It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SlapMonkey
But then we need a new law to stop men from molesting/attacking/fantasizing about little boys in the men's room, right? Because allowing these type of men into the men's room makes it easier for them to do these things, right?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: network dude
Guess we should have told the blacks that in the South. "Don't like our Jim Crow laws? Don't live here."
ALL citizens deserve to be treated fairly - in ALL states.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: SlapMonkey
If someone's going to try and do something as brazen as looking under or over the door then I doubt the presence or absence of this law would affect them. I think I will use the gun argument again. "Criminals are going to be criminals anyway, don't punish law-abiding citizens."
Part of it is based on bigotry or ignorance to be certain, part of it is based on decently logical but ultimately unfounded fear and apprehension. (Like a lot of American political things. Based on fear.)
Make no mistake though, this really is just a distraction issue.
So the point that I raised is, do we make the majority feel uncomfortable to appease the tiny minority of transgender people who have an issue with how bathrooms have been for a long time, or do we take issue with said minority and find a better solution?
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I guess you support gun control then?
The issue is that, as ladyvalk showed on the previous page with her example, that people intent on going into the opposite sex's bathroom and attacking them/assaulting them are going to do it anyway.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: neo96
That's no more bigoted than a "No Smoking" or "No Entry" sign you idjit. >_>
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SlapMonkey
So the point that I raised is, do we make the majority feel uncomfortable to appease the tiny minority of transgender people who have an issue with how bathrooms have been for a long time, or do we take issue with said minority and find a better solution?
How often have you felt uncomfortable about a transgender being in a restroom with you? When did you start worrying about it?
And I agree with that logic, as I stated in my response kaylaluv above. But like I said to her, the point is to not make it easier for it to happen.
Open-gender bathrooms (when still labeled for a specific gender) create more uncomfortable situations that it does alleviate them, and it opens up possibilities for legal entry of people with possible distasteful motives, all in efforts to appease 0.4% of the population (not all of whom take issue with the way that bathrooms are now).
I agree, but you leave out the absolutely founded concerns (a concern is not necessarily a "fear") of average, everyday Joe and Jane American who prefer the logic and privacy behind gender-specific places to do the business that most people consider private. Most people want to feel secure and safe doing so, and open-gender bathroom remove a lot of that feeling of safety to many people.
So the point that I raised is, do we make the majority feel uncomfortable to appease the tiny minority of transgender people who have an issue with how bathrooms have been for a long time, or do we take issue with said minority and find a better solution?
Kroger (a regional supermarket chain based out of Cincinnati) has some stores with "family restrooms" along with male/female restrooms. They have designated those as ones available for people who are uncomfortable using gender-specific facilities. That's a perfectly reasonable solution.
Forcing everyone who uses public restrooms to comfortable with anyone of any sexual persuasion dropping a deuce next to them isn't--as much as I hate using this word--fair to the majority of people.
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: neo96
That's no more bigoted than a "No Smoking" or "No Entry" sign you idjit. >_>
Tell that to 150 million plus gun owners told they are 'not welcome'.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But in the end, I'd be fine with it being up to the company as to how they want to treat their restrooms, as long as it is posted so that those using them know what to possibly expect--then they can choose to use them or not.