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.

 

I've been doing some thinking. I'll accept transgender toilet rules on 1 condition.

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I didn't think it could get more stupid.

I was wrong.




posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: fandancego

Now that's not a bad idea at all



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Actually, you are missing the point. Its not someone pretending to be a woman to take little girls to the restroom. Its the man who walks in behind them that is the danger. My concern is not about the trans gender people. Its about the predators who will pretend to be trans-gender people and use these rules to gain easy access to victims they would otherwise not have had access to. Please understand the difference.

As for reports of trans-gendered person attacking someone in a restroom, I don't know if there are reports or not. I don't care if the person attacking someone in a restroom is transgender or not. I don't want it to happen and I won't do anything to make it easier for the bad guys - like telling them its ok to enter a girls restroom.


I understand, have you honestly seen what some of these ladies do to present as a female, it is amazing. Some 6'2" unshaven ass is not going to present as female. Vroom you are not thinking about this in the right way, emotion is messing with you man.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: fandancego
How about this? Cis males to go cis male washroom. Cis female go to cis female washroom. Transgenders go to transgender washroom. If transgender women get attacked by transgender men in washroom, then, well, that's not other people's fault.



Too many complications.
How bout trans people aren't into attacking anyone, who's going to know who's who, if trans women look just as feminine (usually more feminin) than regular women.
If one looks like a woman - woman's restroom.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I have an idea. We should have 4 washrooms. One for cis males. One for cis females. One for trans males. One for trans females. Cic males can only go to cis male washroom. Cis female can only go to cis female washroom. Trans males can go to either trans male washroom or trans female washroom, depending on what gender they are that particular day. Trans females can go to either trans male washroom or trans female washroom, depending on what gender they are that particular day. BUT, trans cannot go to cis washrooms. Sounds fair?



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: fandancego
Under Obama's guideline, men can go to women washroom without a sex change, right? That means sexual predators would be able to waltz in there unrestricted?


Go away dick weed



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Can't we just bring back don't ask don't tell. But just for this bathroom issue.

No one should be trying to check out genitalia or birth certificates.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: fandancego

I have a better idea. One bathroom for men. One bathroom for women. One bathroom for idiots, bigots, the paranoid and transphobes.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Freija

None of these groups are mutually exclusive. I am both a member of ACU and ACLU. I am both a conservative and a civil rights activist.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

Parents name their babies based on the babies sex and therefore gender. Are you implying parents don't name their babies. Let their babies name themselves after they determine their own gender?



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
For the guys here, have you ever seen someone wave their junk in the air in the men's room, just a query, because I haven't.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: fandancego
a reply to: snowspirit

Parents name their babies based on the babies sex and therefore gender. Are you implying parents don't name their babies. Let their babies name themselves after they determine their own gender?


That doesn't make sense. There are many gender neutral names.
I'm implying that we cannot tell if someone is trans anything by their looks.
If one looks female - use the women's restroom.
edit on 24-2-2017 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2017 by snowspirit because: Wrong "there"

edit on 24-2-2017 by snowspirit because: More spelling



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

Looks is subjective. How about Jackie Evancho's sister. She has a man's voice.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: PageLC14
a reply to: fandancego

Now that's not a bad idea at all

Yes it is.

To hell with my tax dollars going to funding new bathrooms for every Tom, Dick and Harry who identifies themselves as something new.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: fandancego
I have an idea. We should have 4 washrooms. One for cis males. One for cis females. One for trans males. One for trans females. Cic males can only go to cis male washroom. Cis female can only go to cis female washroom. Trans males can go to either trans male washroom or trans female washroom, depending on what gender they are that particular day. Trans females can go to either trans male washroom or trans female washroom, depending on what gender they are that particular day. BUT, trans cannot go to cis washrooms. Sounds fair?

Sounds stupid.

The obvious solutions are either, a men's room and a women's room or, coed rooms for everyone, like I've experienced in parts of Europe.

I wonder if people understand how stupid all this sounds. Talk about first world problems. Building new bathrooms for Cis females? How about not. Most countries don't have the resources to contemplate such stupidity. How about new bathrooms for people with three nipples. Maybe they get offended around all us dual-nipple folk. Maybe new locker rooms for fat people who get offended by us good looking skinny people. Why not new swimming pools for those up us who prefer swimming naked? Why are naturalists always disrespected? Problem is when you start catering to emotions and little tiny pockets of the minority, it won't stop. There's always something new to bitch about. Start building new bathrooms and you'll continue building new bathrooms as someone else will invent something else to be offended by.
edit on 25-2-2017 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Your rant is garbage.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: fandancego

Just a few pointers for you, OP:


Boys bodies are disgusting.
This is a very subjective viewpoint. Many people of both sexes find the human body to be beautiful, others find them both disgusting and every which way in between. Also, if you're insinuating that men are more unclean in bathrooms, I can straight up tell you from a janitorial perspective you are incorrect. They DO, however, need to wash their hands more.


The though(t) of penis in their washroom also disgusts women.
This is also quite subjective. While of course there are females that don't like the thought of that, there are many who couldn't care less and others still who would welcome it.


Men are perverts. Women are not.
Couldn't be more wrong on this one, but I also thought this when I was young and it came as a shock to me. I have known my share of ladies who would make many a man blush with their sexual fantasies. Many I have known have told me they check out a guy's pants immediately upon meeting them. I know some who are in kinky groups for their own reasons. Several I have known say they think about penises all the live long day.


Men have 1 X chromosome. They cannot mask genetic diseases. Women have 2 X chromosomes. They can mask genetic diseases.

The article you provide states that women mask some diseases better and is primarily about autism. It's making the statement that females have more natural social skills due to social expectation and thus are not as likely to show autistic behavior. Not that they have some genetic ability to excuse them from the disorder.


If we allow men to go to women's washrooms, then why don't we also allow men to sexually assault women?

What you've done here is beautifully illustrate a couple logical fallacies in one sentence. The statement suggests a slippery slope as well as moral equivalency. These are two vastly distinct ideas with a strong ethical difference.


I can chat to a girl for a few minutes and claim to know her.
Nope. Not sure where you're coming from on this one, but in a court of law, no one would buy for a minute that someone could "know" another person after a short initial chat. The information that most molestation cases come from someone they know is from someone within the victim's environment. Often family or friends with co-workers being right up there as well.


Progressives also don't punish criminals.
This is wrong. You know this is wrong. I think there's a lot of people in prison that would highly disagree with this statement. Wealth, however, has a strong influence on prosecution if that helps.

I'm making these replies to help you give some thought to the ideas that you've formed in your mind and not to deride you. Take the time to really reflect on your notions and how you might just need to adjust some of them. We get a lot of information fed to us through different means and it's easy to glean the wrong ideas. It's ok to restructure now and then.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Actually, you are missing the point. Its not someone pretending to be a woman to take little girls to the restroom. Its the man who walks in behind them that is the danger. My concern is not about the trans gender people. Its about the predators who will pretend to be trans-gender people and use these rules to gain easy access to victims they would otherwise not have had access to. Please understand the difference.

As for reports of trans-gendered person attacking someone in a restroom, I don't know if there are reports or not. I don't care if the person attacking someone in a restroom is transgender or not. I don't want it to happen and I won't do anything to make it easier for the bad guys - like telling them its ok to enter a girls restroom.


I understand, have you honestly seen what some of these ladies do to present as a female, it is amazing. Some 6'2" unshaven ass is not going to present as female. Vroom you are not thinking about this in the right way, emotion is messing with you man.


You say you understand, then immediately turn left and miss it.

My opinion is NOT about trans people looking and acting the part. It is NOT about trans people AT ALL. For those thinking I am bashing or afraid or whatever, guess again. It is NOT about the trans gender people. It IS about the pervert pedophiles and rapists who will use this free pass to the girls restroom as a way in. Honestly, do you guys even read the posts before answering?

And yes, I understand that there are no reports of trans people having committed crimes. I looked in to that. The FBI crime statistics are sorted by an astounding number of filters. By geographic area, population, age, race, ethnicity, etc. All sorts of tracking and sorting filters are used. But trans-gender is not one of them. I did not see one table of data that had separated trans-gender statistics. The FBI only tracks by actual gender, not self-identified gender. link As such, it would make sense that there are no records of trans-gender assaults on file since that data is not used to classify the crime in any way. So it could be happening but not tracked by that particular filter.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Only if we abandon judgement in favour of mercy.

If we still consider ourselves worthy to judge others, then we are sinning to do so, and if anything, our sin is greater, because we fancy ourselves to do it in the name of Christ, which is an abominable thing to suggest.

Do not elevate yourself to the level of Christ, or of God. Do not make judgement. Bring compassion only, not wrath.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel



My opinion is NOT about trans people looking and acting the part. It is NOT about trans people AT ALL. For those thinking I am bashing or afraid or whatever, guess again. It is NOT about the trans gender people. It IS about the pervert pedophiles and rapists who will use this free pass to the girls restroom as a way in. Honestly, do you guys even read the posts before answering?



You talk as though these non-discrimination laws all of a sudden make it legal for a man to rape someone in the women's room. It's still against the law to rape someone. A man who wanted to slip into the bathroom to rape someone could have dressed up like a woman before any non-discrimination law. There are some manly women out there who were born women. There are rapists who could dress up to look like a manly woman. All this could happen regardless of any non-discrimination law.

The fact is, non-discrimination laws to protect transgender people aren't going to make it any easier than it already is for a predator to do what a predator does.

This propaganda of "our wimmin folk are in danger" has been spun by the religious right leaders, and you guys have fallen for it. I saw something on my facebook feed today that was a quote, "it's not about bathrooms just like it wasn't about water fountains". It's not about any imaginary dangers. It's really about the religious right not wanting to legitimize the transgender population. It's about keeping trans people on the outside.




top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join