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.

 

Alabama city: Use bathrooms matching biological sex or face 6 months in jail.

page: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

And then you have a whole 'nother group of perverts, in this "high tech" society we live in.

Police Find Camera in Ladies Bathroom




posted on May, 2 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

Right. What's the Trans Pacific Partnership up to these days?

TPTB are getting everyone focused on the wrong 'trans'.




posted on May, 2 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I have a fantastic solution to all this. If you see a state that has laws you don't agree with, protest them, by not going there. then, whatever horrible things they do, will not affect you in the slightest. If you just can't get by without being really, really mad, and it goes so far, you just can't NOT do something, then join the local government, and make the appropriate changes.

I am glad to be of assistance in this matter.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Most pedophiles know or are related to their victims. A kid is much more likely to be molested or raped by their wrestling coach (Denny Hastert, Jerry Sandusky), their clergyman (too many to name), or (über yuck) a family member. The incidents of a random pedophile assaulting a random kid in a bathroom are a minority of a minority. And, as I've already pointed out, it's ALREADY illegal no matter where it occurs.

This is rich. I'm not sure if Daily Wire is specifically Christian, but they are certainly conservative/anti-left. And they can only find 5 examples of men dressing as women to do dirty deeds.
1. entered a women's locker room but did not actually molest or assault anyone
2. fulfills criteria of man dressing as woman and sexually assaulting women....actually happened in Toronto, Canada NOT US
3. peeping and filming
4. peeping and filming
5. Gender Neutral facilities NOT women specific facilities- peeping and filming ALSO Toronto, NOT US
5 Times ‘Transgender’ Men Abused Women And Children In Bathrooms

OMG! It's an epidemic!!!! Quick, pass legislation to save everybody!!!!



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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?


No, and that's now what my point was at all--I'm quite certain that you understand that this is impossible to do.

My point that you seem to have twisted is that allowing open restrooms to all (while leaving them designated as one sex or the other) invites a legal way for pedophiles and those who would do women harm (and same goes for women pedophiles and those wanting to do men harm, but that's a massively smaller number) to have an easier chance at that.

But I do agree that laws against criminal behavior will not stop hell-bent criminals, but I just don't think that there is a reason to invite an easier chance for such criminal behavior to take place.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

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.


Amazingly enough, people seem to have done just what I suggested, became members of local government, and made changes so they could be treated fairly.

Or are there still those same "Jim Crow" laws in effect down here?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That's no more bigoted than a "No Smoking" or "No Entry" sign you idjit. >_>
edit on 2/5/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
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.

That 9 year old girl wasn't saved or helped by the "You Need Birth Certificate ID For Your Bathroom Break" law, she was helped by a relatively perceptive worker.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

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."


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).

Like I said, it doesn't bother me personally--I've lived in Germany for multiple years and I was in the Army, so I've learned that privacy is a luxury that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of life. But not everybody holds that opinion.


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.


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.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Men attack women in empty elevators and parking lots as well. Shouldn't we ban men from getting into elevators and parking lots so we don't give predators a legal way to harm women?

Laws allowing transgender people to use the restroom of their identified gender does NOT legally allow male predators into the public restroom to harm others.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
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?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

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.


You apparently miss the point of gun control laws and the comparison--she was saying that tight laws regulating something doesn't keep that something out of the hands of criminals.

Sure, but it makes it quite difficult for one who can't get one legally to get a sudden urge to kill someone and just rush out and have a firearm handed to them for cash and then rush out and off someone.

I don't have an issue with minimal background checks and, yes, even a short waiting period in order to purchase firearms (although I like KY's law where there is none).

But regulating things like that in restrooms is super difficult. There's no background check in place in order to enter restrooms. There's no waiting period. That's the difference between gun-control measures and these restroom laws.

But I'm arguing the exact opposite--we shouldn't make it EASIER for criminals to be criminals. Yes, making it harder doesn't always deter or stop criminal behavior, but I'm not sure that means we should stop from instituting (IMO) ridiculous measures/policies/legislation that make it easier for them.

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.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

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'.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

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?


I'd like to know how many people have ever seen a transgender person they could outwardly identify, let alone, have to deal with a bathroom issue related to their gender choices.

I think the main point is, there just aren't that many who fall into that category to warrant anywhere close to this level of discussion.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


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.


But how much easier is the question. I cannot imagine it would even make it any easier at all. A man who wants to assault or spy on a lady/man in a bathroom is going to be in that bathroom assaulting and spying regardless of any laws we enact. If he/she is in there doing something bad, then he/she will (hopefully) get arrested, just as it works now. If he/she isn't doing anything bad then it doesn't matter. Since he (or she), of course, is not doing anything bad.



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).


Uncomfortable to us, yes. But change is almost always uncomfortable. I'd say Trans people have likely been using the bathroom they felt like suited them beforehand, did they not?


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.


I personally prefer the logic and privacy of my own home. Public toilets are a necessity, but an awful necessity. I have had a distaste them since I was a small child, and it has not shrunk since then.

The places aren't really gender-specific though, are they? They're appearance specific.


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?


I'm all for a better solution. I personally don't even understand why this is an issue in the first place.


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.


The one issue with that solution is that it seems like it could make people a target for using those rooms. Still, it shouldn't be major.

Honestly, I feel like restrooms as they stand are designed in a way that minimizes privacy.
edit on 2/5/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

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'.


That sign doesn't mean gun owners aren't welcome - it's just saying that the guns themselves are not allowed.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

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.


well said.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

They're welcome. It's their gun that's not.

Another example, "no dogs."
Or "wear formal attire."
Or bicycle lanes.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I think this is the story I was referring to about the girl being beaten in the bathroom. Yes, it happened in the Women's room, but strangely it doesn't mention the man being dressed in drag (that last part was sarcasm BTW):
9 year old beaten
Here's a 6 year old assaulted in a Women's restroom, but it seems the man went in the wrong restroom, she screamed and he tried to stop her from screaming....she screamed because he was clearly a man, dressed as a man:
6 year old assaulted
Another 6 year old girl assaulted in a Women's restroom....by a man, dressed as a man:
6 year old assaulted, part 2

There's also quite a few stories about men molesting and raping boys in the Men's restroom. But, ya know, we wouldn't want to worry about that what with all the trannies running around accosting women and girls in the Women's restrooms. (again, sarcasm)




top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join