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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
RiverDog wrote:I sure haven't heard of many crimes being committed at a rest stop or a park bathroom involving juvenile victims.
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.
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.
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.
The threat of getting caught by some unsuspecting occupant is a powerful motivator.
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.
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.
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.
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".
c_hawkbob wrote:Yes it will, it's that way in a lot of countries already.
Communal showers and baths are another matter entirely.
burrrton wrote:Then you're against such laws. They draw no distinctions.
c_hawkbob wrote:All such laws are to include bathing and shower facilities?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests