same (although not entirely the same sports) was so for my sons.
• The logical bit:
  If one is of a mind to allow one's 14 year old child to "wander the world" unsupervised by people whom one trusts, if not oneself, it stands to reason that one has also decided the child is ready and able to deal with that which they may encounter in the world. I'm not saying when is appropriate to make that decision, but whether explicitly or tacitly, letting one's kids so roam, one has made it.

Personally I do not accept no.2, by all logical rationale such a person has not changed their original sex.

Well I give you credit for attesting to that much. I can assure you it does do what it's advertised as doing. I can't make you accept that it does no matter what I present to you if you are, rather than being merely disbelieving, intellectually unwilling to explore whether it does or does not actually alter one's sex from what it was originally to the other sex.

Nobody thinks the surgery changes one's birth sex. Everyone is born with a given sex and one will forever have been born with that sex. Sex reassignment surgery is a means by which one need not remain the sex to which one was born.

 

[320 Years of History]

I wonder how much rape happens in the toilets in France? There are many gender neutral restrooms there.

About all I can say about that is that I've never been raped or made uncomfortable in a French restroom or locker room. LOL FWIW, I've been in many of them over the past score of years, particularly over the last decade.

Off Topic:
Then again, the French, like most of the rest of the world doesn't have the gender/sex "hang-up" Americans/America does. From what I've observed, the other large culture that, in general, has gender/sex driven "issues" similar to those we have in the U.S., is Islam and many of its adherents. Some of them are more extreme than ours, but when, where and to whom they apply, as in America, varies from region to region and person to person. And yet, because "it/they" is/are Islam/Muslims, and that alone, many Americans take exception with them/it. Hmmm.....

I'm curious, how do you think the French would feel about young muslim men in a shower with their daughters?

You would need to ask a Frenchman, in fact quite a few of them, to get a representationally faithful answer. I'm not and I cannot speak for them. I have no view about what Frenchmen think as goes the specific area about which you've asked. I can only speak to what I've observed about their culture, and Muslim men in showers with anyone's daughter isn't among the things I've observed.

 

[baileyn45]

??? Big assumptions? Puh-lease. You are advocating for a policy affecting whole states, perhaps a whole nation of 318+ million people on the basis of there being one "quack" who exposed himself? Really?
Unfortunately the policy of allowing men into girls facilities affects 318 million as well.

RED
That's fine if you don't mind your children in a shower with strange men, I do. Of course as a parent I apparently have no say.

RED 2
You'll note that in the Wash case those laws are now irrelevant. He "identifies" as a woman, cased closed.

Blue
So the criteria for him being in the girls locker room is gender dysphoria? I've yet to hear of any policy that demands such. He "identifies" as a woman, case closed.

An emergency phone? For what purpose? Again in the Wash instance he "identifies" as a woman, case closed.

Red 3
I am the same. 3 kids 2 of whom are over 18. And I've coached wresting since college.

Blue 2
You're kidding right? Teenagers being self conscious about their bodies is on the order of needing "treatment"? If that is true I would venture that the majority of teens need "treatment". Is it really societies job to exacerbate the problem because a 45 year old male doesn't want to see naked males in the locker room?

Judgemental
Again referencing the Wash instance they are not alone. A girls swim team. It makes it better that that they all get to shower with a 45 yr old man?

Logical
I can assure you I'm the complete opposite. My wife is my buffer from being over protective. My buddies tease me about being "momma bear" and they say that it's only because it's harder to say "wounded momma grizzly". I grew up with 4 little sisters and have a fierce protective streak, particularly when it comes to children. On this issue it all comes down to one thing, can you or anyone else tell me the intentions of the 40 year old man that just followed my daughter into the bathroom? The answer is no, and I will not allow it til my dying breath.

The Last Part
I look at it this way, If one were say to die in a fire, remains unrecognizable, the coroner is going to use tissue samples and bone structure to determine what he is looking at. You can wear what you want have anything you want surgically altered. But in the case of say Kaitlyn Jenner the report will begin "adult male".

 

[320 Years of History]

I look at it this way, If one were say to die in a fire, remains unrecognizable, the coroner is going to use tissue samples and bone structure to determine what he is looking at. You can wear what you want have anything you want surgically altered. But in the case of say Kaitlyn Jenner the report will begin "adult male".

I'll have to come back to your other points...short on time now.

Red:
As for this point, in looking into this issue, I came by this article. I won't, because I can't factually or in good conscience, refute your Caitlyn Jenner remark, it's yet worth observing that the day will come when that remark will not be factually accurate.

 

[Dekster]

If it is no big thing for all the men to have to accommodate a woman who thinks she is a man, why is it somehow punishment for her, thinking she is a man, to accommodate other women by sharing their restroom? She would be demanding that they do something that she herself is not willing to do.

 

[320 Years of History]

If it is no big thing for all the men to have to accommodate a woman who thinks she is a man, why is it somehow punishment for her, thinking she is a man, to accommodate other women by sharing their restroom? She would be demanding that they do something that she herself is not willing to do.

Let me be sure I understand you. Are you with your conditional question implying/averring that the following rationale (or opposition to them) is what someone or some group applies:

• When males accommodate F-->M person by allowing her to use the men's room ==> doing so is seen as no big deal for anyone involved?
• When a F-->M person accommodates women by using ladies' room ==> doing so is seen as a punishment for the F-->M person?

If so:

• Who sees the F-->M person as "accommodating" women?
• Who sees the F-->M person as being "punished?"
• How do you see the same rationale working/applying for M-->F persons?
  • When women accommodate a M-->F person by allowing him to use the ladies' room ==> it's no big deal for anyone involved?
  • When a M-->F person accommodates men by using the men's room ==> doing so is seen as a punishment for the M-->F person?

 

[320 Years of History]

I finally got round to looking at some of those links you provided...the first two. Dude, you'll need to do far, far better than point me to editorials published by biased authors and publishers. I don't know with whom you think you are having a discussion, but I bid you take a look at my posts. If you do so, you'll find that I provide reference links to rigorous thought that is supported by scholarly testing and analysis methods to support my arguments.

I'm verging on being insulted that you even pointed me to that right-wing taradiddlish piffled posturing that masquerades as news but that is in fact editorial content. You can do that to your heart's content with other folks who'll suffer your doing so, but not with me. You can now stop responding to my posts if you intend me to be among the readers of your remarks.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

• Right-wing publisher: We run “some misinformation”
  
• World Net Daily to Publish David Barton's Discredited Book of Jefferson
  
• World Net Daily selling discredited book about gays and Nazis
  
• WorldNetDaily: Officially Discredited | ConWebWatch
  
• WND - RationalWiki

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I agree 100% with the OP, it's a damn shame that we need laws that protect the rights of private businesses to do with their property as they see fit.