Stupid liberals.

a reply to: Krakatoa

There is only one perfect solution here, that I think would satisfy everyone involved, on both sides. Make it mandatory to have a restroom attendant present at all times. It can also serve as a PR role to provide a more friendly service experience for the patrons.

originally posted by: ReprobateRaccoon

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
If you have a vagina, use the women's toilet. If you have a pecker, use the men's room.

The problem at hand is that restroom access isn't based on what you have now, it's based on what you had at birth. (according to your birth certificate)

Yes, nature is funny that way, classifying organisms based on what they are born as...

Transgendered used the public bathroom already in the past, no rapes lol. But now there will be so many rapes.

Stupid people behing fearfull of someone who might be different.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
No legislation needs to be made to protect or reject anyone. Use common sense, let the courts resolve cases that are extreme, otherwise the 1 percent of the population will just keep doing what they do and the rest of us will hardly realize it, we only now realize anything at all because this has been made into a charade by politicians.

True... So, why call your thread "stupid liberals", when it's conservatives who are making these stupid laws?

a reply to: Krakatoa

It's simple:

Before, if a cis-gender man, who looked very much like a man, was observed going into the ladies room, it would raise red flags. An employee might say, "Um, sir, you can't go in there." Maybe someone might follow him in to protect the ladies already in there.

The way the legislation is written, and the way the policy is being implemented at, say, Target, means that this is no longer true. We know that sexual assault/peeping/rape/molestation in restrooms is already a problem. Until now the offender had to SNEAK into the bathroom unobserved.

But now, since no one will try to stop (or even pay attention to) a man from entering the ladies room, this law/rule/policy removes a layer of protection from ladies in order to make trans people feel more comfortable. Rape/molestation survivors are appalled that their discomfort with this outcome is being trivialized. It's a trade-off some people are unwilling to make.

It's really a matter of numbers: will more people be traumatized by cis-gender males in the ladies room than were formerly traumatized by the old arrangement? I would hazard that this new arrangement is actually likely to do more harm than good, when all is told.

Wow... trans rights, gay, straight or whats the other one...LGHBT...whatever. The place is falling down around our heads, nut cases are running for presidents and where you take a leak/dump is headline news?
Seriously!
Cheers

originally posted by: ketsuko


I think parents need to get together with their sons and tell them - Use the girls' bathrooms and lockers rooms at school. Get together with your friends and have at. Do it obviously and deliberately and enjoy it. And if anyone tells you that you can't, tell them you feel like a lady.

Good. Then we can all get used to seeing each other naked and eventually it won't be a big deal, like in European countries. It's time we joined the rest of the free world and got over having penises and vaginas and booooobs!

Bigot liberals aren't even fighting for the rights of hermaphrodites. They just do what they are told, and there is a huge difference between a transgender person and what the government defines as transgendered.

It should be noted, the DSM V defines transgender as a mental illness; which is usually a sign of early childhood abuse and transgender people typically have a high suicide rate.

Saying you feel like a girl, when you are a boy is not really 'transgender'. If you were born hermaphrodite, that would be considered a genuine transgender; and they should be given the choice of which bathroom they want to go in.

However, this issue will not be resolved, because there are too many stupid liberals. There is an simply, easy solution since everybody loves government mandates; bathrooms may only have one occupant of any sex at a time, single bathrooms, one toilet and one sink, kind of like the airplane lavatories.

Done, problem solved, YOU ARE WELCOME.

GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER - MENTAL ILLNESS

www.dsm5.org...

Like all mental illness, it should be treated NOT CATERED TO.

STUPID LIBERALS INDEED.

a reply to: kaylaluv

European countries have massively higher rates of rape and sexual assault.

Just saying.

a reply to: OuttaHere

And this is simple.With the "birth sex only" law, mothers and fathers can no longer legally bring/escort their children to the restroom.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Ever hear of a family restrooms? Most places have them. Even Target. It's never been an issue for me. I can accompany my kids and we all feel perfectly comfortable.

a reply to: YachiruKusajishi

And if this "single sex only" law is in effect, say goodbye to those restrooms.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Better to go 'single person only'.

No more than one person in a bathroom at a time.

Problem solved, but liberals aren't interested in solving problems, only destroying America.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: kaylaluv

European countries have massively higher rates of rape and sexual assault.

Just saying.

Massively higher rates? I don't think so. The chart linked shows rapes per capita by country. The only European country that has higher number of rapes per capita is Sweden. All other European countries have a lower number of rapes per capita than the U.S.

www.nationmaster.com...

originally posted by: AVtech34
a reply to: kaylaluv It already has, multiple times. There's a story on fox news right now about a guy who choked an 8 year old girl in a bathroom. You have a severe cognitive dissonance problem.

Yeah and that guy wasn't trans either was he? Amazingly, the restroom police didn't swoop in and arrest him as soon as he crossed the threshold as he was clearly in the wrong restroom.

Any other irrelevant news stories?

a reply to: OuttaHere

Before, if a cis-gender man, who looked very much like a man, was observed going into the ladies room, it would raise red flags. An employee might say, "Um, sir, you can't go in there." Maybe someone might follow him in to protect the ladies already in there.

A few points. The thing about restrooms is that they're usually placed in hallways in the backs of places. This is done intentionally so that there's some buffer when the doors are opened, for reasons from privacy to odors. So your hypothetical is a little weak to begin with but let's assume that an employee happens by or a concerned citizen from the neighborhood restroom watch is patrolling the area.

What "conservatives" want is for trans people who are for instance, born with female genitalia but maybe have been undergoing hormone treatments and now look, dress and act masculine, to use the women's restroom because they don't have a penis. At the same time, they'd like a trans person who now dresses/looks/acts as a female to use the men's room if they were born with a penis.

It seems your argument would be far better suited for the opposite view point, don't you think?

The way the legislation is written, and the way the policy is being implemented at, say, Target, means that this is no longer true. We know that sexual assault/peeping/rape/molestation in restrooms is already a problem. Until now the offender had to SNEAK into the bathroom unobserved.

Do we? Because there's an occasional news story about one? What percentage of sexual assaults occur in restrooms? In order to honestly say that restrooms pose a disproportionate risk (in other words, "we know there's a problem") you should probably have some legitimate reason to believe that to be the case.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: kaylaluv

Show me the data, please.

I can link you a million links on girls being raped in places where it's easy, convenient, private.

Can you link me even one showing a country that has allowed big hairy men into whatever restroom they want, and it didn't cause any issues ever?

*raises hand*
Fellow dirty liberal here. I got a good one for you, because I've asked it before & no one's ever had a worthwhile answer for it.

What about the folks grabbed prior to ever entering a bathroom, and dragged into the empty mens' room & raped there? I ask because I know someone that happened to, grabbed on the way to the ladies', dragged into the mens' room, raped. Worthless a-hole was never in the ladies' room.

The problem isn't the people using the crapper, it's the people looking for empty crappers sans witnesses to do their evilness in. They couldn't care less what gender the door says. Maybe, and I know this is a huge leap because it's not pearl-clutching, but maybe the answer to any violent rape/assault problems isn't segregation, but, I dunno...lopping off rapists' parts the first time so they cannot do so twice. I'm all for no second chances with rapists and molesters. They forfeit them once they drop their pants.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I doubt the law would apply to a family restroom regardless. Since it is mostly used by families.

This whole debate has quite frankly gotten ridiculous! Talk about a true first world problem! Let's not focus on the kids going without food because despite applying for food stamp mom and dad or any combination thereof can't put food on the table. Lets forget that school lunches in this country are a joke and nasty on top. Let's not worry about the violence. Let's not worry about anything other than where people take a dump! Holy crap on a cracker really?

All this talk of changing the bathrooms adding bathrooms re doing them will not happen without a law saying a business has to. You know why? It costs money and lots of it. The national chains can do it because they make national money. Mom and pop stores will be killed. I have probably gone to the restroom with countless trans people and I don't care. If a man tries to assault me in there I will damage his wee bits and move on to call the cops. Try to hurt my kids.. Same deal.

Just for the record I am not liberal. I consider myself a middle of the road conservative. I also am Christian. My humble opinion is to move on with life. Just like any other place whether you are male or female practice situational awareness. None of this is new. Men have assaulted women in bathrooms before. Surprise not all straight people are good people. Another surprise there is bad in every community, sexual orientation, and religion. Bad people are everywhere. Especially in Washington DC.

a reply to: YachiruKusajishi

From a legal perspective, there can be no room for doubt. If it can be interpreted to mean no more family restrooms, then you will see them disappear. Like it or not, this may be a first-world problem, but it IS an issue when it comes down to clueless politicians making and passing laws without any thought of the long-term affects and varying interpretations. What is amazing to me is that many politicos were LAWYERS in a former life. This is what we get when getting and staying elected is #1 priority, making/accepting $$ is #2, and so on. The people and justice are much lower on that list it seems.

ETA: Unless there is an explicit exception written into the law that exempts "family restrooms", then wave them goodbye, or send your kid in there alone.

a reply to: Krakatoa

It's only been made a First World issue in the first place because uptight morons with nothing better to worry about have a complex about who's defecating or urinating in the next stall. Good effing christ, what's next, no homeless allowed in the restrooms because they might panhandle or steal something? Pardon the crass point blank here, I don't care who's on the throne next to mine s#ing away. Why do they?