The "bathroom law" thread

[Mr. Sinister]

But isn't it sexist if a man who lives as a woman but still pees like a man is forced to use women's devices even though she still goes like men?

Or perhaps we should make men who are sexually ambiguous pee in ambiguous toilets. Like, half urinal, half squatty.

Exclusion based on crossed up reproductive organs = racist... sexist... something-ist. No-go

[RVAbrendan]

Another man enters a woman's restroom because he thinks a a shorthaired woman was trans. Funny how this law is simply making straight men harass people in the women's restroom... 

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/04/30/man-barges-into-womens-bathroom-because-he-saw-short-haired-woman-and-thought-she-was-transgender/

[Hersh]

Another man enters a woman's restroom because he thinks a a shorthaired woman was trans. Funny how this law is simply making straight men harass people in the women's restroom... 

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/04/30/man-barges-into-womens-bathroom-because-he-saw-short-haired-woman-and-thought-she-was-transgender/

 

This link was in the very first post of this thread.

 

There are probably now more instances like this than there have ever been a transgender person doing anything illegal in a restroom.

[TheGreatBuzz]

First off, I want to make it clear that I am against these types of laws.  That being said, for others here that are against these laws, what are your feelings about locker rooms?  It seems most people are against these "bathroom" laws because there isn't any cases of trans people running into bathrooms to assault people.  And people of all ages aren't generally running around bathrooms naked.  But how would you feel if your wife or daughter came home from the gym and told you about the girl that walked up next to her while she was changing and when she dropped her towel, she saw she had a penis?  Or how would a man feel if you were changing and a gorgeous women came walking in while your little guy was on display?  This to me is something really worth discussing and I don't know what the right answer is.  But this bathroom nonsense is just that, nonsense. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Isis wants to annihilate us and we're worried about who's able to go in what bathrooms.  No wonder this country is going down the toilet, no pun intended.

[Bang]

 

Priorities...

 

~Bang

[Bliz]

Don't think so. Both the penis and vagina are the most identifiable and defining mark of either sex. No matter what you think you are, or want to be, you should not be allowed to use a restroom that does not coincide with the correct plumbing.

But the irony of it all is that, with trans people, the plumbing doesn't match the exterior. So in the name of protecting women from the discomfort (or whatever) of having dudes in their bathrooms, we're requiring people who look like dudes to go into the women's bathrooms.

[Dan T.]

These are laws in search of a problem to solve.

[Mr. Sinister]

But the irony of it all is that, with trans people, the plumbing doesn't match the exterior. So in the name of protecting women from the discomfort (or whatever) of having dudes in their bathrooms, we're requiring people who look like dudes to go into the women's bathrooms.

How prevalent is that, though? (female wanting to be male) compared to the opposite?

I've seen a male-female trans in the bathroom before, and although it was strange didn't scar me for life.

For such a small percentage of people, I think the current setup is much more preferable than to create unisex bathrooms.

[jpage520]

I think one of the things that's wrong is grouping locker rooms and restrooms together. I think the laws about the restrooms are just asinine. But I think the locker room does deserve some further discussion.

 

 

But how would you feel if your wife or daughter came home from the gym and told you about the girl that walked up next to her while she was changing and when she dropped her towel, she saw she had a penis?  Or how would a man feel if you were changing and a gorgeous women came walking in while your little guy was on display?  This to me is something really worth discussing and I don't know what the right answer is.  But this bathroom nonsense is just that, nonsense. 

 

Honestly, my response to the first hypothetical here would probably just be "hmm, that's interesting." and then move on and then to the second it would be to continue changing as quickly as I would even if it was some old dude who walked in. I tend to not enjoy putting my junk out on public display to anyone if I can help it. All intended interactions with it aside obviously. That's just my own reaction. I know others differ.

 

What's in someone else's underwear is none of your or my business. Therefore me/you/any wife/daughter/son etc. checking them out is the one whose intentions should be brought into question here. Not those changing, showering, etc.

 

I think that intention is or should be one of the biggest points of discussion on this topic. Much in the same way women breastfeeding in public are using their breasts for something natural and completely unrelated to sex, yet some folks still take major issue with it for some reason; folks are using the bathroom and locker room for something completely natural and unrelated to sex in relieving themselves or showering/changing clothes. Yet, it seems that because there is nudity involved, sex is automatically brought into the equation. The intention of these laws is supposed to somehow keep a male sexual predator out of the women's room and a female sexual predator out of the men's room although that instance seems to be very rarely brought up. But if someone's intentions are to sexually abuse someone in a restroom, they're in the wrong before they open either door. I also don't understand the idea that apparently a sign is supposed to prevent these people from committing these crimes. As someone who doesn't believe that a "Gun free zone" sign or law of some sort does much to stop someone with criminal intentions before they even set foot on those grounds from committing the crime, I can't bring myself to believe that a sign on a bathroom or law would do the same for a sexual predator. Sorry, I know that's a pretty hot button issue, I was just trying to draw some kind of comparison.

 

I'm not trying to say anyone who happens to see something in passing in a locker room or something like that is some kinda perv or anything, just for the record. I'm just saying that once the focus goes away from using the room for its intended purpose, that's when personal space and privacy come into play regardless of the gender.

For such a small percentage of people, I think the current setup is much more preferable than to create unisex bathrooms.

 

I agree with that. Over trying to create laws to restrict who can use which restrooms based what's in someone's pants.

[Larry]

First off, I want to make it clear that I am against these types of laws.  That being said, for others here that are against these laws, what are your feelings about locker rooms?  It seems most people are against these "bathroom" laws because there isn't any cases of trans people running into bathrooms to assault people.  And people of all ages aren't generally running around bathrooms naked.  But how would you feel if your wife or daughter came home from the gym and told you about the girl that walked up next to her while she was changing and when she dropped her towel, she saw she had a penis?  Or how would a man feel if you were changing and a gorgeous women came walking in while your little guy was on display?  This to me is something really worth discussing and I don't know what the right answer is.  But this bathroom nonsense is just that, nonsense.

I saw a post that kinda described my feelings on that question:

 

It seems most people are against these "bathroom" laws because there isn't any cases of trans people running into bathrooms to assault people.

 

 

Don't remember who said it. 

 

---

 

And, as a secondary opinion? 

 

I'll express my opinion about "locker room" laws, when the GOP begins passing locker room laws.  Instead of their usual "Let's invent a fictional threat, and then pass the most repressive law we can think of, to fight it" technique. 

[justice98]

This seems like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

[Zguy28]

Deleted.

[TradeTheBeal!]

I know a lady who was thrown out and banned from a local chain restaurant when three ordinary men (non transgender, but then who can really tell? Maybe they were females just trying to follow their plumbing? ) tried to enter the bathroom with her. She refused them entry and they told the manager and called the police. No kidding.

 

Confusion is the outcome of all this, no matter which side your on.

This story makes no sense and I don't believe a single word of it.

[Zguy28]

This story makes no sense and I don't believe a single word of it.

Exactly. Nonsensical. Yet true enough right here in Southern Maryland.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Exactly. Nonsensical. Yet true enough right here in Southern Maryland.

Completely fabricated for reasons only you know. And there is no confusion...zero, nada, zip...on my side of this issue. This is willful demonization of a minority specifically constructed to enable the passing of legislation designed to remove the legal rights of minorities at the state level. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Larry]

While I certainly admit to being dubious, I would not be so quick to just assume that Zguy is just making things up, either.

(Although, I WOULD believe that maybe there's a whole lot more to the story, that's being intentionally left out, before the story got to Zguy).

(Just like I wouldn't be surprised if there's things being intentionally left out, from the stories I started the thread with).

[zoony]

I thought of another one. When checking stalls, don't make eye contact

[Zguy28]

While I certainly admit to being dubious, I would not be so quick to just assume that Zguy is just making things up, either.

(Although, I WOULD believe that maybe there's a whole lot more to the story, that's being intentionally left out, before the story got to Zguy).

(Just like I wouldn't be surprised if there's things being intentionally left out, from the stories I started the thread with).

Very well could be more to it Larry, I'm only going on what I was told by the person. But I also have no prior reason to doubt her as well.

I don't think this whole movement is anything other than an obvious move by social conservatives to assert their beliefs on the masses.

You are correct. Anybody who says otherwise is trying to be PC. It's a counter move against social liberals who are trying to assert their beliefs onto the masses.

[Bang]

Where and when in SOMD?

I work for the local news (the Baynet),, I don't recall.

Is it so recent the police haven't released their usual report?

 

~Bang

[Zguy28]

Where and when in SOMD?

I work for the local news (the Baynet),, I don't recall.

Is it so recent the police haven't released their usual report?

 

~Bang

PM sent. And since I can't corroborate it and therefore its gossip, I'm going to remove my post on it. My apologies to all.

[Larry]

PM sent. And since I can't corroborate it and therefore its gossip, I'm going to remove my post on it. My apologies to all.

 

I have no problem with personal anecdotes, even second hand ones, being brought before the court, so to speak.  At least, as long as they're labeled as such. 

 

Lord knows I've brought in a whole bunch of things I've seen, or that I remember reading about, somewhere. 

[Zguy28]

I have no problem with personal anecdotes, even second hand ones, being brought before the court, so to speak.  At least, as long as they're labeled as such. 

 

Lord knows I've brought in a whole bunch of things I've seen, or that I remember reading about, somewhere. 

Yeah, I know, but it didn't happen to ME. I should know better.

[Hersh]

Very well could be more to it Larry, I'm only going on what I was told by the person. But I also have no prior reason to doubt her as well.

You are correct. Anybody who says otherwise is trying to be PC. It's a counter move against social liberals who are trying to assert their beliefs onto the masses.

 

I would love for you to define what you think the social liberal beliefs are and how they are asserting it onto the masses.

[Larry]

I would love for you to define what you think the social liberal beliefs are and how they are asserting it onto the masses.

Well, they keep telling people that they can't pass laws mandating discrimination. (Thus forcing us to keep passing more laws, mandating discrimination.)

Heck, they're even trying to take away our right to discriminate.

---

I keep flashing back to the fact that the issues which caused the Religious Right to come into existence, in the first place, their reson for existing as a political force, was in the 70s, and their desire to pass legislation discriminating against gays, based on their claim that gays were out there plotting to steal your children, if we don't discriminate against them. This actually is the reason why they became politically active, in the first place, IMO.