HawkShack.com

WTF???? AND PEOPLE REALLY THINK THAT I SHOULD TAKE THIS GOVERNMENT SERIOUSLY??? If I ever hear my daughter tell me that there is a man in her school restroom or locker room, I will break that mans neck, slowly!!!! This pathetic government just opened the door to RAPE of all types. It is now illegal to ask a man to leave the woman's restroom/locker room even if he is naked.

If your a man, your a man. If your a lady, your a lady. You can feel free to do away with your original parts if you wish as it is a free country, but you better stay away from my kid or suffer the consequences!!!

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... ff-debate/

Part of me feels that it's silly we even have seperate bathrooms and changing rooms.

The other part of me though agrees that if you have an x and y chromosomes you are a male and if you have 2 x chromosomes you are female. DNA does not lie. As far as people saying the are a women trapped in a males body or whatever, get over yourself! I'm a pro football player trapped in my body, doesn't mean NFL should pay me a salary. Rarely does someone have the exact traits they wish they had. I think political correctness has gone way to far.

Mark my words: first dude that tries to shower with either of my daughters is going to get a violent dose of reality. I don't give two shts what he "identifies" as.

EmeraldBullet wrote:Part of me feels that it's silly we even have seperate bathrooms and changing rooms.

The other part of me though agrees that if you have an x and y chromosomes you are a male and if you have 2 x chromosomes you are female. DNA does not lie. As far as people saying the are a women trapped in a males body or whatever, get over yourself! I'm a pro football player trapped in my body, doesn't mean NFL should pay me a salary. Rarely does someone have the exact traits they wish they had. I think political correctness has gone way to far.

burrrton » Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:15 pm

Mark my words: first dude that tries to shower with either of my daughters is going to get a violent dose of reality. I don't give two shts what he "identifies" as.

+1 to both these comments! This is very disturbing to say the least. Can't they just use the single stall/handicapped restroom that is in bigger stores or give cause to individual stores to make a 3rd bathroom and label it unisex like some do already??? I think my Fred meyer has a unisex restroom.

Hawktown wrote:
+1 to both these comments! This is very disturbing to say the least. Can't they just use the single stall/handicapped restroom that is in bigger stores or give cause to individual stores to make a 3rd bathroom and label it unisex like some do already??? I think my Fred meyer has a unisex restroom.

Yeah lets build a third restroom for a bunch of freaks that make up .001 percent of the population. That would be cheap(not) but it will likely be forced upon every business sooner or later with the insanity that is left wing political correctness firmly in control of most major metropolitan areas.
You cant please everyone, jeezus!. WTF ever happened to democracy?

Anyone here ever been to Holland? I have. The first thing I did when I got off the plane after a 10 hour flight was to hit the restroom. As I was standing there, a female janitor came up right next to me and started cleaning the urinal next to the one I was using.

I have no problem sharing a public restroom with a female, a homosexual, a bi-sexual, or a transvestite using the same restroom as me as long as I am able to maintain a small degree of privacy just as I do in traditional, all male restrooms. But I draw a line when it comes to joint showering.

Hawktalk you may have a point about the 3rd bathroom being a cost that should not be forces on a business so I personally would just stick with the single stall restroom that lock and are for everyone but one at a time. The only answer would be to leave it as it has always been, i guess.

OBS, the mind is not in the gutter but there is NO WAY IN HELL that I am going to follow my daughter into the "LADIES" (weather labeled or not) restroom so I DEMAND that there is a separation between the 2 sexes so that I can feel safe sending my child in to that public restroom without the worry of a freaky weird NAKED man in there because it is Fing legal. I'm sorry, even if that naked man was changing his clothes in front of my kid, he is getting hurt severely. I do not change in front of my kid so NO opposite sex in public should be able to either. Hell, it can be bad enough trusting the safety of the public restroom as it is for multiple reasons i suppose.

BTW I would not label anyone on this topic a righty or lefty, as I am sure PLENTY lefties have the same feeling as i do and VERY FEW actually agree with you that lefties as a whole are cool with a naked man in the restroom with them or their kids.

I can't believe that anyone would actually want to subject their people to the possibilities made legal by our state that is SUPPOSED to watch out for it's citizens. I find it disappointing for humanity to allow this.

Old but Slow wrote:Excuse me?

"Yeah lets build a third restroom for a bunch of freaks that make up .001 percent of the population. That would be cheap(not) but it will likely be forced upon every business sooner or later with the insanity that is left wing political correctness firmly in control of most major metropolitan areas.
You cant please everyone, jeezus!. WTF ever happened to democracy?"

It is not the left wing that is objecting to this, it is the right wing reactionaries. We lefties are perfectly comfortable with having whoever shares our bathrooms. How about the right wingers who are suggesting that children's sexual organs be examined before they use the facilities. Talk about abuse. My experience with public facilities is that I just take care of what needs be, and I totally ignore whoever shares the space. I have been in European spaces where there is no designation at all, and it was not at all uncomfortable, and certainly was not sexually charged. Get your mind out of the gutter.

I consider myself on the conservative end of the spectrum and I don't mind sharing public facilities with any group of individuals, so long as they respect my tiny bit of privacy while I do my thing. This isn't a conservative vs. liberal issue.

Personally, I think it's insane to have separate facilities for men and women. It's not very efficient to have to provide two bathrooms for any and all circumstances. I don't see what's so offensive to a woman seeing a guy from behind standing in front of a urinal or a guy seeing a woman go into the stall to use the head. What am I going to do? Drop to the floor and see what color her panties are?

Now showering is a different subject entirely, but even that could be worked around if they were to provide individual stalls with enough room to strip down and get dressed as is the case in bathrooms that have showers in them at state parks and what not.

With public funds as limited as they are, I would think that we could save a few bucks by going to unisex bathrooms and showers in public facilities like schools and libraries. They would be cheaper to construct and cheaper to maintain. We could end this insidious debate about what sex a person claims to be and what side of the bathroom they should go into.

You have some very good points there RD. I again, am for the unisex single stall/room route. I would be good with waiting in line to use the facilities. I personally don't feel comfortable to walk into a restroom to do my duties and spot a female in there, but maybe that is just my own issue, lol.

Hell, in reality, I try to avoid the public restrooms as much as possible. It has been quite a while sine i have had to endure that. I also tend to be aroud wooded areas so the world is my urinal, with privacy.

Its a public safety issue. There are instances where it has been abused and it will certainly accelerate as these lunatics continue stooping to the lowest common denominator. If you have the wrong genitals for your brain figure it out. Carry aportapottie or buy a camper but if I see you in the bathroom with my wife or kids I'm kicking your ass.

Hawktawk wrote:Its a public safety issue. There are instances where it has been abused and it will certainly accelerate as these lunatics continue stooping to the lowest common denominator. If you have the wrong genitals for your brain figure it out. Carry aportapottie or buy a camper but if I see you in the bathroom with my wife or kids I'm kicking your ass.

I wouldn't be so sure. The fact that women are using the same facilities might, in some situations, make the males behave more responsibly. I know that it would clean my language up, knowing that women are quite possibly within earshot.

I understand that there exists public facilities where you're taking your life in your own hands when you enter them, but that's going to be the case whether or not they are unisex. As a matter of fact, a woman might be more comfortable going into one when she knows her man is standing a couple feet away instead of outside the entrance.

maybe we should all just have to put a toilet in our car and have curtains to pull around us to have privacy, but only if we want it. We might as well just line the sidewalks with toilets if it does not matter who goes in what restroom. (sarcasm)

Hawktown wrote:maybe we should all just have to put a toilet in our car and have curtains to pull around us to have privacy, but only if we want it. We might as well just line the sidewalks with toilets if it does not matter who goes in what restroom. (sarcasm)

Using public facilities no matter what they are...a park, a library, a football stadium, a swimming pool, or a hunting area... is always going to compromise your privacy no matter what it is you're trying to do. That's why they're called public.

Hawktown wrote:maybe we should all just have to put a toilet in our car and have curtains to pull around us to have privacy, but only if we want it. We might as well just line the sidewalks with toilets if it does not matter who goes in what restroom. (sarcasm)

I'm going with a colonoscopy bag and catheter from now on whenever I leave the house. ; D

On a serious note how will this affect sports in the future. If a boy considers himself to be a girl will he be able to play on the girls team now? If he can use the bathroom and lockerroom that seems like it should be allowed (I'm not for this, it's just, if this is how our society is going to go, we need to ask the next questions.)

This new law sets a precedent, and it wont stop at locker rooms and bathrooms. Somewhere eventually a line has to be drawn, and the law is moving that line. Where do you think it will be moved too?

Old but Slow wrote:Also on a serious note, perhaps the controversy should be more concerned with age separation rather than sexual separation. Sexual predators can target same sex subjects as well as opposite sex subjects. Anytime you mix children with strange adults (take strange however you like) there is the chance for abuse.

Perhaps the solution is more privacy in all restrooms. Lockable cubicles could become more secure and plentiful.

Using a somewhat crowded facility can be a stressor for anyone, but is likely more so for the youngsters.

Serious question: Is there a problem with crimes against young children being committed in public restrooms? If so, then I'm all for your suggestion. If not, then why fix what's not broken?

I sure haven't heard of many crimes being committed at a rest stop or a park bathroom involving juvenile victims.

RiverDog wrote:I sure haven't heard of many crimes being committed at a rest stop or a park bathroom involving juvenile victims.

It isn't only about sexual abuse, though, and these laws aren't limited to rest stops. Not to go back to the same example, but these laws mean young girls could find themselves showering next to any swinging dick that "identifies as a woman" that day. Legally.

Maybe he's not there to rape anyone, maybe he genuinely thinks he's a woman, and maybe he doesn't give two shts about ogling girls- that doesn't make it any less absurd or traumatizing**.

We also need to put these nonsensical "discrimination" claims to bed- telling trannies to use the bathroom matching their plumbing is asking them to live by the same laws the rest of us do. It doesn't single them out- it does just the *opposite*.

**And let's be clear: dangerous for him. If *I*, a SSM supporter generally, feel strongly that it may be the last mistake he makes if I find out he showered next to my daughter, I shudder to think how many others would react.

burrrton wrote:It isn't only about sexual abuse, though, and these laws aren't limited to rest stops. Not to go back to the same example, but these laws mean young girls could find themselves showering next to any swinging dick that "identifies as a woman" that day. Legally.

Maybe he's not there to rape anyone, maybe he genuinely thinks he's a woman, and maybe he doesn't give two shts about ogling girls- that doesn't make it any less absurd or traumatizing**.

We also need to put these nonsensical "discrimination" claims to bed- telling trannies to use the bathroom matching their plumbing is asking them to live by the same laws the rest of us do. It doesn't single them out- it does just the *opposite*.

**And let's be clear: dangerous for him. If *I*, a SSM supporter generally, feel strongly that it may be the last mistake he makes if I find out he showered next to my daughter, I shudder to think how many others would react.

The point I was responding to was ObS's suggestion that we provide separate facilities based on age rather than sex or sexual orientation. I honestly haven't heard of crimes against juveniles occurring in public restrooms, with one exception that occurred nearly 40 years ago when the president of Olympia brewing got caught in a public restroom having sex with a young same sex male teenager, which led to some priceless jokes.... such as: Question: What do Olympia beer and it's president have in common? Answer: They both come in cans.

But to the point you are raising, I am making a clear distinction between the use of stalled, semi private toileting facilities and open, group showers. I am OK with the shared use of the former but not the latter.

But to the point you are raising, I am making a clear distinction between the use of stalled, semi private toileting facilities and open, group showers.

I get that, but:

There is no such distinction in any of these laws or proposals, and in fact, if you accept that a man can be a woman on his say-so, you shouldn't need to differentiate. If it's not OK to shower next to them, why would it be OK to drop trow around them in any other circumstance?

I'll repeat, however, that I agree with you that if we end up with unisex bathrooms/locker rooms in which complete privacy is guaranteed (not just "semi-private stalls", as you put it- semi-private is not an acceptable level of privacy between strange men and my daughters), of course that's acceptable- that's not what's being proposed, though.

burrrton wrote:I get that, but:

There is no such distinction in any of these laws or proposals, and in fact, if you accept that a man can be a woman on his say-so, you shouldn't need to differentiate. If it's not OK to shower next to them, why would it be OK to drop trow around them in any other circumstance?

I'll repeat, however, that I agree with , who coyou that if we end up with unisex bathrooms/locker rooms in which complete privacy is guaranteed (not just "semi-private stalls", as you put it- semi-private is not an acceptable level of privacy between strange men and my daughters), of course that's acceptable- that's not what's being proposed, though.

"Strange" men, whether they be in a bathroom or anywhere else, should never be anywhere close to the daughter of any self respecting father.

But when you think about it, the fact that a restroom is "public" protects your daughter...er rather your son..from a sexual pervert like Jerry Sandusky, who committed his crimes either in the Penn State locker room shower or his own home. The threat of getting caught by some unsuspecting occupant is a powerful motivator.

The threat of getting caught by some unsuspecting occupant is a powerful motivator.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but it wasn't for Sandusky, was it? Didn't he (from what I could stand to read about it) commit many of his crimes in 'open' showers?

Either way, though, small boys being susceptible to certain types of sexual predation doesn't go away if we allow men to piss and shower wherever they want.

As I think I said earlier, though, actual rape isn't the biggest of my concerns. I'm more concerned with forcing my daughter to accept as normal any dude that wants to jump in the locker room with her. People with gender dysphoria need help, not a warm shower next to anyone they choose.

burrrton wrote:Maybe I'm missing your point, but it wasn't for Sandusky, was it? Didn't he (from what I could stand to read about it) commit many of his crimes in 'open' showers?

Either way, though, small boys being susceptible to certain types of sexual predation doesn't go away if we allow men to piss and shower wherever they want.

As I think I said earlier, though, actual rape isn't the biggest of my concerns. I'm more concerned with forcing my daughter to accept as normal any dude that wants to jump in the locker room with her. People with gender dysphoria need help, not a warm shower next to anyone they choose.

I said public, not open. Sandusky had little chance of someone walking in off the street and catching him in the act. When I said public, I was thinking of the rest area/airport/stadium bathrooms, not a restricted access college locker room.

No matter what the crime, the last thing criminals want is witnesses, which is what being public almost guarantees.

RiverDog wrote:I said public, not open. Sandusky had little chance of someone walking in off the street and catching him in the act. When I said public, I was thinking of the rest area/airport/stadium bathrooms, not a restricted access college locker room.

No matter what the crime, the last thing criminals want is witnesses, which is what being public almost guarantees.

Hm. Well...

I see your distinction re: "public" vs "open", but I'm not sure there's enough of a difference for it to be relevant. In most college locker rooms, the number of people running through is no different than what you'd see in a typical shower at, say, some Redwoods National Park campground facility (I speak from personal experience).

Sundusky could have had no illusion he was the only one who'd see what he was doing, right (unless it was at 1am or some damn thing)? Yeah, it's not LaGuardia, but still...

Anyway, the point I'm making doesn't change, I don't think.

burrrton wrote:Hm. Well...

I see your distinction re: "public" vs "open", but I'm not sure there's enough of a difference for it to be relevant. In most college locker rooms, the number of people running through is no different than what you'd see in a typical shower at, say, some Redwoods National Park campground facility (I speak from personal experience).

Sundusky could have had no illusion he was the only one who'd see what he was doing, right (unless it was at 1am or some damn thing)? Yeah, it's not LaGuardia, but still...

Anyway, the point I'm making doesn't change, I don't think.

The shower that Sandusky was caught in was the practice facility locker room at PSU. It is not open to the public, and if it's anything like similar college and university facilities out here, you need a card key to gain access. I'm only guessing, but I would suspect that since there was only one witness to the rape and that it occurred on a Friday night that Sandusky thought he was alone and that no one would walk in on him. Obviously there was a risk he'd be observed, but as we all know, once a person is successful at getting away with something, their success emboldens them to become more and more daring and they take progressively bigger risks. Sandusky no doubt had been getting away with molesting young children for years, if not decades.

I have heard of very few sex crimes, homosexual/heterosexual, or whatever, being committed in public restrooms. Can you point me to any that you have heard of?

The public showers I've been do, such as those at state parks in WA, have stalls and sufficient room to both disrobe and shower in almost complete privacy. You have to buy tokens to use them. I'm not advocating that we retro fit every public shower in the country to those kind of standards, but I would not have a problem if those facilities that do offer that kind of privacy were to go to unisex.

Sitting in a restaurant last night and at the table next to me an old man was telling his grandson "when I was your age we had separate bathrooms for blacks and whites, in 50 years you'll be telling your grandkids that when you were young you had separate bathrooms for boys and girls and it will seem as silly to them as having backs and whites bathrooms does to you".

c_hawkbob wrote:Sitting in a restaurant last night and at the table next to me an old man was telling his grandson "when I was your age we had separate bathrooms for blacks and whites, in 50 years you'll be telling your grandkids that when you were young you had separate bathrooms for boys and girls and it will seem as silly to them as having backs and whites bathrooms does to you".

Which is preposterous. This is the whole problem with this ridiculous movement- the attitude that because not everything is black and white, then everything must be gray.

There is no difference worth noting between black people and white people. There is a whole *hell* of a lot of difference between men and women when talking matters of privacy.

Never going to happen. What is going to happen is someday my daughters will be telling their children what a bizarre period this was in American life, where everybody thought they could make up their own definition for everything, up to and including their biological sex.

Yes it will, it's that way in a lot of countries already.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yes it will, it's that way in a lot of countries already.

A lot of things are a lot of ways in various locations around the globe- doesn't mean it will happen everywhere.

If they're losing this rather staunch SSM supporter on this, I guarantee you they're sideways with a whole hell of a lot of people. They're going to be reduced to hoping some activist judges will pretend chromosomes don't exist, and/or that completely private public accommodations are required.

Again, there is no analog to the civil rights movement in this. Using the bathrooms corresponding to their equipment is the same rule the rest of us live by, not some special discrimination.

[edit]

Regardless of whatever inevitability you think exists on this, the more interesting question for discussion is: do you personally think it's ok for men to use the women's locker room?

I come down about where Dog does, as long as there are dividers between the urinals and stall for the commodes I don't care who's standing next to me or who's in the next stall. I also have no inclination to think it'll suddenly become a perverts paradise. Communal showers and baths are another matter entirely.

And I don't know what SSM means.

SSM is "Same Sex Marriage". I support gay marriage**.

Communal showers and baths are another matter entirely.

Then you're against such laws. They draw no distinctions.

For me, as I said earlier, I don't care who's taking a dump next to me, either- I can carry on a conversation with three people with the door open while pinching a loaf.

That's not what this push is about, though.

**Actually, I thought the "Everything but marriage" measures here in WA were acceptable-ish (all the same rights afforded to gay civil unions, but without the term "marriage" given to them), but I ultimately agreed with another poster here who said that distinction would just be leveraged by those who don't support SSM to discriminate against them somehow down the road.

An interesting aside to that: gays who used to argue for the term "marriage" to apply to them always said no one else would be forced to participate so what did it matter, etc- now bakers and florists are being forced to participate. Funny how quickly and comfortably we can go from the oppressed to the oppressor when given the opportunity, isn't it?

burrrton wrote:Then you're against such laws. They draw no distinctions.

Cut and dry just like that eh? All such laws are to include bathing and shower facilities?

Adjustment can and almost always are made to such proposed legislation. I reserve my right to be in favor of "such laws" that are so adjusted.

I hadn't commented on this before because I think way to big a deal is being made of it. It's just not that big a deal.

c_hawkbob wrote:All such laws are to include bathing and shower facilities?

Of course they do, and in fact, that's more ideologically consistent than your position. On what grounds would you say it's OK for men to go into the bathroom with women but not OK for men to go into the shower with women?

Either they're the same or they're not.

Of course it's acceptable to just say "Make all facilities completely private", but (1) that's not currently realistic, and (2) that's not what the LGBT activists are asking for.

I hadn't commented on this before because I think way to big a deal is being made of it. It's just not that big a deal.

What makes it a big deal is it being a step too far asking people to pretend there's no difference between boy and girls, men and women. Further, their inability to use common sense in asking for accommodations means I'm supposed to pretend it's OK for my daughter to have to shower with a man simply because he has a mental disorder.

It's completely asinine, and worse, makes enemies of people who otherwise support them.

Of course they do, and in fact, that's more ideologically consistent than your position. On what grounds would you say it's OK for men to go into the bathroom with women but not OK for men to go into the shower with women?

It's not ideologically inconsistent to recognize that of course we're not all the same, but at the same time not to be hung up on performing bodily functions in the same facility as everyone else.

And I didn't say anything about "completely private" either, just stalls like 99% of public bathrooms already have anyway.

For myself as long as it's not including unisex showers and baths, I don't care. And that's the last I'll say on it.

c_hawkbob wrote:It's not ideologically inconsistent to recognize that of course we're not all the same, but at the same time not to be hung up on performing bodily functions in the same facility as everyone else. ... For myself as long as it's not including unisex showers and baths, I don't care.

I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing about, then- it seems you're not OK with these laws, either. You not minding taking a dump in front of strangers has little to do with whether men should be allowed in the women's locker room at will.

burrrton wrote:I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing about, then- it seems you're not OK with these laws, either. You not minding taking a dump in front of strangers has little to do with whether men should be allowed in the women's locker room at will.

I can't remember the last time I've seen a commode in a public restroom that was not inside a completely enclosed stall.

I hear ya about voting for or supporting new laws that change in scope or intent from what they were originally 'sold' to us as, so as a rule, I'll default to a no vote unless I can be persuaded otherwise. But in this case, so long as there is specific language that limits same sex restroom facilities to urinals, toilets, and wash basins, I'd support it. It seems more economical.

RiverDog wrote:I can't remember the last time I've seen a commode in a public restroom that was not inside a completely enclosed stall.

If you're talking about doors, I can- about two weeks ago up in Spokane, and I bet I could find a few more with a quick drive around town here.

But doors or not, they're not "completely enclosed"- as I said before, I could tell you the color and condition of your wife's unmentionables if she was using the Twigs stall (FYI: Twigs is an upscale-ish martini bar/restaurant in Eastern WA) when I walk in. By design, there's plenty of space between the panels and the floor, and there are large gaps between all the panels (and Twigs is better in that regard than is typical- you can make eye contact through the panels at places like the Pub).

RiverDog wrote:I hear ya about voting for or supporting new laws that change in scope or intent from what they were originally 'sold' to us as, so as a rule, I'll default to a no vote unless I can be persuaded otherwise. But in this case, so long as there is specific language that limits same sex restroom facilities to urinals, toilets, and wash basins, I'd support it. It seems more economical.

Fine. Support those laws. I'll join you. I'd prefer *nobody* was made uncomfortable. These ain't them, though- you say "in this case" as if these laws are doing what you'd prefer rather than what I'm describing.

LoL!

Your boy chump is all for trannys in the woman's room.He let Caitlin make a little movie going in the woman's room in the Trump tower of Babel.


Make America super duper greater than ever before.

Hawktawk wrote:Your boy chump is all for trannys in the woman's room.He let Caitlin make a little movie going in the woman's room in the Trump tower of Babel.


Make America super duper greater than ever before.

Its time for you to quit your cryin and get with the Program - This train is leaving the Station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw&feature=youtu.be

LOL

Savvy I just cant. Im voting Libertarian even if I were told my vote is the one would make the witch president. I cant stand Trump. I don't trust him to be able to govern the country and I will not support him.
A miocardial infarction right in the middle of one of his blowhard speeches would be just fine by me. F him.