Men in women's bathrooms

[P@triot]

Per Your "protection arguement" please explain how it is different than this... There are black murders, according to your logic, by allowing black people into a public park, or baseball game or other populated place of business you are enabling the criminals to commit crimes, thus jeapordizong the safety of our people. So under your logic wouldn't it be justified to segregate blacks?

Per you idiot argument - does the ballpark say "WHITES" in huge letters above the enterance? If so.....then yes....one would be a complete and total asshole to let black people in.

There is a reason that it says "Women" or "Ladies" on the door and the fact that you need something this basic explained to you is evidence that you're not mature enough to be having this conversation.

 

[P@triot]

Again, what right is lost by allowing the below child to use the women's rather than the men's restroom?

Again....what is lost is all sense of basic decency. That boy shouldn't see grown women naked just because his parents and liberals like you want to exploit him.

By the way, liberal pedophiles make the case "what is lost by brutally raping that little boy"? What is "lost" whtchy? It may turn you on but a rational person would say quit a bit is lost - starting with the child's innocence. Well, that's the same thing that is lost as you animals continue to exploit him for your own sexual arousal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder if they have a staff psychologist moonlighting making pizza so they can walk customers through what's between their legs and what restroom that means they have to use?

I can't imagine it requires a psychologist to explain, "Innies over here, outies over there". Every half-sentient parent in the world makes that explanation at some point, and every 3-year-old they explain it to understands it. It ain't rocket magic.

^^^ Has an "innie"...now what?

I realize that "every 3-year-old understands it" puts this well beyond YOUR intellectual level, but let me spell it out: I don't care how ******* freakish you make yourself look. It's not the universe's job to realign itself to your preferences.

Your argument is just the vastly extreme form of someone who gets sixteen facial piercings and full-body tattoos, then walks around belligerently asking everyone, "What the hell are YOU looking at?" ******* duh. If you are uncomfortable with how other people react to you when you've gone to great effort to be someone who makes people react oddly, then are THEY at fault for noticing, or are you at fault for being a walking train wreck?

Am I being the exact opposite of the "gotta be nice, gotta not offend people" reaction that you evil, twisted assholes depend on exploiting for your agenda? Damned right, and proud of it. IF I assume your post is correct - which, by the way, is not an assumption I ever really make - and that person has a vagina, then I have no problem saying that IT is going to have to find some way not to be unpleasantly, offensively offputting to the entire rest of the nation who vastly outnumber it, rather than expecting all 300 million-plus of them to change for ITS one, singular self acting out its delusions.

I hope I have been crystal clear enough for you, and not obscured my position with too many euphemisms and globs of niceness. If you are in any way not incensed and spitting-blood-offended, let me know and I will be even more bluntly honest.

 

[P@triot]

it's an equal rights and a equal protection thing

You continue to take idiot to previously unforeseen heights. There is no "right" for a man to invade the private space and facilities of women. There is no "right" for a woman to invade the private space and facilities of men.

Stop being a disingenuous dick because your sick and disturbing position cannot stand up to and defeat logic and reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder if they have a staff psychologist moonlighting making pizza so they can walk customers through what's between their legs and what restroom that means they have to use?

I can't imagine it requires a psychologist to explain, "Innies over here, outies over there". Every half-sentient parent in the world makes that explanation at some point, and every 3-year-old they explain it to understands it. It ain't rocket magic.

^^^ Has an "innie"...now what?

Nothing. Why would the shape of "his" navel dictate what bathroom "he" uses?

Oh, wait, we're talking about a vagina here. I had to look "innie" up in the urban dictionary.

Yes, in this context, we were discussing a different part of the anatomy than the belly button going "in".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Imagine, something like this happening in a state with a transgender friendly bathroom law. I don't think any liberal in this thread realizes the danger it can pose to women and children. While it isn't advisable to let your child go to the bathroom alone, this could be the trend if we allow transgender women to use the ladies bathroom.

Man Chokes Eight-Year-Old Girl In Bathroom

Here is the future.

In San Bernardino neighbors knew there was some thing going on at the terror house. They were afraid to say anything. They'd be called racists.

You will see people come forward saying they saw the man go into the ladies room but were afraid to say anything. He might be transgendered.

The real problem is that everyone will know that even if they DO say something, the store employees will, at best, just shrug and say, "So what?" Oh, but I'm sure they'll be very solicitous and helpful to the cops AFTER something bad happens due to this policy.

Liberals are 100% opposed to the idea of people protecting their own safety in any way, shape, or form before the fact.

 

[Slade3200]

it's an equal rights and a equal protection thing

You continue to take idiot to previously unforeseen heights. There is no "right" for a man to invade the private space and facilities of women. There is no "right" for a woman to invade the private space and facilities of men.

Stop being a disingenuous dick because your sick and disturbing position cannot stand up to and defeat logic and reason.

This simple fellow still thinks is a men's/women's issue.

 

[Silhouette]

This simple fellow still thinks is a men's/women's issue.

No, the law that protects women, especially women rape victims' privacy behind doors marked "women" is the issue. To define "male", the court will need a clear definition all can agree on. Biology will do nicely here. Certainly if a woman rape victim in a shower or bathroom marked "women" outside sees a big burly adam's apple person with a five O'clock shadow, a dress and pumps in with her, she isn't going to be subtly parsing out vernacular while her fear levels jump to PTSD.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I realize that "every 3-year-old understands it" puts this well beyond YOUR intellectual level, but let me spell it out: I don't care how ******* freakish you make yourself look. It's not the universe's job to realign itself to your preferences.

Boom! Headshot.

 

[P@triot]

I wonder if they have a staff psychologist moonlighting making pizza so they can walk customers through what's between their legs and what restroom that means they have to use?

I can't imagine it requires a psychologist to explain, "Innies over here, outies over there". Every half-sentient parent in the world makes that explanation at some point, and every 3-year-old they explain it to understands it. It ain't rocket magic.

^^^ Has an "innie"...now what?

I realize that "every 3-year-old understands it" puts this well beyond YOUR intellectual level, but let me spell it out: I don't care how ******* freakish you make yourself look. It's not the universe's job to realign itself to your preferences.

Your argument is just the vastly extreme form of someone who gets sixteen facial piercings and full-body tattoos, then walks around belligerently asking everyone, "What the hell are YOU looking at?" ******* duh. If you are uncomfortable with how other people react to you when you've gone to great effort to be someone who makes people react oddly, then are THEY at fault for noticing, or are you at fault for being a walking train wreck?

Am I being the exact opposite of the "gotta be nice, gotta not offend people" reaction that you evil, twisted assholes depend on exploiting for your agenda? Damned right, and proud of it. IF I assume your post is correct - which, by the way, is not an assumption I ever really make - and that person has a vagina, then I have no problem saying that IT is going to have to find some way not to be unpleasantly, offensively offputting to the entire rest of the nation who vastly outnumber it, rather than expecting all 300 million-plus of them to change for ITS one, singular self acting out its delusions.

I hope I have been crystal clear enough for you, and not obscured my position with too many euphemisms and globs of niceness. If you are in any way not incensed and spitting-blood-offended, let me know and I will be even more bluntly honest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wonder if they have a staff psychologist moonlighting making pizza so they can walk customers through what's between their legs and what restroom that means they have to use?

I can't imagine it requires a psychologist to explain, "Innies over here, outies over there". Every half-sentient parent in the world makes that explanation at some point, and every 3-year-old they explain it to understands it. It ain't rocket magic.

^^^ Has an "innie"...now what?

Nothing. Why would the shape of "his" navel dictate what bathroom "he" uses?

Oh, wait, we're talking about a vagina here. I had to look "innie" up in the urban dictionary.

Yes, in this context, we were discussing a different part of the anatomy than the belly button going "in".

Heh. Now I know.

 

[P@triot]

it's an equal rights and a equal protection thing

You continue to take idiot to previously unforeseen heights. There is no "right" for a man to invade the private space and facilities of women. There is no "right" for a woman to invade the private space and facilities of men.

Stop being a disingenuous dick because your sick and disturbing position cannot stand up to and defeat logic and reason.

This simple fellow still thinks is a men's/women's issue.

I rest my case.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

it's an equal rights and a equal protection thing.

How is it "equal protection" when you're disregarding the safety and privacy rights of hundreds of millions of people to appease an infinitesimal fraction of the population?

I've stated that it is a very complicated issue so I do think opposers can rally enough support to have their concerns addressed.

So far our concerns have been flatly dismissed. Either for being discriminatory or bigoted.

Old men molesting girls is a joke arguement

Case in point.

You can make much stronger and more productive arguements to support your conservative if you used your brains.

Is that the best argument you have? Use your brains? That's it, I'm done.

Per Your "protection arguement" please explain how it is different than this... There are black murders, according to your logic, by allowing black people into a public park, or baseball game or other populated place of business you are enabling the criminals to commit crimes, thus jeapordizong the safety of our people. So under your logic wouldn't it be justified to segregate blacks?

That is the biggest red herring I ever did see. Let's stick to the point at hand. I have no problem with black people being in public parks. But I do have a problem with black thugs coming in and starting shit. See where this is going? Therefore, I have no problem with transgender women using the women's bathroom, I have a problem with perverted men faking it to go in there and take advantage of women and children.

Comprende?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Best part about anything that you said were your last two words "I'm done". Thank you

Far from it. Your stupidity needs to be addressed.

 

[P@triot]

Liberals are 100% opposed to the idea of people protecting their own safety in any way, shape, or form before the fact.

Considering they oppose the U.S. Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, they support illegal criminals breaking into our country, and they've been waging a horrific war on women for centuries...are you the least bit surprised?

 

[boedicca]

Best part about anything that you said were your last two words "I'm done". Thank you

Far from it. Your stupidity needs to be addressed.

I'm afraid he's a terminal case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

CECILIE1200 SAID:

"I realize that "every 3-year-old understands it" puts this well beyond YOUR intellectual level, but let me spell it out: I don't care how ******* freakish you make yourself look. It's not the universe's job to realign itself to your preferences."

This fails as a straw man fallacy, as no one ‘advocates’ for any such thing.

The notion that transgender Americans are seeking to ‘compel’ others to accept who they are misrepresents the position of transgender persons, as it’s nothing but a lie.

As was the case when gay Americans fought for their comprehensive civil rights, that transgender Americans must likewise fight to protect their right to self-expression and individual liberty is not to ‘compel’ anyone to ‘accept’ who they are.

As private citizens you and other bigots on the right are at liberty to hate transgender Americans for whatever ignorant reason you so desire; but as a matter of law and governance states may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans for no other reason than who they are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A transgender law will do nothing to enable them. That's a joke

Really?

So, how will this transgender law stop men faking as trans women from going into the women's bathroom to commit an atrocity against innocent women and children? If it doesn't have anything of that sort, it enables them. Sorry.

This is like me giving an arsonist a match and a can of gasoline, in the middle of a forest, and telling him not to start a forest fire.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

CECILIE1200 SAID:

"Liberals are 100% opposed to the idea of people protecting their own safety in any way, shape, or form before the fact."

Another straw man fallacy, another lie from the right.

Liberals have no issue whatsoever with citizens protecting themselves.

And the notion that acknowledging and respecting the rights of transgender Americans somehow ‘jeopardizes’ others is in fact wrong and is nothing more than baseless demagoguery.

The contempt for the truth among most conservatives is infamous, and the propensity of most on the right to use lies and fearmongering to obscure the facts in an effort advance their agenda of fear, bigotry, and hate is well established and beyond dispute.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The notion that transgender Americans are seeking to ‘compel’ others to accept who they are misrepresents the position of transgender persons, as it’s nothing but a lie.

Prove it. An argument doesn't involve calling everyone liars. Make a substantive case.

As was the case when gay Americans fought for their comprehensive civil rights, that transgender Americans must likewise fight to protect their right to self-expression and individual liberty is not to ‘compel’ anyone to ‘accept’ who they are.

When Obama issues his decree with scepter in hand, demanding that schools accommodate transgenders, or face lawsuits and loss of funding, that is indeed compulsion of the highest order. Blackmail. An attempt to compel, or force, an entire nation to "accept" who they are. When the DOJ threatens North Carolina with loss of federal funding for passing a bathroom law, that is compulsion, an attempt to force a state and its citizens to "accept" who they are.

You can no more force us to accept who they are than I can force you to be a Christian. Life doesn't work that way.