Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Don't take the middle urinal if all 3 are open Courtesy flushes please And I wouldn't call it a law, but as a bonus courtesy, time your nasty wet farts with a flush of the toilet we don't need to hear them Also please keep grunting to a minimum I agree with the first two laws but disagree with the latter two. I personally do not shy away from making "bathroom" noises when others are patronizing the same public bathroom as I. I do it to help tear down the wall of suppression that some may feel when it comes to the stygma and scarlet letter of "bathroom" noises. My hope and dream is that after a person patronizes the same bathroom as I, they walk out feeling liberated. They walk out thinking that if that random hero (me) was unabashed in making "bathroom" noises, perhaps I to can become a bathroom hero. They walk out with their insecurities and social inhibitors shredded. After all, it is a bathroom. I say, let's rip away. Let us walk into a bathroom as pre pubescents, but let us walk out as men. Men ready to stand and say aloud to the world -- "My farts smell and so do yours!" Rip away gentlemen, rip away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 I thought of another one. When checking stalls, don't make eye contact Here"s another one. If you have a dick? You're not a chick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 I know it when I see it. Well there we have it. Now we know who to go to to define morality for us. Can you start a thread that we can reference when we are confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Wellp, something tells me this thread is on its way to the same fate as the last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 No. This whole thing is an obvious move by social conservative politicians and think tanks to galvanize social conservative voters, make them think that their values are under attack, and thus get them out to the polls. They don't care about the actual issue. They care about stirring up the outrage. It happens every election. 100% true. In PA I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation like this get passed within the next few weeks. Our lovely congress has just got back in session for budget season. They actually passed a budget in March, even though it was due last June. There is a bill up for vote now about letting God back into schools...for what purpose? Fire people up. I'm predicting a bathroom bill before they get to any serious budget discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 3, 2016 Author Share Posted May 3, 2016 Observing that the discussion seems to be drifting away from bathroom laws, and more towards party politics in general. Granted, the topics are somewhat related. But it's a matter of emphasis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Yep. It's a "get to the polls and vote Republican, or the gays will rape your daughter". But every now and then, someone obliges and legitimizes at least part of what these "gin up the vote" bills are after. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-transgender-palatine-high-school-lawsuit-met-20160504-story.html A group of suburban students and parents is suing the U.S. Department of Education and Illinois' largest high school district after school officials granted a transgender student access to the girls locker room. In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, the group contends that the actions of the Department of Education and Palatine-based Township High School District 211 "trample students' privacy" rights and create an "intimidating and hostile environment" for students who share the locker rooms and restrooms with the transgender student. ... The District 211 transgender student, who has not been identified publicly, initially filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights alleging that the district discriminated against her when it denied her access to the girls locker room. The district had previously allowed the student to use the girls restroom. In an unprecedented decision, federal education authorities found that the district had violated Title IX. The district risked losing millions of federal dollars and a possible lawsuit by the federal government if it failed to reach a resolution. In a controversial decision, the district agreed in December to allow the student locker room access and installed privacy stalls. Proponents of the settlement heralded it as a civil rights victory. ... The religious liberty group Thomas More Society also is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks to keep the district from enforcing the locker room agreement and restroom policy and to bar the Department of Education from taking action against the district. The plaintiffs also argue in the suit that the locker room agreement prevents students from practicing the modesty that their faith requires of them. Thomas More Society attorney Jocelyn Floyd called the policy a "setback" for women's rights. "To impose such a rule on still-developing teenage girls — already struggling with puberty's changes on their bodies and social pressures to look a certain way — undermines their dignity and tells them that their rights don't matter," Floyd said. As much as I think the bathrooms thing is ridiculous, this is something I just can't get behind. Locker rooms are a totally different ballgame. The district did the best they could to mitigate, given that the govt was forcing their hand, but that's just not good enough. The EEOC says you can't require a trans person to use single-stall bathrooms as a compromise, because you're singling them out. Sorry, but when it comes to locker rooms, that's the way it needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 But every now and then, someone obliges and legitimizes at least part of what these "gin up the vote" bills are after. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-transgender-palatine-high-school-lawsuit-met-20160504-story.html As much as I think the bathrooms thing is ridiculous, this is something I just can't get behind. Locker rooms are a totally different ballgame. The district did the best they could to mitigate, given that the govt was forcing their hand, but that's just not good enough. The EEOC says you can't require a trans person to use single-stall bathrooms as a compromise, because you're singling them out. Sorry, but when it comes to locker rooms, that's the way it needs to be. Sorry. If you're going to try to convince me that the notion of "vote Republican or creepy people will pretend to be trans so they can rape your children" has merit, then you're going to have to do better than "a bunch of students and parents have filed a lawsuit claiming that trans people are icky, and they don't like them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 I'm not saying it has merit. I'm saying the existence of this decision can be used and taken advantage of by the local/state governments to say these laws are not a solution in search of a problem, but a real life issue (which we will now address in an overly-broad and unnecessarily harsh manner) I don't think your summary of the lawsuit is fair. You're judging HS girls for feeling uncomfortable about having a biological male around while everyone is changing clothes? I can't dismiss that as "trans people are icky". For bathrooms, sure. But not locker rooms. Maybe girls just don't want to see a dick in their locker room? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 I don't think your summary of the lawsuit is fair. You're judging HS girls for feeling uncomfortable about having a biological male around while everyone is changing clothes? I can't dismiss that as "trans people are icky". For bathrooms, sure. But not locker rooms. Maybe girls just don't want to see a dick in their locker room? I am quite certain that in any bunch of HS girls, you can find lots of people who they'd ban from the locker room, if they could. But my broader point is that these laws are not being sold as "we must legislate bathrooms because it might make people feel icky". They're being sold as being done to protect people from predators. (By legislating discrimination against all trans people). You want to argue in favor of these laws, because they're protecting people's right to not have an icky minority in the same room as them, then feel free to try to sell that. I will tell you right now that I would feel uncomfortable if I was in a locker room and noticed that somebody had the wrong junk. But I would also say that 1). I would feel awkward towards myself, for noticing. What the heck were you doing, checking people out, there, Larry? 2). AND I absolutely would not feel that my feeling of awkwardness entitled me to demand that that other person be criminalized for setting foot in the room with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 I've thought of two, other, shorter phrases that might also summarize my feelings about these laws. One is a variation of a phrase I used, during the gay marriage debate. A person's right to swing their arm, ends at the end of your nose. But, if the presence of somebody with the wrong plumbing, in the same room as you, hurts your nose, then your nose is where it shouldn't be. Or, while driving, I just thought of this one. Several people are in a locker room, changing clothes. One person stands up, points at another one, and says "That person has a dick!" Whose privacy has been invaded, here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Agreed completely Larry. I think that aligns with the initial point I was making near the beginning of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 I've thought of two, other, shorter phrases that might also summarize my feelings about these laws. One is a variation of a phrase I used, during the gay marriage debate. A person's right to swing their arm, ends at the end of your nose. But, if the presence of somebody with the wrong plumbing, in the same room as you, hurts your nose, then your nose is where it shouldn't be. Or, while driving, I just thought of this one. Several people are in a locker room, changing clothes. One person stands up, points at another one, and says "That person has a dick!" Whose privacy has been invaded, here? If you define harm in the way you describe, then why do we have lawsuits paying gobs of $$ for emotional harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 If you define harm in the way you describe, then why do we have lawsuits paying gobs of $$ for emotional harm? A kinda valid point. Although, we're discussing the necessity of passing criminal statutes, to prevent "emotional harm". (And oh, by the way, to cause it. But to cause it to minorities we don't like.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 I know a gay guy. He goes to my gym. We use the same locker room. I never realized the danger I was in before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 So it's discrimination to say - you have a penis so you'll use the bathroom everyone else that has a penis uses? That's discrimination? I'm going to have to start keeping notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Law for the owners of establishments If you insist on using air dryers instead of paper towels, please make sure the bathroom door swings outward with no latch, able to be opened by a foot Nothing worse than having to touch a handle to open a bathroom door on your way out. The paper towel trick doesn't work if there are no paper towels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 One is a variation of a phrase I used, during the gay marriage debate. A person's right to swing their arm, ends at the end of your nose. But, if the presence of somebody with the wrong plumbing, in the same room as you, hurts your nose, then your nose is where it shouldn't be. So a 14 year old girl that doesn't feel comfortable changing in front of an anatomical male, or having an anatomical male changing in front of her, doesn't belong in gym class? Look, there's a lot about your overall philosophy there I agree with. But at some point you're no longer JUST legislating morality, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share Posted May 5, 2016 So it's discrimination to say - you have a penis so you'll use the bathroom everyone else that has a penis uses? That's discrimination? I'm going to have to start keeping notes. So it's not discrimination to say - this minority is icky and makes me feel funny, so I should pass laws whose sole purpose is to criminalize basic elements of their everyday lives, for no other purpose than to reduce the odds that their presence might make me feel creepy? But, to answer the question that your spin was trying to masquerade as: To me, the line between whether something is discrimination, has at least some basic elements. Is it designed to apply only to a disliked minority? Does it serve a legitimate societal interest? Is there some reason why society has to restrict people's freedom, to protect some other freedom or person? (This also gets into consideration of whether the proposal is the minimum restriction needed to protect the others). (Laws that prohibit bank robbery restrict the freedom of a minority. But they're necessary, to protect the rights of people not to get robbed). (There's probably some other elements to the definition. But those are the ones I can think of, right now). This law is a picture of the first criteria. And is nowhere close to meeting the second. (Now, show me a string of reports of people being raped or flashed or some such, in bathrooms, by people who are in no way actual trans, they're just claiming to be? And I'll certainly consider that maybe such laws are necessary. But I'm pretty sure that, if they'd happened even ONCE, I would have heard about it dozens of times.) Law for the owners of establishments If you insist on using air dryers instead of paper towels, please make sure the bathroom door swings outward with no latch, able to be opened by a foot Nothing worse than having to touch a handle to open a bathroom door on your way out. The paper towel trick doesn't work if there are no paper towels The new Lowe's near me needs a law, too. Stall doors must be set so that, when unlatched, they stay ajar. Really sucks walking up to a row of stalls, all the doors closed, and the only way to find out if one is occupied, is to try to open it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Nevermind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 But, to answer the question that your spin was trying to masquerade as: Right... my spin. That's a good one larry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 At the urinal, always look straight ahead. Find a spot on the wall to focus on and hone in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 At the urinal, always look straight ahead. Find a spot on the wall to focus on and hone in. How will I know if I'm pissing on your shoe that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 Maybe we're going about this the wrong way y'all. Maybe instead of animated male and female signs and labels on the restrooms, we should just use animated genitalia. Peens over here. Vageens over there. Clowns to the left. Jokers to the right. At the urinal, always look straight ahead. Find a spot on the wall to focus on and hone in. And as a personal tip, always aim to the side to avoid splashback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 Pass a law that all public places must have 4 bathrooms! The liberal way to solve an issue, spend more money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.