OT: Curt Schilling sacked by ESPN

[NorthHawk]

To some it is.
The issue could snowball to the entire LGBT populace and their supporters boycotting ESPN or their advertisers. Then there would be problems in the boardroom when the stock nosedives.
I think that's what caused the action. It's all about money.

[monkey]

So let's get this straight, Burrrton. A sales rep works for you representing a company you built block by block for 30 years. One day he decides to insult a small group of your customers, just using his freedom of speech. No big deal, you are all for freedom of speech. So we close the books for the month and our sales are off 5% over projection. Hmm. Next month, same thing. So you call a few old customers and ask why they stopped doing business with you. "Well Burt" they say, "we liked doing business with you but your new sales rep insulted us and several other customers. We decided to look elsewhere for a vendor." In conversation your former customers might be willing to come back, but you are not willing to let your sales rep go (because of freedom of speech and all) so they decide not to.

You talk with the sale rep and say hey, you know I don't want to tread on your ability to say stuff but when you insulted those customers we ended up losing half my profit for the month. This hurts. Could you maybe be more careful next time? But of course the following month the sales rep not only insults the customers he insulted before, but he insults anyone who was offended by his insults. So this month closes and you are off 15% over projection. On top of that friends and family members are bringing you twitter and facebook reports that say *you* must feel this way as well since you are allowing your sales rep to insult this group repeatedly.

So now you are losing money, you try to get new customers to replace your lost customers but the marketspace you work in is pretty full and acquiring new customers is expensive. So, you go to the bank to get a credit line so you can fund a sale to get more customers but shoot, wouldn't you know the VP at the bank is part of the 5% your sales rep insulted and he knows all about what happened. He replies "He would love to help but Bank of Billions is an inclusive business and we don't want to be associated with non-inclusive businesses. We lose too much money you see." Yeah you are seeing this all too well.

The next month sales are off 20% because of course your sales rep is still freedom of speaking. You call up one of your oldest customers that stopped doing business with you months ago. You say Bud what do I do? And Bud says "Fire the damn sales rep, most of us would rather do business with you but we are not going to be insulted by your employee. Freedom of speech or no."

Pretty sure your belief in freedom of speaking dies that day. If not, it dies for your wife who gets 51% of the business in your divorce and fires the sale rep the next day.

One HUGE problem with your entire premise, that is, you are saying that saying a person whose anatomy and genetics all say that they are a certain gender, are INSULTED by being told that they need to use the restroom that matches.
That's a big problem.
If I decide that I feel like I am a first grade school girl, and demand to be allowed to attend first grade in a dress, then you absolutely have the right to tell me to tell me to quit my whining when I claim to be insulted!
Sorry but the argument you have built there is a complete straw man.
People have no right whatsoever to feel insulted by being told to use a bathroom that corresponds to their gender. None. They certainly don't have a right that supercedes my right to feel like public bathrooms are as safe as they can be for my family, or that for the convenience of someone who is in complete denial about those basic anatomy, my wife and kids needed to put up with some dude in drag watching them use the toilet!!!

[HumanCockroach]

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I believe women's restrooms have only stalls, there isn't going to be "some dude in drag" watching them go to the bathroom. I do have concerns about predators using this as a loop hole, and am not for it, but statements like that cause problems for people attempting to express those concerns. Because it's hyperbole with zero basis in reality, which in turn invalidates all concerns. Just like Schillings photo is not a true representation, which is why there was so much blow back. Creating out of thin air "problems" aren't helping anymore than posting the exaggerated photo of a group of people. There's valid concerns, and then there's exaggerations and hyperbole to accentuate those concerns. Claims of "watching a girl or woman go to the bathroom" is the latter.

[monkey]

It's not hyperbole with zero basis in reality, it's a legitimate concern. You may not like the phrasing, but I don't like the idea of men going to the bathroom with my daughters. Furthermore, I shouldn't have to worry about that, just so less than one percent of the population can pick and choose whatever bathroom they want to use, based on how they happen to feel, rather than ON ACTUAL FACT.
That this is even considered a relevant topic in any way, just shoes how far we've gone down a road of intellectual, and moral poverty.

[burrrton]

The fact that this is even considered a relevant topic in any way, just shoes how far we've gone down a road of intellectual, and moral poverty.

Yup.

Furthermore, I shouldn't have to worry about that, just so less than one percent of the population can pick and choose whatever bathroom they want to use, based on how they happen to feel, rather than ON ACTUAL FACT.

I'd say "biology", but yeah.

Also, it's not the fraction of a percentage point of the population I'm worried about- it's the open door policy these ridiculous accommodations create.

[RiverDog]

My first trip to Europe, 4 years ago, was to Amsterdam, the Netherlands. I get off the plane after a 10 hour flight, and as you would expect, my first stop was the nearest bathroom. I walk into the nearest facility, walk up to the urinal, unzip my pants and start doing my business, when lo and behold in the next urinal, a female custodian walks up and starts cleaning the urinal.

I can see an issue arising from a common shower area, but not piss stops.

[HumanCockroach]

Monkey if you could maybe explain how some dude will be watching a girl/woman using the toilet that maybe would clear things up. I don't see how any guy in drag is going to accomplish that through a metal or wood door.

If it was some sort of open restroom like the urinals in a men's room I might understand, but the truth is, woman's restrooms have "privacy stalls" for every toilet. ( at least in this country).

[burrrton]

I can see an issue arising from a common shower area, but not piss stops.

I can imagine a *lot* of areas where there will never be an opportunity for issues. Again, though, those aren't the situations germane to the conversation.

The question is whether there are situations where there *will* be issues, and since the answer to that is clearly and emphatically "yes", supporters of "anyone anywhere" bathrooms are going to have to come up with an answer for that.

[burrrton]

If it was some sort of open restroom like the urinals in a men's room I might understand, but the truth is, woman's restrooms have "privacy stalls" for every toilet. ( at least in this country).

Not everywhere, but even if we accept that as a given, there is nothing in the law that limits "anyone anywhere" access to only restrooms with privacy stalls.

[obiken]

I have a major problem with the whole lets accommodate Transvestites and Transgenders as well. Its America, Washington said in a letter, that Christianity had nothing to do with the formation of the government of the United States of America. ITS ABOUT FREEDOM. IF you are a Transgender, or Transsexual, its America, knock yourself out, but I don't have agree with you. Moreover, I don't think the military should have to accommodate them either.

That's a different conversation than calling people racial slurs. However, very seldom anymore, is it an outright racial slur. Its that grey area. What is a racial slur? Who decides that on TV or jobs where you are in the public eye. Ty Cobb felt that black people were biologically inferior to white people. IS he in the hall of fame? Yes. Was he great baseball player? YES. Could he play today? NO. Was he good father, husband, or human being? NO.
My problem is there are no hard or fast rules on what is over the line. I am not an Afro-American. I don't know what its like to grow up poor in the inner city. However, even though I like Al Sharpton, he is former squealer, convict, and doper. I think he has FAR too much say in what is racist and what is not.

[RiverDog]

I can imagine a *lot* of areas where there will never be an opportunity for issues. Again, though, those aren't the situations germane to the conversation.

The question is whether there are situations where there *will* be issues, and since the answer to that is clearly and emphatically "yes", supporters of "anyone anywhere" bathrooms are going to have to come up with an answer for that.

So what you are saying is that you don't object to unisex public restrooms per se. You are worried that if they are allowed, that eventually it will lead to unisex showers? If that's what you are saying, then I don't agree. I think we can trust ourselves to have enough common sense to know where to draw the line.

Besides, outside of school and stadium/arena locker rooms, most public showers, like those in state parks, already have individual stalls that you can shower and dress in private. We've become pretty prudish in this country, thinking that we have to have separate facilities for the sexes in every single situation. It's not like that elsewhere.

[RiverDog]

I have a major problem with the whole lets accommodate Transvestites and Transgenders as well. Its America, Washington said in a letter, that Christianity had nothing to do with the formation of the government of the United States of America. ITS ABOUT FREEDOM. IF you are a Transgender, or Transsexual, its America, knock yourself out, but I don't have agree with you. Moreover, I don't think the military should have to accommodate them either.

That's a different conversation than calling people racial slurs. However, very seldom anymore, is it an outright racial slur. Its that grey area. What is a racial slur? Who decides that on TV or jobs where you are in the public eye. Ty Cobb felt that black people were biologically inferior to white people. IS he in the hall of fame? Yes. Was he great baseball player? YES. Could he play today? NO. Was he good father, husband, or human being? NO.
My problem is there are no hard or fast rules on what is over the line. I am not an Afro-American. I don't know what its like to grow up poor in the inner city. However, even though I like Al Sharpton, he is former squealer, convict, and doper. I think he has FAR too much say in what is racist and what is not.

Cobb wasn't the only white man that held those views about blacks. It was a common way of thinking for white males back then. Heck, even FDR thought that blacks should be allowed in the military because they are really good musicians and could be quite useful in the band. They were almost programmed to think that blacks were inherently inferior. They were brainwashed into that belief.

I'm not defending Cobb, but he shouldn't be singled out, either.

[Hawktawk]

In a perfect world it wouldn't be a problem if a Tranny wanted to use the ladies room. Many occupants wouldn't know the difference.And lets face it, this is about sissy boys wanting to be ladies for the 99% part. But the reality as with all social engineering laws is there are people always waiting to take advantage. Like the man in Seattle who disrobed in front of young girls in a public facility, saying the law allowed him to do it. Or the one in San Francisco who did the same thing and caused a violent riot. Common sense just doesn't carry the day here. That's what its about more than any bigotry or homophobia.

[burrrton]

So what you are saying is that you don't object to unisex public restrooms per se. You are worried that if they are allowed, that eventually it will lead to unisex showers?

RD, there's no clause that limits male access to women's facilities (based on their say) to only bathrooms, "unisex" or otherwise. As such, there's no "lead to"- we're there, and it's not "unisex" showers- it's *women's* bathrooms and showers in which people with XY chromosomes and a penis are allowed if they say "I identify as a woman".

Should add: I don't have an issue with an actual "unisex" locker room if it's designed in such a way that all men and women (hetero/homo/trans/whatever) could be expected to share it without compromising privacy. That's not close to what we're talking about, though.

Besides, outside of school and stadium/arena locker rooms, most public showers, like those in state parks, already have individual stalls that you can shower and dress in private.

"Most" != "all". Again, it's not the facilities that afford complete privacy that are an issue, but even at that, go shower at the WSU Student Rec Center and let me know how much privacy those 'private' showers grant.

It's not "prudish" to expect that my 10yo daughter shouldn't have to see some mentally ill person's twig and berries (or him seeing her naked) using those facilities.

I think we can trust ourselves to have enough common sense to know where to draw the line.

We blew by "common sense" a long, long time ago, my friend.

[monkey]

It's not "prudish" to expect that my 10yo daughter shouldn't have to see some mentally ill person's twig and berries (or him seeing her naked) using those facilities.

We blew by "common sense" a long, long time ago, my friend.

Thank you! Exactly.
People are getting bogged down in the semantics and specifics, but let's not miss the point, which is that perverts WILL try to twist this to their advantage, and my wife and daughters have a right to NOT be accosted by them.
Prudishness has nothing to do with it.

[monkey]

We did have enough common sense to know where to draw the line, it's that very line we are looking to obliterate!
The common sense line that says that males should use male only bathrooms, is what the argument is about.

[obiken]

Wow River, I am sorry, I never knew you were that kind of a guy.

[RiverDog]

I guess my point was that I think we can draw a distinction between the use of restrooms and the use of showers. Restrooms, don't give a rip. Showering, at least group showers, is a different matter.

[burrrton]

I guess my point was that I think we can draw a distinction between the use of restrooms and the use of showers. Restrooms, don't give a rip. Showering, at least group showers, is a different matter.

Fine- once we have every facility in the country containing both completely retro-fitted to both separate showers and bathrooms and configure the bathrooms such that 100% privacy is guaranteed, I'll reconsider the asininity of legalizing men going in there.

[edit]

Also worth noting: maybe you think we can draw that distinction, but people arguing for these laws are doing no such thing (and actually, I think theirs is the more intellectually consistent position).

[RiverDog]

Fine- once we have every facility in the country containing both completely retro-fitted to both separate showers and bathrooms and configure the bathrooms such that 100% privacy is guaranteed, I'll reconsider the asininity of legalizing men going in there.

[edit]

Also worth noting: maybe you think we can draw that distinction, but people arguing for these laws are doing no such thing (and actually, I think theirs is the more intellectually consistent position).

About 98% of all the restrooms I've gone into in this country offers enough privacy for me, and after an adjustment period, I'm sure that my wife and daughter would be fine with going into them, too, with the only possible exception being those with the horse trough urinals. You face up to a wall and even the person standing next to you can't see a thing. The toilets in nearly every public bathroom already has stalls affording 100% privacy except for the ankles. I'm more offended by the smell and sounds of someone taking a good healthy #2 than I would be of a woman entering the facility while I was doing my thing.

You really need to go to Holland someday. I literally had a woman stand next to me, with no panel between the urinals, and clean the one next to me as I was doing my thing. That's what I meant about us here in the USA being prudish. I did not see any public showers while I was there, so I have no idea what their policy is regarding them, but the rest rooms seems more practical than what we currently have as there are situations where one would do but our prudishness forces us to waste money by building two separate restrooms.

[burrrton]

our prudishness forces us to waste money by building two separate restrooms.

C'mon...

Look, I'm glad you were comfortable taking a dump around women- I was in a locker room virtually every day of my life from ~12yoa till I was 23, so I can sht and carry on a conversation, too- but to characterize a woman's reluctance to having a man cleaning the toilet next to her unobstructed while she's doing so as "prudish" is beyond ridiculous.

I agree we have a lot of uptight attitudes (some I share, some I support, and some I don't) owing to our Judeo-Christian/Puritan history, but privacy while shtting and showering is not one of them by any stretch of the definition.

[edit]

I'll also say again that if you're cool with Bob the janitor handing you the toilet paper while you wipe, great- pat yourself on the back and take comfort that you won't be affected regardless. The issue is that there are people who are NOT comfortable with it and it's perfectly reasonable not to be.

[RiverDog]

C'mon...

Look, I'm glad you were comfortable taking a dump around women- I was in a locker room virtually every day of my life from ~12yoa till I was 23, so I can sht and carry on a conversation, too- but to characterize a woman's reluctance to having a man cleaning the toilet next to her unobstructed while she's doing so as "prudish" is beyond ridiculous.

I agree we have a lot of uptight attitudes (some I share, some I support, and some I don't) owing to our Judeo-Christian/Puritan history, but privacy while shtting and showering is not one of them by any stretch of the definition.

[edit]

I'll also say again that if you're cool with Bob the janitor handing you the toilet paper while you wipe, great- pat yourself on the back and take comfort that you won't be affected regardless. The issue is that there are people who are NOT comfortable with it and it's perfectly reasonable not to be.

I didn't include showering, at least not common showers. Only toileting.

I understand that people aren't comfortable with sharing a restroom with members of the opposite sex, and I am not saying it's unreasonable that they do. I'm not comfortable being around cross dressers, but it's something I have to get used to if I want to adapt to our changing society. There's a lot of things that I had to get used to as I've aged...having a person half my age as a boss, working with non English speaking, and so on, but I was able to adjust, and now that stuff seems so trivial that it's hard for me to believe that I was once as uncomfortable with it as I was.

[burrrton]

I was able to adjust, and now that stuff seems so trivial that it's hard for me to believe that I was once as uncomfortable with it as I was.

Of course, but "I'm uncomfortable being around someone that looks weird to me" is a hell of a long way from "I'm uncomfortable having strange men watch my daughter (or me, or my wife, or whatever) on the toilet."

It's reasonable to expect people to 'evolve' to be more accepting of others regardless of their appearance. It's preposterous and unnatural to expect that same kind of 'evolution' with regard to privacy issues such as these.

[RiverDog]

Of course, but "I'm uncomfortable being around someone that looks weird to me" is a hell of a long way from "I'm uncomfortable having strange men watch my daughter (or me, or my wife, or whatever) on the toilet."

It's reasonable to expect people to 'evolve' to be more accepting of others regardless of their appearance. It's preposterous and unnatural to expect that same kind of 'evolution' with regard to privacy issues such as these.

Once again, how many toilets in public restrooms are not contained in privacy stalls? Unless you're worried that someone is going to lay prone on the floor and crawl under the stall, all they're going to see is a pair of ankles.

[monkey]

I was able to adjust, and now that stuff seems so trivial that it's hard for me to believe that I was once as uncomfortable with it as I was.

Yep, just like a frog in a pot of water, turn up the heat slowly enough and it won't even jump out of the pot before it boils to death. It just gets acclimated to the heat even though the heat is killing it.
With enough exposure, we can get used to, and put up with just about anything that we know intuitively/instinctively isn't right.

[burrrton]

Once again, how many toilets in public restrooms are not contained in privacy stalls?

Once again: not all (and with most stalls, there is *very* little actual privacy afforded- go to The Pub and take a look- nobody has to get prone to see a lot more than most women would be comfortable with). Either way, though, if you want to convert every shower, restroom, and locker room into such a facility that 100% privacy is guaranteed no matter who's walking through, go ahead and do so and I'll reconsider.

Also once again: there is no "bathroom vs locker room" distinction in the laws being demanded, so this little hypothetical is meaningless in this context. I salute your forward thinking regarding in front of whom you're comfortable taking a dump, but if we accept the ridiculous notion that a man is a woman if he says he is, then there should be no distinction required anyway.

You seem to acknowledge that men are not women on their say (since you acknowledge that showers should remain separate), but then you want to argue that my daughter should be OK taking a piss with some mentally ill dude pissing right outside her stall. Why is one OK if the other is not?

[FolkCrusader]

One HUGE problem with your entire premise, that is, you are saying that saying a person whose anatomy and genetics all say that they are a certain gender, are INSULTED by being told that they need to use the restroom that matches.
That's a big problem.
If I decide that I feel like I am a first grade school girl, and demand to be allowed to attend first grade in a dress, then you absolutely have the right to tell me to tell me to quit my whining when I claim to be insulted!
Sorry but the argument you have built there is a complete straw man.
People have no right whatsoever to feel insulted by being told to use a bathroom that corresponds to their gender. None. They certainly don't have a right that supercedes my right to feel like public bathrooms are as safe as they can be for my family, or that for the convenience of someone who is in complete denial about those basic anatomy, my wife and kids needed to put up with some dude in drag watching them use the toilet!!!

That's not exactly what I said. My imaginary example says the imaginary comment was insulting. Likewise ESPN felt Mr. Schillings meme post was insulting to certain people. I also said (in a later post) that simply saying you agree with the law is not insulting and would likely not have resulted in any repercussions.

Is my example a straw man? Well off course, it is a fictional argument. I do think it gives a fair example of my thinking, but it failed to get my point through so I have no choice but to agree.

[HumanCockroach]

Thank you! Exactly.
People are getting bogged down in the semantics and specifics, but let's not miss the point, which is that perverts WILL try to twist this to their advantage, and my wife and daughters have a right to NOT be accosted by them.
Prudishness has nothing to do with it.

And THIS is what I was saying. I don't like it because of the loopholes it creates for predators. The statements of "watching my daughter/wife/sister pee" is the only thing I have an issue with. Unless they have x-ray vision, that isn't going to be an issue, nor is the "twig and berry" viewing party. Truth is, IF that is happening, it isn't because they are transsexuals, it's because they are predators. There IS a difference.

I don't support the idea because the latter can use it as a loophole to their perversion, it seems like some believe ALL belong in the same group which is extremely misguided IMHO.

[RiverDog]

Once again: not all (and with most stalls, there is *very* little actual privacy afforded- go to The Pub and take a look- nobody has to get prone to see a lot more than most women would be comfortable with). Either way, though, if you want to convert every shower, restroom, and locker room into such a facility that 100% privacy is guaranteed no matter who's walking through, go ahead and do so and I'll reconsider.

Also once again: there is no "bathroom vs locker room" distinction in the laws being demanded, so this little hypothetical is meaningless in this context. I salute your forward thinking regarding in front of whom you're comfortable taking a dump, but if we accept the ridiculous notion that a man is a woman if he says he is, then there should be no distinction required anyway.

You seem to acknowledge that men are not women on their say (since you acknowledge that showers should remain separate), but then you want to argue that my daughter should be OK taking a piss with some mentally ill dude pissing right outside her stall. Why is one OK if the other is not?

Well, if a place like the Pub lets you throw peanut shells on the floor, I suppose they figure people won't mind taking a dump in front of each other.

I never said or implied that 'all' public toilets have stalls that obscure everything but legs below the knees. But I'm willing to bet that the vast majority, ie 95%+, have stalls that are no more than 24" above the floor.

I agree with Roach. You are confusing a pervert or sexual predator with a transgender and suggesting that there are a higher percentage of transgenders than the rest of the population are sexual predators or perverted. I doubt that separate bathrooms will offer any kind of protection above and beyond what common bathrooms ones would.

I would not support legislation dealing with public restrooms if it allowed members of the opposite sex...biological sex, that is, not the gender they ID themselves with..to shower in the same public facility unless the showers offer some sort of privacy.

I can see us heading down a path where legislation will occur that requires that EVERY public restroom and shower provide at least an option of private or semi private stalls. It's really the only way around this issue.

[burrrton]

Unless they have x-ray vision, that isn't going to be an issue, nor is the "twig and berry" viewing party. Truth is, IF that is happening, it isn't because they are transsexuals, it's because they are predators.

Huh? HC, if a guy, tranny or other, hasn't had his genitals lopped off, he WILL be dangling his twig and berries in front of my daughter in the shower if she happens to be unlucky enough to be there with him.

I'm sorry if you don't like the language, but that's reality. The pervs and predators are horrible, and certainly worse, but even the 'genuine' trannys are completely inappropriate to be showering or pissing with my daughter.

If you think there's something objectionable in that, the problem is on your end, not mine.

[burrrton]

Well, if a place like the Pub lets you throw peanut shells on the floor, I suppose they figure people won't mind taking a dump in front of each other.

Fair point.

(You get the point, though, right? Those are pretty typical for public stalls, and they provide roughly as much privacy as Ferris Bueller's hand did taking a shower)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KFVLWX7eEY&start=124

I never said or implied that 'all' public toilets have stalls that obscure everything but legs below the knees. But I'm willing to bet that the vast majority, ie 95%+, have stalls that are no more than 24" above the floor.

No, but you're implying that many or most being mostly obscure makes the situation acceptable. It doesn't. Not even close.

You are confusing a pervert or sexual predator with a transgender and suggesting that there are a higher percentage of transgenders than the rest of the population are sexual predators or perverted. I doubt that separate bathrooms will offer any kind of protection above and beyond what common bathrooms ones would.

No I'm not. I'm saying I don't want my daughter showering or pissing with any swinging dick that decides he's a woman that day, predator or otherwise. He doesn't have to rape her for it to be traumatizing, and not just that, but so far from inappropriate as to bring violence into the equation.

I can see us heading down a path where legislation will occur that requires that EVERY public restroom and shower provide at least an option of private or semi private stalls. It's really the only way around this issue.

Perhaps. Once we're there, I don't give two shts what anybody identifies as, nor what crapper they use. Until then, it ain't happening.

[RiverDog]

I haven't been to the Pub in at least 15 years, and don't plan on going in there anytime soon, so you're going to have to find another example. I can't think of a public restroom that has toilet stalls that allows anyone over about 2' tall to see under them, but I'm sure they must exist.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the privacy aspect of bathroom stalls. I still say that you need to go to Holland some day. I had a friend tell me that if there's a lineup at the men's bathroom, everyone just goes into the women's and starts using them.

[burrrton]

I still say that you need to go to Holland some day. I had a friend tell me that if there's a lineup at the men's bathroom, everyone just goes into the women's and starts using them.

They're also smoking hash in stores, aren't they? I'm a pretty forward thinking guy, but I'll pass on taking moral direction from them with regard to my little girls.

Picture Twigs if you haven't been to the Pub- theirs are about the same (without the graffiti and odor). Think about how easy it is to discern whether there's a person in there, whether they're sitting or standing finishing up, etc, as you're walking in.

Maybe you're a little rustier than you think- I can guarantee you I can tell you all those things and it isn't because of my acute hearing.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the privacy aspect of bathroom stalls.

How about we meet at Twigs (I'll buy drinks), and you have your wife go into the men's room and drop trow in the stall. I'll walk in and if I can tell you the color of her undies, you make my next house payment.

Of course I'm being a bit facetious (I would never disrespect your wife like that), but I'm confident I'd win that bet (and I will buy drinks if you ever want to meet up).

[HumanCockroach]

Huh? HC, if a guy, tranny or other, hasn't had his genitals lopped off, he WILL be dangling his twig and berries in front of my daughter in the shower if she happens to be unlucky enough to be there with him.

You know, I've used the bathroom for a long time, and to date at no point in my life have I had another guy dangle his twigs and berries in front of me while using the bathroom. Not sure what your personal experience happens to be I guess, but typically when someone is using a toilet, the idea is to go to the bathroom not put on some stange twig and berry dance in the middle of the restroom...

I'm sorry if you don't like the language, but that's reality. The pervs and predators are horrible, and certainly worse, but even the 'genuine' trannys are completely inappropriate to be showering or pissing with my daughter.

If you think there's something objectionable in that, the problem is on your end, not mine

You're looking for a fight and I'm not entirely sure why. I've been pretty clear that I don't support it, and been pretty clear why that is ( because it increases danger of predators exploiting the loophole it creates). I'm not having any problems with people's issues not approving of the idea, my issue is simply the insistence that every tranny is doing some Twi and berry show and tell, or somehow magically watching a girl or woman use the toilet. It isn't accurate or even realistic. That doesn't mean I don't agree with not allowing it, simply put, I don't react positively to a bunch of fear mongering, over emphasised, made up crapola. You certainly can, but that particular problem is on your end Burton, not mine.

There's a difference between rational concern and outright fear. I am not for it, I've made that pretty clear, multiple times, but I'm not going to claim all tranny men ( by the way, why no overly dramatic claims about a "kitty" show in men's facilities I wonder? Or is it ok for our sons but not daughters? Maybe people really think it's only men that are trannies?? Or is it the misogynistic thought that women are "weaker" so couldn't handle it?) are going to be exposing themselves in every and all instances.

[burrrton]

You know, I've used the bathroom for a long time, and to date at no point in my life have I had another guy dangle his twigs and berries in front of me while using the bathroom.

I'm happy for you. You do understand, though, that bathrooms and showers are traditionally segregated by sex because, under all circumstances, people will be removing their genitals from their undergarments to some degree, right?

You may not always get them dangled in your face, but let me save you having to confirm it yourself: if you're in there with someone else, they won't be showering, pissing, or shtting with modesty preserved.

If the "dangling" part implies too much intent, fine- scale it back to simple exposure. The point remains the same.

[mykc14]

Being a teacher I obviously worry about the impact it will have, and already has had, in the school setting. Where I teach I have already had to talk to a couple of boys who walked into the girls bathroom. When I confronted them about it they told me they had the right to use any bathroom they wanted. Luckily I already had a pretty good relationship with these boys and after a long discussion about what it would me if they were permanently deciding that they were transgendered the issues quickly ended. The problem is if they really wanted to push the envelope there wouldn't have been much the school could have done. If any boy decides to go into the girls locker room after PE, the school can't really stop them, and vise versa. Don't get me wrong we can dissuade them. We can discuss it with them and hopefully they make the right decision, but if they really want to push the envelope and claim they are transgendered we would be in a tough position.

There is a complete sense of entitlement and a lack of accountability in many of the kids in our school system. Parents will do or say almost anything to get their kids out of trouble. It would not shock me in the least to see a parent support their kid in that situation. We have had students with gender identity issues in the past and accommodations were easily made, without other students having any idea if that student didn't want them to know. Now we could get in trouble for even suggesting those types of accommodations. Parents and the student can suggest them, but not the district.

[burrrton]

my issue is simply the insistence that every tranny is doing some Twi and berry show and tell, or somehow magically watching a girl or woman use the toilet.

I don't think you're reading carefully enough, then, HC.

My point isn't that every tranny is intentionally putting on a show, nor is it that every male entering a women's restroom/locker room is looking to rape someone.

However, the fact is that such areas are intimate by definition, so allowing males to use them at will creates an unacceptable situation- the potential exists for abuse, but even short of that, I don't want my daughter having to chance seeing some dude tapping the last few drops out (or worse).

by the way, why no overly dramatic claims about a "kitty" show in men's facilities I wonder?

Why do you wonder that??

Men don't generally give a sht, and in most cases probably would love to have a woman to shower with. In such cases where it's a young boy, though, or somebody who *does* care, you can simply switch sexes and the point is exactly the same. I just figured it's easier to identify with the girls' POV.

You're looking for a fight and I'm not entirely sure why.

I'm not really looking for a fight- I just feel pretty strongly about this, and I think the LGBT community has bitten off *way* more than they should have on this one. I consider myself a supporter of theirs generally, and this nonsense has turned me so firmly against them, they may not get me back for a while.

If you show you have no idea what the bounds of decency are, I'm comfortable with others telling you what they are, and the LGBT community did that here.

[HumanCockroach]

The reason I "wondered" is because this tends to be the point of view in our society that has fostered the idea of women being "weaker" and needing our protection in all aspects of life. Most women would take it as an affront. I just find it interesting is all. I don't think I would have wanted grown women in the bathroom with my 10 year old boy either, but who knows? It seems a little odd that all the ire and fretting is specifically about girls and women, and I just found it odd.

[burrrton]

It seems a little odd that all the ire and fretting is specifically about girls and women, and I just found it odd.

It's only for convenience of argument.

Women and men *are* wired differently, though, right? Do you acknowledge that?

[HumanCockroach]

Absolutely, but if Curt Schilling had posted a picture of a tranny using a toilet and a uber feminine woman running away in fright, I promise the blowback would have been a hundred fold than it was from various womens groups. It just seems odd that we as a whole automatically go there is all, despite the proclamations that women " don't need men's protection" over the last 5 or 6 decades.