The Bathroom 'Freedom Fighters'

[Tilted]

I know one guy who says that's how his mother taught him and it stuck. But I am pretty sure a lot of old guys with prostate issues do what with all the waiting to start and then stopping and starting....

.

I'm sure some do. But most don't unless they're doing the other thing, and for that I suspect most guys try to avoid using public restrooms as much as they can.

Mostly though I was joking. You know, overcompensating for worries that I'm not masculine enough by suggesting that there's no way I'd do something so unmasculine - heck, it's so far out of the realm of possibility that I'm not even aware of other guys doing it, that kind of thing. It's kinda like when guys call a guy dude a ######, it's likely about heir own insecurities.

 

[PsyOps]

Seriously, requiring transgenders to use public bathrooms designated for the sex listed on their birth certificate (rather than the one they identify with) would more so lead to your hypothetical father being confronted with that concern, wouldn't it?

Not if it was someone who was intent on abusing this law to sexually harass/abuse women/girls; which there are already cases of this happening.

 

[Tilted]

The whole problem is that these people keep pushing. They keep wanting more. If you push hard enough people start pushing back.
This bill may not make sense, but it is a push back . That is what it is.

I wouldn't say that the bill doesn't make sense. I think various aspects of it are debatable in that regard.

But I would ask this: You do realize that this pushing that you refer to (ostensibly on behalf of LGBT rights) is in itself a pushback? It isn't just happening in a vacuum? It's the consequence of, and for some people it's in response to, centuries of being put down and harassed and just generally being treated badly by societies in general. Just as you suggest this law is pushing back against these kinds of arguably overreaching efforts on behalf of LGBT acceptance, those arguably overreaching efforts are pushing back against a history of societal condemnation and, in some cases, physical abuse and deprivations.

Those groups have reached a tipping point where they've finally gotten fairly widespread support within society, enough support that they have cultural and political power enough to be more assertive in their cause. So that's what they're doing, they're trying to finish the fight - to put their weakened opponent down for the count and, frankly, to punish him for continuing with the (lost) fight which they see as evil, as hateful, as bigoted. Some might not like that tactic, and it may well be an imprudent one, but it's understandable given human psychology and how these groups have generally been treated by society for so long. The worm has turned and while for many that's enough - it's enough that the social condemnation is finally (and mostly) falling away - others want their pound of flesh. And some just want to get to the finish line as fast as possible, slow progress isn't good enough any more. They've waited long enough and now they feel entitled to demand near complete societal acceptance - to get to the point where it is bias against being gay or transgender, rather than being gay or transgender, that makes someone a societal pariah.

If we understand the idea of push back, e.g. common reasons for it, then we should understand some of what happens with the LGBT acceptance movement. That push back has been centuries or millennia, not just years or decades, in the making. Of course, we don't have to agree with it; but it's quite reasonable from a psychological perspective.

If the whole school beats up the weak kid day after day, year after year, through grade school, when he shows up bigger, stronger, and having earned his black belt on the first day of middle school (and maybe now having a few friends), it might be wise to steer clear of him for a while. He might not settle for just staring people down; he might use any excuse he can find - the slightest slight - to get a little pay back and beat down a few of his former (or just symbolic) oppressors. Then again, if you think there's still something worth fighting for as relates to him, go ahead. But expect to go home with some bumps and bruises for your efforts. Because he ain't scared of mixing it up, he's been getting bumps and bruises his whole life because he wasn't strong enough to defend himself. A few more, this time taken from the upright rather than the crouching position? Meh, that's nothing to him. Now he's strong enough to defend himself and he's going to do just that, and perhaps more.

 

[Tilted]

Not if it was someone who was intent on abusing this law to sexually harass/abuse women/girls; which there are already cases of this happening.

That's not the hypo you described and that I was referring to. I was referring to the (likely more common) problem of a parent being alarmed at seeing what looked like a man entering the same bathroom that their young daughter was in.

But yeah, as with every aspect of life, sometimes bad things happen - sometimes bad people do bad things. We don't always make our decisions about what we should do based on such possibilities (and I think we should do so even less than we generally do). In part that's because no matter what we decide to do bad things will happen, bad people will do bad things.

 

[Hijinx]

I wouldn't say that the bill doesn't make sense. I think various aspects of it are debatable in that regard.

But I would ask this: You do realize that this pushing that you refer to (ostensibly on behalf of LGBT rights) is in itself a pushback? It isn't just happening in a vacuum? It's the consequence of, and for some people it's in response to, centuries of being put down and harassed and just generally being treated badly by societies in general. Just as you suggest this law is pushing back against these kind of arguably overreaching efforts on behalf of LGBT equality or whatever. Those arguably overreaching efforts are pushing back against a history of societal condemnation and, in some cases, physical abuse and deprivald.

Those groups have reached a tipping point where they've finally gotten fairly widespread support within society, enough support that they have cultural and political power enough to be more assertive in their cause. So that's what they're doing, they're trying to finish the fight - to put their weakened opponent down for the count and, frankly, to punish him for continuing with the (lost) fight which they see as evil, as hateful, as bigoted. Some might not like that tactic, and it may well be an imprudent one, but it's understandable given human psychology and how these groups have generally been treated by society for so long. The worm has turned and while for many that's enough - it's enough that the social condemnation is finally (and mostly) falling away - others want their pound of flesh. And some just want to get to the finish line as fast as possible, slow progress isn't good enough any more. They've waited long enough and now they feel entitled to demand near complete societal acceptance - to get to the point where it is bias against being gay or transgender, rather than being gay or transgender, that makes someone a societal pariah.

If we understand the idea of push back, e.g. common reasons for it, then we should understand some of what happens with the LGBT acceptance movement. That push back has been centuries or millennia, not just years or decades, in the making. Of course, we don't have to agree with it; but it's quite reasonable from a psychological perspective.

If the whole school beats up the weak kid day after day, year after year, through grade school, when he shows up bigger, stronger, and having earned his black belt on the first day of middle school (and maybe now having a few friends), it might be wise to steer clear of him for a while. He might not settle for just starring people down, he might use any excuse he can find - the slightest slight - to get a little pay back and beat down a few of his former (or just symbolic) oppressors. Then again, if you think there's still something worth fighting for as relates to him, go ahead. But expect to go home with some bumps and bruises for your efforts. Because he ain't scared of mixing it up, he's been getting bumps and bruises his whole life because he wasn't strong enough to defend himself. A few more, this time taken from the upright rather than the crouching position? Meh, that's nothing to him. Now he's strong enough to defend himself and he's going to do just that, and perhaps more.

You are really good at it Tilted. I have to hand it to you.

If you don't work for Snopes you should. You have them beat all to hell.

 

[PsyOps]

That's not the hypo you described and that I was referring to. I was referring to the (likely more common) problem of a parent being alarmed at seeing what looked like a man entering the same bathroom that their young daughter was in.

But yeah, as with every aspect of life, sometimes bad things happen - sometimes bad people do bad things. We don't always make our decisions about what we should do based on such possibilities (and I think we should do so even less than we generally do). In part that's because no matter what we decide to do bad things will happen, bad people will do bad things.

That's exactly the hypo I described:

I'm willing to bet that a father who has to watch his daughter go into a public lady's room only to have some scruffy-looking man walk in behind her, claiming he's transgender, would have a serious problem with this or is mentally deranged.

This isn't a matter of "sometimes bad things will happen"; this is a perfect setup for sexual predators and pedophiles to prey on women and children. There are people out there just waiting for this sort of ignorance to happen to open the door for them to do their ugly work. The invention of the automobile became a necessity in life, and sometimes in using that 'necessity' bad things will happen. But the invention of the automobile was largely a good thing. From that standpoint, I can accept your premise. This transgender restroom thing is just a bad idea from its inception.

 

[Radiant1]

I wouldn't say that the bill doesn't make sense. I think various aspects of it are debatable in that regard.

But I would ask this: You do realize that this pushing that you refer to (ostensibly on behalf of LGBT rights) is in itself a pushback? It isn't just happening in a vacuum? It's the consequence of, and for some people it's in response to, centuries of being put down and harassed and just generally being treated badly by societies in general. Just as you suggest this law is pushing back against these kind of arguably overreaching efforts on behalf of LGBT equality or whatever. Those arguably overreaching efforts are pushing back against a history of societal condemnation and, in some cases, physical abuse and deprivald.

Those groups have reached a tipping point where they've finally gotten fairly widespread support within society, enough support that they have cultural and political power enough to be more assertive in their cause. So that's what they're doing, they're trying to finish the fight - to put their weakened opponent down for the count and, frankly, to punish him for continuing with the (lost) fight which they see as evil, as hateful, as bigoted. Some might not like that tactic, and it may well be an imprudent one, but it's understandable given human psychology and how these groups have generally been treated by society for so long. The worm has turned and while for many that's enough - it's enough that the social condemnation is finally (and mostly) falling away - others want their pound of flesh. And some just want to get to the finish line as fast as possible, slow progress isn't good enough any more. They've waited long enough and now they feel entitled to demand near complete societal acceptance - to get to the point where it is bias against being gay or transgender, rather than being gay or transgender, that makes someone a societal pariah.

If we understand the idea of push back, e.g. common reasons for it, then we should understand some of what happens with the LGBT acceptance movement. That push back has been centuries or millennia, not just years or decades, in the making. Of course, we don't have to agree with it; but it's quite reasonable from a psychological perspective.

If the whole school beats up the weak kid day after day, year after year, through grade school, when he shows up bigger, stronger, and having earned his black belt on the first day of middle school (and maybe now having a few friends), it might be wise to steer clear of him for a while. He might not settle for just starring people down, he might use any excuse he can find - the slightest slight - to get a little pay back and beat down a few of his former (or just symbolic) oppressors. Then again, if you think there's still something worth fighting for as relates to him, go ahead. But expect to go home with some bumps and bruises for your efforts. Because he ain't scared of mixing it up, he's been getting bumps and bruises his whole life because he wasn't strong enough to defend himself. A few more, this time taken from the upright rather than the crouching position? Meh, that's nothing to him. Now he's strong enough to defend himself and he's going to do just that, and perhaps more.

Well said and worth repeating! Thank you for being a voice of reason and having an insight that most people either cannot or do not want to see.

This isn't a matter of "sometimes bad things will happen"; this is a perfect setup for sexual predators and pedophiles to prey on women and children. There are people out there just waiting for this sort of ignorance to happen to open the door for them to do their ugly work. The invention of the automobile became a necessity in life, and sometimes in using that 'necessity' bad things will happen. But the invention of the automobile was largely a good thing. From that standpoint, I can accept your premise. This transgender restroom thing is just a bad idea from its inception.

Psy, sexual predators and pedophiles already prey on women and children. I don't think a gender-assigned bathroom has ever stopped them. What's to stop Dad from going in the bathroom if he has a concern? And why is Dad concerned about a scruffy man and not the shady-looking woman who walked in there? Everyone acts as if women do not commit crimes against children, and although the stats are in favor of men they don't seem to target girls more than boys. Little Suzy and little Johnny are just as vulnerable when it comes to such things.

Everyone, this person has a penis. Do you really want her to use the men's bathroom? Should she urinate at the urinal next to little Johnny?

 

[SamSpade]

People who have undergone surgical changes and had the sex listed on their birth certificate changed can use the bathroom they identify as (and now physically match).

This is about stopping people who haven't physically changed sex from using bathrooms that they identify with rather than that match the sex that they physically still are. It sounds like you're suggesting that such people aren't actually transgender? Perhaps there was a time when that term only referred to people who had had physical sex changes, but that's not the case now. A transgender can be either case. I think the term transsexual was more so used only to refer to those who had physical sex changes, but that term isn't used much anymore. Perhaps that's for this very reason, so as not to suggest that the people in question necessarily have had physical sex changes.

Then while I am entirely sympathetic with the case of people who have physically been altered - I am not at all with people who have not. And this is largely because protecting someone who self-identifies as the opposite sex protects ANYONE who wants to designate themselves as such, whether there's a medical/psychological reason or not. I guess until now, I didn't realize exactly what transgender meant. I guess I don't see it as a thing, and while being gay comes with its own set of baggage, I really don't see how allowing men who self-identify as women keeps people who don't - but pretend to be - from using it as a means to other things.

I guess while I am sympathetic to gays and lesbians, and to transsexuals - people who have chosen to be altered - I don't extend the same to someone who's just going about as IF they were of the opposite sex, with no change whatsoever.

 

[Tilted]

That's exactly the hypo I described:

That's not the aspect of the hypo I was referring to (and which matters). You're talking about a father being concerned by seeing a man enter the women's room, not about someone being assaulted. The former would be a more common occurrence I think - people seeing others enter what seemed to be the wrong bathroom and (because they were forced to use the bathroom of the sex on their birth certificate even though they might look and dress like the other sex) and being concerned. Also, and this isn't really important to the basic point, but how often do you think someone would claim (to others around them) that they are transgender and that is why they are going into a particular bathroom? The issue is what they look like, what sex people think they are. For all intents and purposes, in so far as the hypothetical father is concerned, what the person entering the women's bathroom looks like is what matters - if they look like a man, he's going to be concerned about them as if they were a man because to him that's what they seem to be.

But, again, your hypo was addressing situations where someone is concerned about who they see go into a bathroom, it wasn't about situations where someone was actually assaulted. The law as it is would, I would think, cause more of the former situations. A parent might be more likely to be concerned about someone entering the bathroom with their daughter (perhaps because they worry about some kind of assault) because more people looking like men would be forced to use that bathroom.

This isn't a matter of "sometimes bad things will happen"; this is a perfect setup for sexual predators and pedophiles to prey on women and children. There are people out there just waiting for this sort of ignorance to happen to open the door for them to do their ugly work. The invention of the automobile became a necessity in life, and sometimes in using that 'necessity' bad things will happen. But the invention of the automobile was largely a good thing. From that standpoint, I can accept your premise. This transgender restroom thing is just a bad idea from its inception.

Well then your point of disagreement with others is in whether transgender men (e.g. women who live and dress as men) being able to use the bathroom they identify with, and vice versa, is a good thing to begin with. My point was that the concern you raise probably cuts the other way - that particular concern suggests that it might be a good thing.

But I have to ask, do you really think that allowing transgenders to use particular bathrooms meaningfully increases the likelihood of the kinds for assaults you're referring to? I mean, if someone is inclined to that, why would this law matter to them? Why wouldn't they just enter the bathroom they wanted to (perhaps to assault someone) anyway? The point is, that wouldn't necessarily be drawing attention. They could look like a women entering the women's room. The law saying they weren't allowed to would have what affect on their actions?

That brings me to something I was going to ask: Does anyone know if there are penalties in North Carolina law for using the wrong bathroom, so to speak? For a man using a bathroom designated for women? This new law doesn't create any that I saw. So is this just about what the stated policy of municipal facilities (and schools) has to be? Or is there some legal consequence for the actual person that might use the wrong bathroom? When it comes to schools, speaking practically since school officials would probably know who was transgender, those kids could probably get in trouble through the school for using the wrong bathroom based on the stated policy that schools would now be required to follow. But otherwise, is this mostly a symbolic provision - the reality is that people can still use whichever bathroom they want without consequence (and, for the most part, without notice)?

 

[PsyOps]

Psy, sexual predators and pedophiles already prey on women and children.

Well, why don't we just make it easier. I gave you an example of how it's already being abused. Now, it's legal.

 

[PsyOps]

That's not the aspect of the hypo I was referring to (and which matters).

My original 'hypo' was not addressed to anyone in particular; it was not a response to anything you might previously posted. It was MY hypo. To it does not attempt to answer to any hypo you might have put forth.

Well then your point of disagreement with others is in whether transgender men (e.g. women who live and dress as men) being able to use the bathroom they identify with, and vice versa, is a good thing to begin with.

But I have to ask, do you really think that allowing transgenders to use particular bathrooms meaningfully increases the likelihood of the kinds for assaults you're referring to? I mean, if someone is inclined to that, why would this law matter to them? Why wouldn't they just enter the bathroom they wanted to (perhaps to assault someone) anyway? The point is, that wouldn't necessarily be drawing attention. They could look like a women entering the women's room. The law saying they weren't allowed to would have what affect on their actions?

This may work in a restroom where a man dressed as a woman, can go into a stall, unbeknownst to anyone, do their thing and leave. That doesn't play out well in a locker room. Suddenly that man-dressed-as-a-woman is revealed to be a man - with a penis - in a woman's locker room jumping in the same shower that your daughter (rhet) is using. You can rationalize this in any way you want; but every woman (AND GIRL) is going to reject this MAN'S presence and view it as (at a minimum) harassment. And I would assume you, as a father to a daughter (rhet), would have a big problem with this.

Isn't there any sort of common sense in this at all? We are trying to dispose of tens of thousands (if not millions) of years of biology and human conditioning, and expect people to just feel this is natural and normal; all premised on a person's feeling of 'who they are'. It's just not going to work out well.

 

[Radiant1]

Well, why don't we just make it easier. I gave you an example of how it's already being abused. Now, it's legal.

I just skimmed the article, but did the dude actually assault someone or did he just get undressed and the ladies then make a stink about it?

 

[PsyOps]

Everyone, this person has a penis. Do you really want her to use the men's bathroom? Should she urinate at the urinal next to little Johnny?
View attachment 112570

As I stated... we're trying to undo eons of biology and human conditioning. It's just not going to go well.

 

[PsyOps]

I just skimmed the article, but did the dude actually assault someone or did he just get undressed and the ladies then make a stink about it?

Are you purposely missing the point? If we're going to recognize these trans people based on HOW THEY FEEL; isn't it equally valid to recognize THE FEELINGS of those who are uncomfortable with a man being in a women's locker room? Or are we only going to validate the transgender folks?

 

[GURPS]

Gay Group ‘More Powerful than the NRA,’ Warns North Carolina Governor



Transsexual advocates cast the issue as one of discrimination, that biological men have a right to urinate and shower with biological women and girls. The Detroit Free Press this week editorialized that it is a violation of their Constitutional rights not to be allowed in girls’ bathrooms and showers.

McCrory is one of a few governors fighting back. He signed a bill that says people must use the bathroom and locker-room that corresponds to the sex stated on their birth-certificate. The law allows people to have their birth-certificates changed to correspond to their “gender identity.” The law also allows private companies to set their own bathroom and locker-room rules rather than have city or state governments impose rules on them.

Leading the fight to intimidate McCrory and state law-makers is the $50 million-a-year anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign. Fresh off their victory in forcing gay marriage on the country, some gay pressure groups actually closed their doors, others have been concerned with how to keep their coffers full, their doors open, and the LGBT issue on the boil after seemingly having won everything they wanted. Standing up for “men in dresses” has certainly kept the LGBT issue on the boil and, presumably, the cash flowing.

 

[Radiant1]

You can rationalize this in any way you want; but every woman (AND GIRL) is going to reject this MAN'S presence and view it as (at a minimum) harassment.

Speak for yourself. The only way I would reject it is if the person were waving their dick around or if they were ogling me (which any lesbian is now currently able to do because she's using the same shower). That's when it becomes harassment and then it's not a matter of their gender but rather their character. I raised my daughters to not get all overhyped about a penis or vagina to combat what amounts to our oversexed society, so they likely wouldn't care much either (I'll have to ask them when I get home just to be sure). Just because you reduce people to their genitals doesn't mean everyone else does.

Isn't there any sort of common sense in this at all? We are trying to dispose of tens of thousands (if not millions) of years of biology and human conditioning, and expect people to just feel this is natural and normal; all premised on a person's feeling of 'who they are'. It's just not going to work out well.

Oh so what. We were once conditioned to hate people because of their race, should we continue with it simply because we've been conditioned to do so? Should we continue to discourage boys from wearing pink and playing with Barbies or girls for wearing blue and playing with trucks? Is there not any form of human conditioning that you think should be broken?

As I stated... we're trying to undo eons of biology and human conditioning. It's just not going to go well.

Yes, we are, and nothing worth having is easy. There is a purge and strife with everything regarding progress and that's what we're experiencing now. Actually, I don't see this is a purely biological thing because there have been transgendered people throughout time. It's just that we are now at a time in history where those persons can acknowledge it (not without some danger yet, but still), and there is the medical technology to change it. It's the human conditioning that is at issue, and let's face it some human conditioning desperately needs changing.

Are you purposely missing the point? If we're going to recognize these trans people based on HOW THEY FEEL; isn't it equally valid to recognize THE FEELINGS of those who are uncomfortable with a man being in a women's locker room? Or are we only going to validate the transgender folks?

I may have missed the point but not purposely. I thought you were making a stink about predators taking advantage, not how people feel. I'm sure there were those who once felt they just could not share a water fountain with a black person. Do you think society should have taken into consideration how they felt? You have to understand that to a transgender, whether sex changed or not, doesn't just "feel" like the gender they want to be, but rather ARE that gender but are without the proper plumbing. Much like a person who is born to eat and even needs to eat but is born with a severely cleft lip and cannot do so. Would you not want to release the person from their defect? It's the same thing.

Why do you reduce human beings to their penis or vagina? Surely both you and I are more than the sum of our genitals?

 

[PsyOps]

Speak for yourself. The only way I would reject it is if the person were waving their dick around or if they were ogling me (which any lesbian is now currently able to do because she's using the same shower). That's when it becomes harassment and then it's not a matter of their gender but rather their character. I raised my daughters to not get all overhyped about a penis or vagina to combat what amounts to our oversexed society, so they likely wouldn't care much either (I'll have to ask them when I get home just to be sure). Just because you reduce people to their genitals doesn't mean everyone else does.

Then you are the exception and not the rule. I would wager a month’s salary that MOST women would reject a man (regardless of what he claimed he felt he is) being the a women’s locker room. This isn’t about judging someone, it’s about the same damn thing the LGB… whatever they are using to justify their cause… how one FEELS about it. You validate one’s FEELINGS while invalidating another’s? I validate what nature has dictated for eons.

Oh so what. We were once conditioned to hate people because of their race, should we continue with it simply because we've been conditioned to do so? Should we continue to discourage boys from wearing pink and playing with Barbies or girls for wearing blue and playing with trucks? Is there not any form of human conditioning that you think should be broken?

One can’t help what race they were BORN with. I am white. I can’t claim I am black just because I feel black. If I walked up to you and told you I was black, I believe you would reject that premise. I was BORN with a penis which makes me a male; regardless of how I FEEL about it. Therefore, I use facilities that accommodate the actual SEX I was BORN with. This is millions of years of elementary biology that people like you want to reject; because of how a person might FEEL.

Yes, we are, and nothing worth having is easy. There is a purge and strife with everything regarding progress and that's what we're experiencing now. Actually, I don't see this is a purely biological thing because there have been transgendered people throughout time. It's just that we are now at a time in history where those persons can acknowledge it (not without some danger yet, but still), and there is the medical technology to change it. It's the human conditioning that is at issue, and let's face it some human conditioning desperately needs changing.

We’re going to differ hugely. I do not consider this progress. I consider this a manipulation of what we are as humans; what we were born as.

I may have missed the point but not purposely. I thought you were making a stink about predators taking advantage, not how people feel. I'm sure there were those who once felt they just could not share a water fountain with a black person. Do you think society should have taken into consideration how they felt? You have to understand that to a transgender, whether sex changed or not, doesn't just "feel" like the gender they want to be, but rather ARE that gender but are without the proper plumbing. Much like a person who is born to eat and even needs to eat but is born with a severely cleft lip and cannot do so. Would you not want to release the person from their defect? It's the same thing.

Why do you reduce human beings to their penis or vagina? Surely both you and I are more than the sum of our genitals?

How am I reducing humans to anything? If you have a penis you are a male, if you have a vagina you are a female. Millions of years of nature and you’re accusing me of reducing humans to a certain thing? Amazing!

 

[Radiant1]

How am I reducing humans to anything? If you have a penis you are a male, if you have a vagina you are a female. Millions of years of nature and you’re accusing me of reducing humans to a certain thing? Amazing!

Well, actually, no. Transgender people have existed as long as homosexual people and CIS people have. it's just that we are at the stage in our history where they can come out of the shadows without fear of death, much like the homosexuals did. And, much like the black person it's about what they *are* not what they *feel*. Have you not known someone who had a penis but was extraordinarily effeminate in looks and mannerisms and vice versa a person with a vagina who was extraordinarily masculine in looks and mannerisms? Do you suppose things got a little screwed up when developing in the womb? Do you think nature is utmost perfect, most especially in regards to human development? If so, then why are people born with defects? Why was my daughter born with a fused hip? Why was that baby born with a cleft lip? Why was that person born with two different colored eyes? Why was someone born with a penis when in every other aspect they are female? :shrug:

You're *conditioned* to make it cut and dry, but it's not. You're *conditioned* to get upset about this, but you don't have to. And you may not think so, but while we're talking about nature, your penis is just an organ that allows urine to escape your body and to procreate with. It doesn't make you who you are. It didn't make you play with trucks when you were a kid and it didn't make you prefer a woman for sex instead of a man. You are more than the sum parts of your genitals.

 

[PsyOps]

Well, actually, no. Transgender people have existed as long as homosexual people and CIS people have. it's just that we are at the stage in our history where they can come out of the shadows without fear of death, much like the homosexuals did. And, much like the black person it's about what they *are* not what they *feel*. Have you not known someone who had a penis but was extraordinarily effeminate in looks and mannerisms and vice versa a person with a vagina who was extraordinarily masculine in looks and mannerisms? Do you suppose things got a little screwed up when developing in the womb? Do you think nature is utmost perfect, most especially in regards to human development? If so, then why are people born with defects? Why was my daughter born with a fused hip? Why was that baby born with a cleft lip? Why was that person born with two different colored eyes? Why was someone born with a penis when in every other aspect they are female? :shrug:

You're *conditioned* to make it cut and dry, but it's not. You're *conditioned* to get upset about this, but you don't have to. And you may not think so, but while we're talking about nature, your penis is just an organ that allows urine to escape your body and to procreate with. It doesn't make you who you are. It didn't make you play with trucks when you were a kid and it didn't make you prefer a woman for sex instead of a man. You are more than the sum parts of your genitals.

You’re not going to convince me there is any comparison to a person who has no choice in who they are (a black person) to someone who is making a choice not to be what they are (homosexuals/transgender).

Now, don’t get me wrong on this… I want everyone to have equal rights. I have no desire to tell gays or trans they shouldn’t have their lifestyle. I don’t believe using whatever public facilities you want is a right. My disagreement with their lifestyle ends with dictating to them that they don’t belong in this world. But when their ‘rights’ trump mine; when how they FEEL about things trumps how I feel about it, something is wrong with this. Your comfort as a transgendered woman (feeling like a man) to use the men’s shower should not trump my discomfort with you undressing in a men’s locker room. This gets exponentially complicated when it comes to hormonally enraged teens sharing locker rooms like this.

My getting upset about this (which I’m not; I’m simply voicing some concerns about how I expect it to be received), is irrelevant. I do not expect this to go over well. I expect most people – particularly women – will be hugely uncomfortable with a male taking off his dress in a lady’s shower, revealing he is indeed a male. You can call these people bigots or whatever, but don’t expect it to be well-received.

 

[vraiblonde]

Everyone, this person has a penis. Do you really want her to use the men's bathroom? Should she urinate at the urinal next to little Johnny?
View attachment 112570

No, s/he should come on into the ladies room and do its business without making a big deal. Simple. I GUARANTEE no one will challenge her/him/it.

That is not what this legislation is about. It's about actual men, who look like men and are still every bit a man except for that they wear lipstick and a skirt, wanting to use the ladies room and also wanting to piss off and offend everyone else because they think it's their "right", and to hell with anyone else's rights. And that's bull####.

What next, they have to start putting those filthy urinals in the ladies rooms to accommodate these aholes? Put tampon dispensers in the mens room?

Just go use the freaking restroom already and shut up about it.