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.

 

Republicans have the bathroom issue backwards

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I see what you're saying.

I just read those Breitbart reports and none of them include anything about these guys using this new law as some loophole though.

They were just typical pervs getting caught doing some illegal perv stuff like any other day. This new law didn't get them special access or anything new.

I'm not saying that it's not possible for someone to try and use it as some kind of loophole. But as of yet I still don't see an example of it.




posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain
Is it ok for lesbians to ogle other females?
edit on 5/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain


actually my concern isn't "male on male" incidents.
And yet, you felt it relevant to say this:

FYI...the guy on the council that helped spearhead the first law, is a registered sex offender. Thought it interesting.


I thought it interesting. Don't you?. Irrespective of its relevance?

Lighten up a little man.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain
Is it ok for lesbians to ogle other females?


Phage, you keep going on tangents.

And I don't know what your interpretation of "ogle" is.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I see what you're saying.

I just read those Breitbart reports and none of them include anything about these guys using this new law as some loophole though.

They were just typical pervs getting caught doing some illegal perv stuff like any other day. This new law didn't get them special access or anything new.

I'm not saying that it's not possible for someone to try and use it as some kind of loophole. But as of yet I still don't see an example of it.


Right. i didnt list them as an example pertaining to the NC laws.

But imagine for a second every state adopting a law, where any male can claim he is a female to gain access to " facilities".

Based on mere data, what would be the likely logical conclusion? An increase or decrease in these incidents?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Phage, you keep going on tangents.

And I don't know what your interpretation of "ogle" is.
It is not a tangent. It is more pertinent than your statement about one of the drafters of the Charlotte law.

Ogle
stare at in a lecherous manner.
 




But imagine for a second every state adopting a law, where any male can claim he is a female to gain access to " facilities".

What has prevented them from doing so in the past? When there were no laws about it?

edit on 5/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




But imagine for a second every state adopting a law, where any male can claim he is a female to gain access to " facilities".

What has prevented them from doing so in the past?


None. But now they have plausible deniability. You have to agree, or must accept the logical conclusion, that a law which makes gender claims and ID more "fluid"...to enter facilities...will only increase the number of incidents.

Right? How is that so off base?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
and can you STOP EDITING your posts, post reply from me?????

lol

stop it!



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


In the past you at least had to look like a woman, in that scenario you can be the most masculine guy in the world and claim access.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

No I can see where you're going with this. It has some merit to it too. I can see some very persistent pervs trying to use this as some kind of loophole to gain Legal access to certain places based on them lying about being in transition of gender when they really aren't. It's not just possible, but knowing humanity it's actually probable.

But I also don't think it's going to be all that simple either. It's going to take more than just putting on a dress and high heels and saying you feel like a women to pull that off. The risk of trying something like that isn't much different than it was I don't think. Sure it might be technically legal to go in the opposite sex facilities, but only if you actually belong there.

By belong there I mean, all it's going to take is someone not being sure if you should be there or not to put you in a position of having to prove yourself. I think people will know the difference between some perv in dress up and an actual Trans gender person. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit in figuring that out, but I guess time will tell.

On the flip side however. I know a Trans Guy, born a woman. He's a man. Not born one but in every possible way the guy is a dude. Has a wife. Likes Women. Looks like a man. Acts like a man. Wouldn't know he wasn't a man unless he told you. In no way should that guy be forced in to a ladies room based on his birth gender. That would be extremely weird for everyone involved. That's where this gets tricky and I think it's best to allow people to figure it out themselves.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




But now they have plausible deniability.

No. Wearing a dress does not make one a transexual and there is no plausible deniability if a crime is committed.


You have to agree, or must accept the logical conclusion, that a law which makes gender claims and ID more "fluid"...to enter facilities...will only increase the number of incidents.
No. I don't agree that it will. I don't know if it will. Nor do I agree that the chance that it might justifies unequal treatment.

The notion that entering the "wrong" restroom is a criminal activity in and of itself is absurd.

edit on 5/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: efabian
a reply to: Phage


In the past you at least had to look like a woman, in that scenario you can be the most masculine guy in the world and claim access.



Which probably wouldn't go over well with the Women INSIDE the "facilities".

Which begs another question. How come it seems that the demographic CENTRAL to this debate, are trannies (which are roughly 0.3% ) of the entire population...and MEN??

How come nobody seems to care what women and girls think, the people actually IN the facilities???


edit on 377am3103America/Chicago15CDT03America/Chicago by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain


How come it seems that the demographic CENTRAL to this debate, are trannies (which are roughly 0.3% ) of the entire population...and MEN??
There are no transmen? This law does not affect females?




How come nobody seems to care what women and girls think, the people actually IN the facilities???

Mostly because what some people may think doesn't have much to do with equal treatment.

But you know, I asked my daughter about this a while back. She said it might feel sort of weird but she also understood the other point of view.
edit on 5/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Like you said, I think you're giving us humans too much credit.

I've seen enough of "us" to know it only gets worse and the worst OF us will take every inch they can get to make things a reality.

And sexual deviants stop at nothing, they are relentless



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




And sexual deviants stop at nothing, they are relentless

And again, why have they not used this ploy in the past?

If a crime is committed (excluding the "crime" of entering the wrong restroom) there is no "plausible deniability."



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
How come it seems that the demographic CENTRAL to this debate, are trannies (which are roughly 0.3% ) of the entire population...and MEN??


That can be used both ways though.

What percentage of the population are pervy males who will try and use this as a loophole???

So making that a central part of the debate isn't valid if the percentage of trans number isn't important enough based on how low it is.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




But now they have plausible deniability.

No. Wearing a dress does not make one a transexual and there is no plausible deniability if a crime is committed.


You have to agree, or must accept the logical conclusion, that a law which makes gender claims and ID more "fluid"...to enter facilities...will only increase the number of incidents.
No. I don't agree that it will. I don't know if it will. Nor do I agree that the chance that it might justifies unequal treatment.

The notion that entering the "wrong" restroom is a criminal activity in and of itself is absurd.


Wearing a dress, a wig, etc. are all the commonalities of a pre-op "transitional" transsexuals.

Outside of having a note from a Doctor, it literally is just a man playing dress up and giving an illusion of being female.

so what...are we going to have to ask for notes from doctors to PROVE it.

and what about transexuals that can't afford to go the full way, or look feminine.

see how silly this all gets overnight?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




so what...are we going to have to ask for notes from doctors to PROVE it.

So what are you going to do? View everyone's birth certificate before they enter a restroom?


see how silly this all gets overnight?
Yes. Very silly.

edit on 5/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

Like you said, I think you're giving us humans too much credit.


You might be correct. I might be way off in my judgement here. I don't think so, but it's possible I guess.

I'm all for letting it play out and see what happens. Then we'll know for sure who's right and who's not.

That may sound bad but I don't think it will be any different than it was before. I think those who act illegally will be the same as it was and it will make no difference at all. I don't think this is enough for anyone to exploit in to anything they can't already do. Those who try will be caught all the same without it helping them. Because the legal protection only matters in court or in legal battles and that will have to be proven anyway. The reason pervs get caught is because people are the first to notice them or not notice them and people don't care about the law if they think someone is a perv. They won't care what the law is if someone acts in a way that seems suspect.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




so what...are we going to have to ask for notes from doctors to PROVE it.

So what are you going to do? View everyone's birth certificate before they enter a restroom?


see how silly this all gets overnight?
Yes. Very silly.


I've already stated that BOTH sides are ridiculous.




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join