Republicans have the bathroom issue backwards

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Unity_99

Give transgenders their own bathroom, it can be small, with a locking door.

And cold.
And dark.
A locking door to lock them in?

No, the only shared bathrooms I've seen so far are the little one toilet numbers, and they have locking doors, with lineups outside them often.

That is the kind of thing that 1% of the population might expect.

originally posted by: Unity_99
Anyone that puts men in a womans bathroom is committing massive crimes. The issue isn't really about transgenders since the ones that look like women already use the women's restroom and aren't a danger to your daughters.

I would personally like to see groups of very large crowds with tire irons to permanently quell this Satanic Elite BS.

This endangers women and its not about the transgenders, its about strange men, who most women don't feel safe around to begin with, having access to your daughters and it means women be forced to piss themselves in public.

This is an enormous safety issue that ENDS NOW!

If you want to have a special transgender bathroom by all means go for it, but that makes 3 washrooms, not one or two shared ones.

The only shared ones in Canada, have a locking door, and they're one toilet, which only works in small places.

On a busy night in a busy bar, I have been privy (bad pun) to women using the men's, many a time. How is the issue safety, when many women (not trans) choose to use the men's room nightly without issue?
And by your same argument, should I not worry for the women who chose to use the gent's because the line is shorter?

What is your argument exactly?

By the way, what some of us actually get concerning this issue is its a hidden sharia one, trying to penalize women and children in public. Because we know what the leaders are up to. And they are not going to win against humanity who is awake on this.

And in the meantime, will be armed in bathrooms and suggest people set up guards, big strong butch women with pitbulls and tire irons if needed to protect the children and women. There is no man walking in any of our bathrooms.

These ordinances are completely illegal and treason and violate the constitution.

a reply to: Unity_99

By the way, what some of us actually get concerning this issue is its a hidden sharia one, trying to penalize women and children in public.

Ah yes. Sharia is known for it's liberal stances on sexuality.

originally posted by: Unity_99
By the way, what some of us actually get concerning this issue is its a hidden sharia one, trying to penalize women and children in public. Because we know what the leaders are up to. And they are not going to win against humanity who is awake on this.

And in the meantime, will be armed in bathrooms and suggest people set up guards, big strong butch women with pitbulls and tire irons if needed to protect the children and women. There is no man walking in any of our bathrooms.

These ordinances are completely illegal and treason and violate the constitution.

Very good. Us men should do the same in protecting our bathrooms right?
It's my understanding that due to the repeal of separate but equal laws, that bathroom gender in the states is a suggestion not enforceable by law. Not sure how the new laws play, but maybe I should take it to the courts. It's a shame to see anyone suffering due to long lines for the facilities.

a reply to: Unity_99

But but but, transgender folk are already using bathrooms unnoticed in most cases.

This is a non issue really, because there have been no problems that I recall making it into the news.

This is a pure retaliatory backlash because of the gay marriage thing.

And yes, creepy men need to be kept out of ladies toilets. That is a separate issue, unrelated to transgenderism. And I'm sure a transgender person would help any lady that screamed for help should something happen and they were present.

Let's make them gang unisex toilets. Anyone can use either one they like, no excuses needed, and the ladies just have to get over the concept of the ladies' as an unassailable hiding place.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: CoBaZ

This is what I'm talking about, this kind of logic makes sense. Go to the bathroom with the people who look like you. That would be legislation that I could see the point of. I might not agree, but I might on the other hand.

I really don't think butch lesbians are going to agree with that.

They are female. They are not trying to be a man. They may dress in men style clothing, but they are not a man.

Most of the time though, even the "Butch" lesbians still look like women. May not be my cup of Tea style women but they are still identifiable as women.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Let's make them gang unisex toilets. Anyone can use either one they like, no excuses needed, and the ladies just have to get over the concept of the ladies' as an unassailable hiding place.

But then where will they go to talk about the men?
Cuz you know that's what they're doing. Right?

originally posted by: Unity_99
By the way, what some of us actually get concerning this issue is its a hidden sharia one, trying to penalize women and children in public. Because we know what the leaders are up to. And they are not going to win against humanity who is awake on this.

Wow man. I'm at a loss for words on that one. The secret Sharia Agenda against Women and Children, huh?

If you believe that there isn't any point in having a logical conversation about this anymore. You've walked way off the map at this point and I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Is that like some kind of new Conservative Conspiracy Theory that I haven't heard of yet??? Or are you just combining a couple theories in to one all on your own here??

originally posted by: markosity1973
And yes, creepy men need to be kept out of ladies toilets. That is a separate issue, unrelated to transgenderism. And I'm sure a transgender person would help any lady that screamed for help should something happen and they were present.

You're right. It might actually be helpful having a Trans person around during an attack if it happened.

I don't think they understand the situation or understand anything at all about Trans/Gay/etc. That is where all the paranoia is from.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Bedlam
Let's make them gang unisex toilets. Anyone can use either one they like, no excuses needed, and the ladies just have to get over the concept of the ladies' as an unassailable hiding place.

But then will they go to talk about the men?
Cuz you know that's what they're doing. Right?

Poor dears will just have to suffer. And put down their own toilet seats.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Unity_99


"This is a pure retaliatory backlash because of the gay marriage thing."

Could not have said it better myself, the whole issue arises from gays getting privileges because they "feel someway" and they (transgenders) also want that special treatment now that there is precedent for it.

You know... "for equal treatment".

This is the main type of problem that was anticipated when the law passed.


And to the OP, I completely understand what you are saying. Now there is no "politically correct" way to make a medical determination in the case that there are psychological problems involved.

Feelings are now a more logical base than science, sadly.

a reply to: efabian
No.
There is no special treatment.

originally posted by: efabian

Could not have said it better myself, the whole issue arises from gays getting privileges because they "feel someway" and they (transgenders) also want that special treatment now that there is precedent for it.

Really??? What special privileges did those Gays get??? I thought they were just getting what other people already had. That's not making anyone special. Giving them what others already had access to makes everyone the same and nobody special.

a reply to: mOjOm


Note I mention "because they feel someway", I am not against the gays having the privilege of marriage.


The problem is rather the "base" that was used to justify the case to the supreme court. Perceptions are not standardizable, ergo they can not be used as factual evidence when an argument is being made to the courts.


Oh and edit:

The interpretation of the constitution was rather clear in this issue, ergo having feelings to be a justified base to amend the interpretation of the constitution is a little flawed. (Unless you adopt the progressivism stance)

a reply to: efabian

I still don't get why anyone's feelings matter in the first place.

They are allowed to marry just like any other adult person. The same now applies to Gay People as it does for Straight People. Nobody gets anything special.

Before they were allowed to marry however, straight people were getting something special which was the ability to marry someone else. Now they are the same.

I see it as nobody gets to be special now and get what others get. What's wrong with that???

a reply to: mOjOm


Note the edit at the end of my last post, you answered before I could send it.


I understand what you are saying, but the rule of the law is rather strict when it comes to logical base as a tool for validating arguments. I am just stating the precedent made by doing this decision.


Edit:
And the OP is just the first of many legal issues that are likely to come in the following years.

a reply to: efabian

And the OP is just the first of many legal issues that are likely to come in the following years.

No doubt.
Civil rights issues have always involved legal issues. That's pretty obvious.

a reply to: efabian

I understand. You're saying "feelings" aren't a justifiable argument for modifying constitutional laws. Right??

Because I'm saying there is no need for that to be the base of the argument anyway. It's a simple matter of equal treatment under the law. Two adults of marrying age wanting to marry each other legally should be allowed for any two adults of marrying age. We don't stop them if they're mixed race or one is a virgin and the other isn't or if one has kids or one has no legs or anything else. Not legally anyway. Religiously it's up to the Church what they want to do. But legally as long as the requirements are met it's a go. It's just that simple.