Trans Woman Asks: 'You Really Want Me In The Same Bathroom As Your Husband?'

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think what you mean to say is only men would ever be prosecuted for doing something like that.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The photo and comment were really a poor way to make a point. If you are using public restrooms to peek out genitalia or expecting to flirt or hit on people, then I really don't think you belong in any public restroom.

There is a point to be made and it was botched with her brand of shtick IMO.

Exactly so. She crossed the line of decency.

You would think that even if she found someone attractive in the bathroom, the last thing she'd want to see is him urinating or defecating.

a reply to: NightFlight
As you discovered by looking in the dictionary, it is levels of graduation. That is why I think making laws is silly. General ethical guidelines would make more sense. A pervert is a pervert no matter the gender preferred. Unfortunately, the pic from the OP misses its real message since it comes off perverted. I think it will do more harm for their cause.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

Oh I'm pretty sure that the right would be MORE than happy to prosecute a lesbian for peeping on other women. After all, it would be a new excuse to demean the "homosexual agenda".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bennyzilla

Oh I'm pretty sure that the right would be MORE than happy to prosecute a lesbian for peeping on other women. After all, it would be a new excuse to demean the "homosexual agenda".

Sorry, and why should a lesbian peeping on another woman be less of an offence than a man peeping on other men or women, or a woman peeping on men come to that? They are all violating a persons privacy. If that constitutes an arrest I would have no idea but I'm not sure why you are trying to score political points out of it, seems a little immature to me.

a reply to: uncommitted

They are equally serious, but the point is that everyone is so concerned with all these supposed male perverts wanting to throw on a dress and go into women's restrooms like the sign on the door was the ONLY thing keeping them out of that room. Well lesbians can be prone to perversion too. No one seems to have a problem with a widespread epidemic of lesbians peeping through stalls on other women. So where is this notion that men will want to do it more often coming from?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

They are equally serious, but the point is that everyone is so concerned with all these supposed male perverts wanting to throw on a dress and go into women's restrooms like the sign on the door was the ONLY thing keeping them out of that room. Well lesbians can be prone to perversion too. No one seems to have a problem with a widespread epidemic of lesbians peeping through stalls on other women. So where is this notion that men will want to do it more often coming from?

I didn't know we had an option to keep women out of women's restrooms. No one trying to peep in public restrooms belongs in one.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I agree. That's why we have laws against peeping.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

They are equally serious, but the point is that everyone is so concerned with all these supposed male perverts wanting to throw on a dress and go into women's restrooms like the sign on the door was the ONLY thing keeping them out of that room. Well lesbians can be prone to perversion too. No one seems to have a problem with a widespread epidemic of lesbians peeping through stalls on other women. So where is this notion that men will want to do it more often coming from?

Also, this is why the photo and comment did more harm than good. It connected this legislation initiative with peeping in public restrooms and I responded based on the feeling I was left with.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No it didn't. That connection had already been made. If you read the actual article and my OP instead of looking JUST at the picture, you would have read this:

Much of the anti-HERO ad campaign involved fear-mongering tactics that aimed to induce anxiety in voters about transgender people using the bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

She just flipped the discussion on its head and tried to present it from a different angle, but one of the primary reasons that this bill was voted down to begin with is because of scare tactics that were used saying that a bunch of men were going to throw on dresses and go peep in women's bathrooms.

It's just as stupid to say that an innocent transgender person can't go to the bathroom of their self-identified gender than it is to say that guns should be banned. If a person wants to kill people, they will find a way, right? If a pervert wants to peek on women or molest women, they will find a way. We already have law against killing people and we already have laws against peeping or molesting or rape. You are hurting millions of innocent, law-abiding transgender people who just want to go to the bathroom - they don't want to molest anyone, just like by banning guns, you are hurting millions of innocent, law-abiding gun owners who don't want to kill anyone.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No it didn't. That connection had already been made. If you read the actual article and my OP instead of looking JUST at the picture, you would have read this:

Much of the anti-HERO ad campaign involved fear-mongering tactics that aimed to induce anxiety in voters about transgender people using the bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

She just flipped the discussion on its head and tried to present it from a different angle, but one of the primary reasons that this bill was voted down to begin with is because of scare tactics that were used saying that a bunch of men were going to throw on dresses and go peep in women's bathrooms.

The angle just reinforced the fearmongering. It reads to me as, "Yes, I peep at men in restrooms, and other men peep at me...do you want us to do this in a men's restroom or a women's restroom?"

Again, I do think there is a point to be made, but this way was off-putting -- to me anyway.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
A picture is worth a thousand words. Most will not read the article, that is why this staged pic will be harmful. Honestly, a better one would have been to show the possible physical violence that could harm her, if she stood at an urinal. The guy supposedly leering or appreciating her attractiveness may be feel his manhood has been threatened by her seeming deception that he becomes aggressive to prove he is a man! That is called reality check. Not these sexual innuendos.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Krazysh0t
A picture is worth a thousand words. Most will not read the article, that is why this staged pic will be harmful. Honestly, a better one would have been to show the possible physical violence that could harm her, if she stood at an urinal. The guy supposedly leering or appreciating her attractiveness may be feel his manhood has been threatened by her seeming deception that he becomes aggressive to prove he is a man! That is called reality check. Not these sexual innuendos.

I even read the article and still felt the photo and comment sent the wrong message.

I'm not sure how to present the right message without negatively portraying men -- which, I think, is part of the OP's issue with some of the comments.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see stuff like this.

And I wonder how our ancient ancestors handled going to the bathroom.

Especially since there was no plumbing or bathrooms back in the stone age.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Maybe so, but I think the point was to show the logical conclusion of the rhetoric being using against legalizing the bill.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

She just flipped the discussion on its head and tried to present it from a different angle, but one of the primary reasons that this bill was voted down to begin with is because of scare tactics that were used saying that a bunch of men were going to throw on dresses and go peep in women's bathrooms.

There are instances of such cases, just from looking at a quick google search. This one for instance.

But I am with you on this issue. The fear is irrational. Any respectable human being will not enter a bathroom to engage in voyeurism. Most just need to use the toilet.

Transgenders can look very convincing. I've seen pics I would not know were transgender. BUT I will add it's easier to spot more subtle things like how they move and the thickness of certain body parts, but that can take deep level examination depending on the person. Some are less convincing than others. I've seen transgenders which weren't convincing even remotely. The most convincing ones just rely on what was already a delicate male body type. I think one of the hardest things for them to do is the hourglass figure, for example. It's just harder to do for men because unless they switch before puberty it's a "stretch"... And I'm not even sure if that'll be enough. There're non-transgender woman who have extreme ratios probably not attainable unless a person had been born that way. But honestly most woman don't look like that anyway, although a handful do.

But I think, at least with transgenders, they deserve to go to the bathroom which they believe they belong to. And I do think s/he looks enough like woman to warrant it. To those who say men shouldn't be looking at her while using the urinal, you're being obtuse. If a woman walks into the restrooms dressed like that any warm blooded male WILL glance at her. Don't be a prude. Married or not! Glancing is not the same thing as raping. Don't confuse them. (Prudes are going to make us all into robots, someday.). I know the transgender thing is kind of messed up, against gods rules and all that, but it's what it's and sometimes you have to relent.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She just flipped the discussion on its head and tried to present it from a different angle, but one of the primary reasons that this bill was voted down to begin with is because of scare tactics that were used saying that a bunch of men were going to throw on dresses and go peep in women's bathrooms.

There are instances of such cases, just from looking at a quick google search. This one for instance.

Exactly, clearly the law isn't stopping them from doing it now.

But I am with you on this issue. The fear is irrational. Any respectable human being will not enter a bathroom to engage in voyeurism. Most just need to use the toilet.

Yep, most just want to expel some food waste as quickly as possible and get out of there.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From experience i would have to say that most male toilets are generally reeking of urine and covered in all sorts of other undesirable substances. So if i was of the transgender persuasion i imagine, bobby or not, best to stick to the female lavatories.