Posted by Tina
The transgender bathroom issue was front and center in the news cycle last week following the Presidents declaration that public schools must allow transgendered students to use bathrooms and locker rooms according to choice rather than the actual biological makeup decided at the moment of conception in the womb. The PC language agenda takes on new shape and form with the identity circus now in full swing. It’s no accident that this has been made an issue just prior to the 2016 election. The story I site today comes out of Seattle where college students were asked to comment on whether there’s a difference between men and a women, in light of the transgender bathroom issue. Clueless doesn’t begin to describe their remarks:
“I don’t think there is really any one way to distinguish between a man and a woman, and I don’t think it’s necessary,”
“In general, yes, but I don’t know why I think that.”
“Umm, no? yes? I mean …”
“Umm … possibly?”
“I don’t think so, I think that its, again, a social construct of this binary that we are given at birth.”
There it is…that last example is indicative of a fully fledged politically correct student. He’s mastered the lingo and that’s what counts. In doing so he’s become a full fledged soldier in the war on language and civility. But can he think? Has he bothered to question the insanity behind this nonsense? Does he realize that he, along with the troubled folks who struggle with these issues, is being used by radical elements bent on destroying our society from within? Doubt it. As the other examples indicate, most of these students are confused and uncertain, even about something as basic as the differences between males and females.
Stephen Hayward at Powerline adds his thoughts:
Since we’re now in the age of “self-identifying,” college students will no longer need to get false IDs to buy beer. I say every bar in America must serve anyone who self-identifies as 21 years old. And why stop there? Abolish driver’s licenses: anyone who self-identifies as a driver should be allowed on the road. It will solve the controversy over whether to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. For that matter, why have citizenship qualifications at all? If you self-identify as an American, you’re in.
As facetious as that sounds it is not at all overstated when you consider that we are losing the language and language is vital to the rule of law, one of the foundations of freedom and our republic. The Identity circus is just the latest in the war the left wages on America at it’s very foundations. They will run this circus for as long as they can, making it a we vs they issue based on emotion rather than reason and common sense. And they will use the emotions of weak minded individuals as fuel to vigorously proclaim “hatred” as the motivating factor behind any objection.
The latest attraction in the Identity Circus is another construct based on illusion and designed to confound and divide. It won’t be the final act of the show but it does represent another mighty blow to the language and the rule of law. Those with stars in their eyes will never see what’s left of reality once the circus folds it’s tent.
Tina, I read your entire article and not once did I see you articulate an actual objection to trans people or trans-inclusive bathrooms. I see a lot of head-shaking over people being “PC” and afraid to use certain “language,” but you yourself seem to be going out of your way to dance around the issues at hand here (perhaps to avoid being seen as hateful).
What differences between men and women are you referring to, that make you against trans-inclusive bathrooms? Why do you describe transgendered people as “troubled,” which is a pretty passive and vague word, instead of saying what you really mean?
And where *should* trans people go to the bathroom? If someone looks like Laverne Cox, for instance, are you saying that person should use the men’s room? Does your opinion change based on whether they are pre- or post-op, or is it entirely based on birth sex? Does their safety factor into the equation at all? What if there is a large, muscular bald person with a full beard, but this person still has a vagina (since we’re talking about differences between men and women, I hope I can use that word–we wouldn’t want to censor facts to make people feel more comfortable)–would you feel comfortable with this person entering the women’s room? After all, you (presumably) wouldn’t know what this person has going on stairs. You wouldn’t know they were a pre-op transman. But with the restrictive bathroom laws conservatives have begun to try implementing, this person would either have to share a bathroom with women or not go at all.
This just seems to be an issue the anti-trans crowd hasn’t thought through very much. But as someone with trans friends, I know that this is something they have to think through very carefully–these calculations are a part of their basic safety. They’re more afraid than you are, and since they are much more likely to be attacked in a public restroom than you are, they have every reason to be.
Re : “This just seems to be an issue the anti-trans crowd hasn’t thought through very much.”
Rolling on the floor laughing my *** off. A classic specious Piss Chris fallacy. Anti-trans crowd? Oh puhleeeeese.
Damn, you are a wonderful wreck of a human being.
Chris I didn’t ‘go out of my way” to avoid anything. The article highlights college students who were uncomfortable or ignorant or indoctrinated and thus unable to articulate differences between males and females. I think it’s quite possible THEY avoid the subject for fear of being brow beaten, labeled and ostracized. It is NOT okay today to say men and women are different. It’s not okay to be of the opinion that people who believe themselves to be the opposite gender, despite their physical equipment, have a serious problem that they should address and/or manage themselves rather than expecting or demanding special adjustments be made within the public. It’s not like they don’t have choices. “Feeling like” the opposite gender does not require a person to dress like a woman (or man) or wear makeup or shave your head. Those are choices that people make, personal choices that obviously produce a problem for the person…but it is not the people’s problem. In other words, Chris, “how they look” is manufactured and can be put on and taken off at will. Anyone can change his appearance, that doesn’t mean he should be showering with teen-aged girls or competing with and against girls in sports.
There’s no reason to bring this issue to the national level, other than politics. There is also no reason to refer to me or anyone else as “anti-trans” other than politics. You can’t wait to pounce, as evidenced by those questions…which admit it, were really not asked because you sincerely don’t know what I think. They are set up questions. Why don’t you just go ahead and fill in the blanks yourself. You will anyway when you tell me how wrong and hateful I am.
It’s sad that it doesn’t occur to you that people afflicted with this problem can take steps themselves to ensure their own safety and security. The entire routine screams for attention: Please validate my specialness! Please do something really dramatic to prove I’m lovable. The need for attention is classic…but our mental health sector has also gone PC. It isn’t enough to deal with personal problems by addressing ones problems as an individual. Now we must manipulate the whole of society. It’s NUTS! (And I suspect orchestrated by the same radical elements bent on destroying our nation).
I’ll have to address the rest of what you wrote later, Tina, but for now I’d like to point out that it is nonsensical for you to call transgenderism a “problem” and then act offended when your position is accurately called “anti-trans.” You are against transgdenderism; that is, by definition, “anti-trans,” and there is no possible way to argue that.*
*Though I’m sure you’ll find a way.
Anti-trans connotes anti person who happens to be trans. It’s another idiot label that allows people to assume hate as a motive. I resent such manipulative use of language and the political division and rancor it promotes.
It’s absolutely true that when someone decides he doesn’t feel like the sex he was born as, he has a problem. In fact it may cause many problems. But it is, as I said, his problem and not the problem of the federal government.
“You are against transgdenderism”
I’m not for or against it. It’s none of my business.
People with incontinence or urgency problems also have to manage that problem with respect to where accommodating bathrooms are and whether there are enough bathrooms so that long lines can be avoided.
According to one person defending this absurd directive trans people have been using the bathroom of choice for a long time and nobody noticed or if they did, shrugged, and then went on about their own business. So is there really a problem or is this just another on the long list of identity politics? I think it’s the latter.
Tina: “Anti-trans connotes anti person who happens to be trans.”
I disagree; it could just as easily describe being against transgenderism as a condition.
But I hope the irony here doesn’t escape you here. You’re asking me to stop using a term that is technically accurate because the “connotations” are hurtful to you. You have previously described such demands as “political correctness,” such as when liberals say people should stop using the term “illegal immigrants” because of its connotations. Isn’t that hypocritical?
That said, if there is another term than “anti-trans” you would prefer, I will try to use that out of respect.
“It’s absolutely true that when someone decides he doesn’t feel like the sex he was born as, he has a problem…
…I’m not for or against it. It’s none of my business.”
These statements are mutually incompatible. If it were none of your business, you would not say it was a problem.
“People with incontinence or urgency problems also have to manage that problem with respect to where accommodating bathrooms are and whether there are enough bathrooms so that long lines can be avoided.”
And no one is trying to pass laws telling people with incontinence or urgency problems which bathroom to use.
“According to one person defending this absurd directive trans people have been using the bathroom of choice for a long time and nobody noticed or if they did, shrugged, and then went on about their own business.”
Yes, until conservatives began passing laws saying everyone must use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate. Meaning that these laws would actually force some people with penises to use the women’s restroom, if they weren’t born with penises.
“So is there really a problem or is this just another on the long list of identity politics?”
Yes, the problem is that conservatives are trying to pass unnecessary, counter-productive laws to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
No matter how many opinions the Dept of Jerks issues nor how many executive orders Obumble announces, they still haven’t figured out that Mother Nature ignores them all.
This admin is more concerned with the Fruits and Nuts than they are about ISIS.
“Mother Nature” created public restrooms?
Major Kudos, J!!!
The whole notion of “transgender” public restrooms is idiotic and demands yet another unnecessary expense to in order to kow tow to an extremely small segment of the population in the name of political correctness and “gender sensitivity.”
No wonder Chris argues in favor of such. A pig is a pig no matter how they “gender identify.”
This guy is simultaneously hilarious and spot on with his opinion on this idiotic subject —
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dBpR36VFQM
Terrific video, Pie. This guys many serious points are spot on. Sure miss the days when we could post these to our front page. Oh well, links work too, thanks!
Tina, it may interest you to know that most of what that speaker, Paul Joseph Watson, says in that video isn’t true.
For example, he claims that “progressives are trying to redefine pedophilia as an alternative sexual preference.” As evidence of this, he displays a screenshot of a Salon article by Todd Nickerson. Amazed that Salon would endorse pedophilia, I googled the article and read it. Watson is simply lying about what it says; Nickerson is clear throughout the whole piece that pedophilia is a “condition,” and should never, ever be acted upon. (Nickerson claims to be a pedophile who has never acted on his urges, and preaches that others shouldn’t either. He’s obviously sick, and he knows it, but he argues that acting on these impulses harms children; that’s exactly the opposite of wanting pedophilia treated as any other sexual preference). Watson did not give any other examples of progressives trying to “redefine pedophilia as an alternative sexual preference.”
Later, he claims that a leader in the fight against anti-trans bathroom laws is a convicted sex offender, and displays a screenshot of a Breitbart article. Snopes found this to be a mixture of true and false; the man named is a convicted sex offender, and has spoken against these laws, but he is not a “leader” of this movement.
http://www.snopes.com/nc-bathroom-bill-opposition-leader-a-sex-offender/
And even if he was…how is that an argument against trans-inclusive bathrooms? The man was a youth pastor when he sexually assaulted teenage boys. How on earth would anti-trans bathroom laws have prevented this guy from assaulting boys? How would have prevented him from assaulting female students in his care, if that was his desire? They wouldn’t. You could make a more convincing case that we should ban youth groups that trans-inclusive bathrooms if you use this guy as an example. (And obviously, such a case would be ridiculous, but it would *still* make more sense than this.)
And they don’t protect anyone else either. The holes in the arguments of these bathroom crusaders are so obvious; such laws protect no one. They’re just a way of making some people feel like they’re doing something to ensure their safety and the safety of their children in an incredibly safe world.
Watson also says that “transgender men [sic–pretty sure he’s referring to transwomen] who actually make an effort to look like women won’t even get noticed if they use the women’s bathroom anyway.” So then…what’s the point of these conservative-backed bills to make them use the bathroom corresponding to the gender on their birth certificate? Watson is all but admitting that such laws are unenforceable and pointless. This also draws attention to the point that most people already *have* shared a bathroom with a transgender person, and didn’t even notice. He’s undercutting his own argument.
Watson also claims that with these laws, trans people simply have to face “being somewhat embarrassed for a few minutes” by being forced to use the bathroom of their birth gender. But that just shows how little Watson has researched or even thought about this issue. Trans people–especially transwomen–face the very real risks of sexual harassment and actual violence when they use a public restroom. “Trans panic” is a real thing that happens, in far greater numbers than attacks by trans people on cis people. It is outrageous for people like Watson to ignore that trans people are much more likely to be at risk of violence, and that their safety is compromised by these bills, while at the same time creating non-existent threats to the safety of cis women posed by trans-inclusive bathrooms.
I ask again: What bathroom should trans people use? Should someone like Laverne Cox be forced to use the men’s restroom? Would that *really* make people more comfortable than the status quo?
Lots of errors above, but the most important correction is that the bolded part should say “They’re just a way of making some people feel like they’re doing something to ensure their safety and the safety of their children in an incredibly unsafe world.”
Re : The Identity Circus
Brilliant observations from Tina. You nailed it.
Thanks Pie…identity transcends this nonsense anyway.
What ever happened to reveling in the amazing privilege it is to be human?
The left killed it.
Offered without comment—
http://propheciesoftheendtimes.com/?p=57536&cpage=1
My understanding is that only .03% of the population identify as transgender, That leaves 99.7% who do not. In order to let the .03% feel comfortable using the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice the 99.7% are now forced into situations they are not comfortable with.
If most households are like mine brothers, sisters, moms and dads don’t run around the house naked and when someone is in the bathroom their privacy is respected. I can not imagine a 10-15 year old girl sharing a bathroom with a 40 year old man’s privates for the first time. (Our private body parts got that name for a reason.)
I can’t imagine a high school coed locker room and what would take place for either the teen age girls and boys. One high school principal reported they simply set up a patrician for the one transgender student they had.
Accommodations can be so simple when common sense is used at the local level and with out the president sending out a letter demanding his wishes be met and threatening to take away federal funding that provides food and assistance to the disadvantaged and disabled to those who refuse to comply. My disabled son required special accommodations for his needs from kindergarten to graduating from UC Berkeley. His graduation ceremony was held in a hall where the stage was not accessible for his wheelchair. They wanted him to sit on stage with the faculty during the whole ceremony and come forward when his name was called. He didn’t want to be up there with everyone looking at him. He wanted to be with his class on the auditorium floor. He worked out an agreement to accomplish that by removing two seats at the end of the front row so when he marched in he got to sit with his class.
There is just something very wrong with this whole transgender bathroom locker room discussion. It’s like taking a sledge hammer to kill a fly. My instincts tell me this is another nudge to get us to move in the direction this administration wants for something bigger coming down the road.
Threatening to take away funds that benefits millions of needy children for a handful of those who just need a simple special accommodation does not make sense or sound rational.
This may come back and bite this administration in the butt too. Talk is circulating about parents removing their children from public school and placing them in private schools, home schooling or charter schools not connected with public school districts. The drop in enrollment and the loss of ADA funds could be devastating to the public school system nation wide.
Oh wait. Remember that family from Germany that sought asylum in the US so they could homeschool their own children? If I remember right Eric Holder denied their petition and was going to send them back, but changed after the public outcry and allowed them to stay. Could this be what the nudge is for? Total control of our children by banning homeschooling for all children and allowing only those with rich parents who can afford private schools an avenue of escape?
Would you send your children to a school where Piss Chris teaches?
Peggy:
“My understanding is that only .03% of the population identify as transgender, That leaves 99.7% who do not. In order to let the .03% feel comfortable using the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice the 99.7% are now forced into situations they are not comfortable with.”
I don’t agree that 99.7% of the public is uncomfortable with sharing a bathroom with trans people. That would imply that all cisgender people share that same discomfort, which is just not the case. I only have two or three trans friends that I know of, and nearly all of my cisgender friends support trans people being able to use the bathroom that fits their gender identity. This is true even among my conservative and libertarian friends.
“If most households are like mine brothers, sisters, moms and dads don’t run around the house naked and when someone is in the bathroom their privacy is respected.”
Who the heck walks around a bathroom naked?
The locker room discomfort is slightly more understandable, but outside of a school gym class (where most schools have curtains now) people have a choice whether or not to use a locker room. I’m a modest, shy person; I can count on my fingers the number of times I’ve been naked in a locker room without being separated by some type of barrier. I’d imagine most trans people have much more of an incentive to be modest, since trans people often risk being assaulted when they are publicly outed.
“I can not imagine a 10-15 year old girl sharing a bathroom with a 40 year old man’s privates for the first time. (Our private body parts got that name for a reason.)”
And I can’t imagine an actual pre-op transman hanging out naked in a women’s locker room–I’ve never heard of such a thing. Trans people are generally more afraid of you than you are of them–the rates of assault on them are insane.
And if they aren’t actually trans, they’ll be dealt with the same way anyone who makes others feel uncomfortable in a bathroom are currently dealt with.
“I can’t imagine a high school coed locker room and what would take place for either the teen age girls and boys. One high school principal reported they simply set up a patrician for the one transgender student they had.”
Do you mean a partition? That’s a great solution. Unfortunately, conservative-backed laws that would force people to use the locker room of the gender on their birth certificate would invalidate this.
“Accommodations can be so simple when common sense is used at the local level and with out the president sending out a letter demanding his wishes be met and threatening to take away federal funding that provides food and assistance to the disadvantaged and disabled to those who refuse to comply.”
…And without conservatives trying to pass useless laws. The partition is totally compatible with Obama’s directive; the trans student gets to use the locker room they feel comfortable in, and everyone gets to keep their privacy.
“There is just something very wrong with this whole transgender bathroom locker room discussion. It’s like taking a sledge hammer to kill a fly.”
Agreed, except it’s the laws proposed by conservatives that are the sledge hammer.
“Threatening to take away funds that benefits millions of needy children for a handful of those who just need a simple special accommodation does not make sense or sound rational.”
But that’s what we’ve always done, through the ADA, Title IX, and other civil rights laws. Trans people just happen to be a minority no one has felt comfortable talking about or taking seriously for a very long time. As our ideas about gender change, this is changing too. And that’s a good thing.
“He wanted to be with his class on the auditorium floor. He worked out an agreement to accomplish that by removing two seats at the end of the front row so when he marched in he got to sit with his class.”
And as if to prove that people who live in chairs are as individual as anybody my daughter preferred to sit closer to the screen in the regular seats at the movies and so would transfer into a seat on the aisle (In a crowded theater she’d park in the designated spot). She also sees no reason to move to the front of the line in a bathroom. Once it’s her turn she waits for the big stall to become available. People are capable of working out their own problems. Unfortunately some people have been encouraged to be royal pains in the arsch instead.
“Could this be what the nudge is for? Total control of our children by banning homeschooling for all children and allowing only those with rich parents who can afford private schools an avenue of escape?”
I refer back to RHT447. That analysis is most likely it. For all the diversity they supposedly celebrate they sure are dedicated to end identity. They want us to be much like the Eloi…no identity, a washed mind, manageable, huntable, and all dressed just the same.
According to this National Review article the trap has been sprung.
President Obama’s Transgender Proclamation Is Far Broader and More Dangerous than You Think:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435445/obamas-transgender-proclamation-broad-dangerous?Wf8Ostcw8dLSZe5K.01
Tina, Reasonable people usually can resolve most issues. Your daughter, the principal who provided the transgender student with a patrician and my son were all reasonable people who could without big gov’t mandates and threats from the president.
Fantastic find Peggy!
I always worry that people won’t bother to follow the link to read. I think I sensed more to this “power grab” but NR has reasoned well when it posits:
NR has a lot more to offer on this subject…read it!
And let the lawsuits begin!
Tina, feel free to add to anything I post.
The article was so good I had a hard time picking out one or two items to highlight, so I tried to come up with an attention grabbing sentence hoping people would follow the link.
Side note: Want to give me a tutorial lesson the home page? I tried to post another article with a link but it didn’t work. Did the tutorial, but it didn’t help.
If you wouldn’t mind helping me I think you have my email address from my post and Jack has it and my phone number. Tx, Peg
Peggy I’d be glad to help. Have an appointment this afternoon but will call ASAP.
Must watch video!!!
Powerful Video: The Other Victims Of Genderless Bathrooms You May Not Have Thought Of:
”
When it comes to bathroom policies like Target’s and the state of Washington’s, which essentially allow a man to use a woman’s bathroom without question, it’s easy to worry about the safety of women and girls. But there is a large subset of the female population that is especially terrified of open bathrooms because allowing men to have such easy access to them in a vulnerable place hits even closer to home.
Alliance Defending Freedom created this powerful, heart-wrenching video to bring this issue under the spotlight:
(Warning: This video is not intended for children and could be triggering for sexual abuse victims)”
http://www.faithfamilyamerica.com/powerful_video_the_other_victims_of_genderless_bathrooms_you_may_not_have_thought_of
Heart breaking.
A great message brought to us by people with experience and knowledge. These women (And trans) clearly show us that if this is a problem in need of solution the current solution is just not it.
Peggy, you should know that Alliance Defending Freedom is a radical anti-gay hate group that supports criminalizing homosexuality in many countries, as well as overturning Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexuality in the U.S.
I remain puzzled as to why liberals are expected to avoid using terms like “anti-trans,” “anti-gay,” and “homophobic” while conservatives cuddle up to groups that are blatantly all three.
Victims?
Will you people listen to yourselves. Such groundless hysteria. It’s so … Trumpy. Get a grip.
Students learn a civics lesson the hard way. Wonder what the future backlash will be when they’re old enough to vote.
A Bunch of Middle Schoolers Just Showed Obama Exactly How They Feel About His Bathroom Directive:
“Students from Hedrick Middle School took a stand Monday against the directive from the Obama administration saying public schools must allow transgender students to use bathrooms according to their chosen gender identity.
The students tell News10 they are protesting the fact that some male students are using this as a chance to go into the female bathrooms. The students’ parents were also present.
The students are receiving make-up work from the middle school.”
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/05/607192-a-bunch-of-middle-schoolers-just-showed-obama-exactly-how-they-feel-about-his-bathroom-directive/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics
At the bottom of that article there is a link to another story showing a counter-protest by students who support trans rights.
http://ktvl.com/news/local/students-counter-protest-supporting-transgender-rights
From the first article:
“The students tell News10 they are protesting the fact that some male students are using this as a chance to go into the female bathrooms.
“I feel like they were just using it more to their benefit of just kind of being perverts more rather than actually using it because they were uncomfortable with going into the bathroom of birth,” student Grace Milligan said.”
The solution to this is obvious. Ask those little sh*ts if they are trans. They will say no, because they don’t want to die of embarrassment, and then the school gets to suspend them for violating the rules, making other students feel unsafe, and openly mocking a minority of the student body.
There is no reason why boys being obnoxious is a reason to discriminate against *actual* transgender people.
And really, every conservative argument I’ve heard against allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their gender identity has amounted to, “Perverted men and boys will take advantage of that.” So the entire transgender community is being asked to pay for their sins of cisgender men, while the community of cisgender men, from whom the problems actually stem, aren’t being asked to give up anything. And this is fair?
Piss Chris the champion of “restroom rights.”
Pie Guevara, who never has a substantive rebuttal but always feels the need to respond to me anyway.
Please, do not let your children go into a public bathroom alone.
Chicago man chokes 8-year-old girl in public bathroom:
“The Chicago Sun Times reports that an 8-year-old girl was choked by a man who was in the women’s bathroom.
The girl’s mother was shopping when her daughter went to the restroom alone. The mother heard a scream and ran into the bathroom where she found 33-year-old Reese M. Hartstirn carrying the unconscious little girl into a stall.
He had used his hands to strangle her until she passed out.
Other store patrons assisted the mother in restraining Harstirn until police arrived to arrest him.
The girl was taken to a hospital but no information on her condition is available.
Harstirn was charged with felony kidnapping and aggravated battery of a child as well as misdemeanor counts of battery.
He received an additional charge of aggravated assault of a peace officer when he took a swing at the officer who arrested him, Chicago Police Department, said.
He remains in jail without bond until his court date which is set for May 16.”
http://kron4.com/2016/05/17/chicago-man-chokes-8-year-old-girl-in-public-bathroom/
What’s this got to do with it? Aside from supporting the hysteria proposition with it’s irrational irrelevance?
Well, somehow the logic is that this wouldn’t happen if we passed laws forbidding transgender people from using the restrooms of their gender identity.
Leaving aside the fact that there’s no evidence this attacker was transgender or even that he claimed to be, this ignores the fact that even WITH such laws, a person like this could easily do the same thing to an 8-year old boy any time he wants, and no one would ever use that a reason why we should change our bathroom laws.
So Libby, you think it’s irrational to think that pedophiles, who are by necessity of purpose deceitful, sneaky, and always in search of an opportunity to exploit little kids, won’t take advantage of this law? You don’t think a rapist wouldn’t take advantage of the ability to boldly enter a women’s bathroom, hide out in a stall, and wait for an opportunity to pounce? You don’t think a perve would hang out in a dressing room and dawdle in order to ogle half naked women and little girls or boys?
I have to wonder to what degree you think these behaviors are normal and acceptable.
No wonder you libs tolerate and promote the despicable Bill Clinton.
Tina: “So Libby, you think it’s irrational to think that pedophiles, who are by necessity of purpose deceitful, sneaky, and always in search of an opportunity to exploit little kids, won’t take advantage of this law?”
Tina,
The majority of pedophiles target same-sex children. This is a question of access, not orientation.
Where are the cries from concerned parents to separate bathrooms and locker rooms based on age? You keep going on about how little girls are unsafe because some man might come into their bathroom and do something to them. Putting aside the fact that this already happens, and there’s no evidence it would happen less if these trans-exclusive bathroom laws are passed, where is the concern for little boys who already share public restrooms with grown men, some of whom might be pedophiles? Why is no one concerned about same-sex offenders, even though they make up the majority of offenders already?
It doesn’t make any sense to me, which leads me to believe that the “pedophile/rapist” concerns are a post-hoc rationalization meant to justify discrimination against trans people.
No one seems to be able to answer a simple question.
Should Laverne Cox have to use a men’s restroom when out in public? Do you think she is safer there than in a woman’s restroom?
Should Ian Harvie have to use a women’s restroom when out in public? Would you feel comfortable with sending your daughter into the restroom with him?
Because that would be the result of the laws which declare people have to use the bathrooms of the gender on their birth certificate.
You simply haven’t thought this through. At all.
Chris we’ve been using male female bathrooms in this country for as long as I’m aware and it hasn’t been a problem worthy of federal decree EVER.
I think we have been clear. The parts tell the story…
…and if you’re a trans, and don’t wish to freak out little kids, be discreet in your dress in public and save the fashion show for parties with your friends.
Well, that didn’t answer my question.
Tina: “Chris we’ve been using male female bathrooms in this country for as long as I’m aware and it hasn’t been a problem worthy of federal decree EVER.”
Yes, because until recently, social conservatives were not passing laws against transgender people using the bathrooms of the gender they identified with. THAT is what created the problem. The federal decree was a reaction to those unnecessary, unenforceable and counter-productive laws.
“…and if you’re a trans, and don’t wish to freak out little kids, be discreet in your dress in public and save the fashion show for parties with your friends.”
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
Do you have any idea what the trans people I mentioned look like? Being a woman isn’t a “fashion show” for Laverne Cox. Being a man isn’t a “fashion show” for Ian Harvie. It doesn’t matter what these people wear–due to years of hormone therapy, neither of them look like the gender on their birth certificate, and no amount of “dressing discretely” is going to change that. They’re not going to freak out little kids, unless they actually FOLLOW the laws being passed by social conservatives, in which case Ian Harvie would have to use the ladies’ room and Laverne Cox would have to use the men’s room.
These laws would have the exact opposite effect the anti-trans crowd wants.
Do you have any evidence that trans people aren’t being “discrete” in their bathroom usage now? Being discrete is a SURVIVAL STRATEGY for most trans people.
(Also: “a trans?” Good god. Why do people who have no idea what the terminology is, and haven’t bothered to do two seconds of research to find out the basics of what they’re talking about, think they deserve a say on this issue? You don’t know anything about what it even means to be a transgender–you think it’s all dress-up and makeup. Maybe let those who are actually informed on this make the decisions?)