Chicago man chokes 8-year-old girl in public bathroom

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yet another case, and ye more denials that these new bathroom policies will cause any problems. Or, as some have stated, not enough of a percentage to care. I guess we are supposed to worry about confused people being assaulted for how they look, and not worry about children or women being assaulted, because, gee, it might happen anyway. Well, some trans person in the bathroom not matching their sex might get beat up, too.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yet another case, and ye more denials that these new bathroom policies will cause any problems. Or, as some have stated, not enough of a percentage to care. I guess we are supposed to worry about confused people being assaulted for how they look, and not worry about children or women being assaulted, because, gee, it might happen anyway. Well, some trans person in the bathroom not matching their sex might get beat up, too.

Exactly... If security in bathrooms is an issue, then we should be adding security guards...

There is literally no situation where this law is applied to a pervert. If you are caught for raping some one or perving out on children, that will be what you are charged with NOT a 500 bathroom fine. If you commit a dozen crimes. They do not charge you with all 12. They drop the small BS and stick it to you on the big charge.

So even in the worst case scenerio, this law will not apply.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yet another case, and ye more denials that these new bathroom policies will cause any problems. Or, as some have stated, not enough of a percentage to care. I guess we are supposed to worry about confused people being assaulted for how they look, and not worry about children or women being assaulted, because, gee, it might happen anyway. Well, some trans person in the bathroom not matching their sex might get beat up, too.

Exactly... If security in bathrooms is an issue, then we should be adding security guards...

There is literally no situation where this law is applied to a pervert. If you are caught for raping some one or perving out on children, that will be what you are charged with NOT a 500 bathroom fine. If you commit a dozen crimes. They do not charge you with all 12. They drop the small BS and stick it to you on the big charge.

So even in the worst case scenerio, this law will not apply.

Not sure where you are going with this - can you clarify?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He appears to be stating that if you were to for example, enter a bathroom and rape a child, you would not be charged with the lesser (potential) charges of entering a bathroom, public indecency, disturbing the peace and such, you will get charged with the more serious things such as sexual assault, rape, child molestation etc.

Ergo, these laws are not going to be applied in a fashion which prevents incidences of rape or will equate to charges. They will only be applied against innocent people, for example a transgender person just looking to go to the toilet.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yet another case, and ye more denials that these new bathroom policies will cause any problems. Or, as some have stated, not enough of a percentage to care. I guess we are supposed to worry about confused people being assaulted for how they look, and not worry about children or women being assaulted, because, gee, it might happen anyway. Well, some trans person in the bathroom not matching their sex might get beat up, too.

Exactly... If security in bathrooms is an issue, then we should be adding security guards...

There is literally no situation where this law is applied to a pervert. If you are caught for raping some one or perving out on children, that will be what you are charged with NOT a 500 bathroom fine. If you commit a dozen crimes. They do not charge you with all 12. They drop the small BS and stick it to you on the big charge.

So even in the worst case scenerio, this law will not apply.

Not sure where you are going with this - can you clarify?

The way the US legal system works is, they do not waste the time money and effort to prosecute mistermenors, when they have a major felony to charge you with.

Say you commit a murder, then flee from police when pursued. In that police pursuit, you would be speeding, evading arrest, reckless driving exc. but when the state charges you, it will ONLY BE FOR MURDER.

The time money and effort to prosecute a traffic infraction, just isn't worth it when compared to the murder charge. Besides, how do they pay their traffic fines, when they are in jail for decades for murder?? They can't.

So the state drops the minor charges and focuses on the major ones.

So even in the worst case situation imaginable,say a pervert dresses like a trans person then rapes some child in the bathroom. When he goes to court he will not be charged with both rape and being in the wrong bathroom. They will drop the minor bathroom charge, and focus on the rape.

If the offender cops a plea deal it will DEFINATELY be dropped as part of the deal.


So the ONLY people who will ever be charged with the NC bathroom law are random trans people who's only charge is the bathroom charge....aka some poor smuck who literally just needed to pee...


Oh by the way, won't this make using the wrong restroom for convienence illegal too... You know, it's a single room and the men's is taken or out of order, so you use the ladies instead... Now that's a criminal offense right?

originally posted by: LilFox
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He appears to be stating that if you were to for example, enter a bathroom and rape a child, you would not be charged with the lesser (potential) charges of entering a bathroom, public indecency, disturbing the peace and such, you will get charged with the more serious things such as sexual assault, rape, child molestation etc.

Ergo, these laws are not going to be applied in a fashion which prevents incidences of rape or will equate to charges. They will only be applied against innocent people, for example a transgender person just looking to go to the toilet.

My thanks, perfectly said, and a far underused counter point.

The human race is doomed, we have become so stupid, we really are just a big flock of sheep! Out of all the freedoms we should be fighting for we choose to fight over which ones chicks with dicks should have.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

1. This happened in Chicago, which, as far as I can tell does not have an anti-discrimination ordinance in place.
2. The perp in this tragic case was not transgender. Just a perv, being a perv, with uncontrollable perv urges who would have done exactly the same thing no matter what laws or regulations were in place.

This story has NOTHING to do with allowing transgendered human beings to use the restroom most closely aligned with their identity.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

1. This happened in Chicago, which, as far as I can tell does not have an anti-discrimination ordinance in place.
2. The perp in this tragic case was not transgender. Just a perv, being a perv, with uncontrollable perv urges who would have done exactly the same thing no matter what laws or regulations were in place.

This story has NOTHING to do with allowing transgendered human beings to use the restroom most closely aligned with their identity.

Welcome to right wing world...

originally posted by: eisegesis
There's only one solution,

Unsecured IP Body cameras for all!!

Mom or dad can link their cellphones to monitor the situation and set off an alarm if they feel their child is in danger. Sounds crazy, I know.

Just you wait...

How about striking the law down as Feds overreach is blatant regarding this "issue", and by what authority do they claim to have jurisdiction over bathrooms, let alone passing a "law" forcing their agenda and de facto compliance for the use of same? Single access water closets with door locks or a third restroom for those with lifestyles conflicting with birth gender would be acceptable, but not the Governments' call. They should never have jurisdiction over which bathrooms are used and by whom.

If I really had to go and the only restroom in range was at an elementary school in my neighborhood where I am taxed a levy for school funding, yet I was denied access due to having no child attending said school, why would it not be considered a hate crime? I am then being singled out; denied my 4th and 5th and probably 7th amendment rights, am I not?

Same with carpool lanes. Tax us for road building, use, maintenance, yet restrict use of lanes to anyone with less than 2 or 3 passengers, then charge variable tolls to then allow restricted users access to the lanes.

It reminds me of once after the 9-11 subsequent security acts when a friend and I were going to a concert in Canada but were running late due to having to gather documents that were now required to cross the border that were not needed before. I.e. Passport or birth certificate.

When the border guard commanded us to park and come inside because I started giving an address of a residence I had just moved from, then correcting myself to give the new address, which evidently along with the concert starting before we could make it to the show must have seemed suspicious to the guard.

Well, long story short, my friend's birth certificate and drivers license were one day difference, which he had not ever noticed and on top of that, he had a past felony conviction from 1968 for marijuana possession.

After tearing up the vehicle and delaying us for two hours, we were told that my friend could not enter Canada due to him being a felon. I could go through if I wished.

However, Should my friend pay $200.00, he could be issued a work visa and then enter Canada.

So, we had already missed the show, (tickets cost about $380.00), it was raining in torrents all night, the drive was long, the car was ransacked, the tickets cost was a total loss, and access to Canada was denied my felonious friend.

But, for two hundred dollars, he could regain his privilege to enter the great country of Canada on a work visa. A work visa to go to a concert?

As if I need to explain, we opted to turn around and not cross the border. Moreover, we were now required to stop at the Washington entry point, where we were asked if we had anything to declare.
After being detained once again, for a brief 10 minutes, which by that time seemed an eternity, we were allowed to continue our scenic drive of Washington state's I-5 corridor one dark, torrential rainy night.

Sorry to get off track. By the way, my vehicle door open buzzer sound has suddenly changed. Damned Mandela effect.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

1. This happened in Chicago, which, as far as I can tell does not have an anti-discrimination ordinance in place.
2. The perp in this tragic case was not transgender. Just a perv, being a perv, with uncontrollable perv urges who would have done exactly the same thing no matter what laws or regulations were in place.

This story has NOTHING to do with allowing transgendered human beings to use the restroom most closely aligned with their identity.

In Chicago, as has been stated by some who have been there/lived there, the standard these days, a lot of places, is to allow anyone in anywhere, law or no law. Clearly, that is having an effect, and denying this won't change the facts.

Irrelevant, and also, we don't know one way or the other. Under those standards, one wouldn't have to prove anything; a claim alone would be enough.

The story has everything to do with the whole trans bathroom issue, and everyone knows it.

originally posted by: Xabi87
The human race is doomed, we have become so stupid, we really are just a big flock of sheep! Out of all the freedoms we should be fighting for we choose to fight over which ones chicks with dicks should have.

Was this one directed at me? It's what popped up from the message notification.

Can't really argue with much of what you said. Too many people are far too malleable.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Alright, thanks for clarifying. The point is, it should be illegal to just waltz into whatever restroom one wants. A single use place, for an emergency; no one is going to complain.

Not sure I agree on your point, anyway. People are often charged for a serious crime along with a string of minor ones. Tends to get tougher sentences.

a reply to: LilFox

Yeah, I see that, but I disagree. There is no rule that lesser charges are dropped. People get charged with multiple offenses all the time. Evidence would be presented in the same trial.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

...
There is literally no situation where this law is applied to a pervert. If you are caught for raping some one or perving out on children, that will be what you are charged with NOT a 500 bathroom fine. If you commit a dozen crimes. They do not charge you with all 12. They drop the small BS and stick it to you on the big charge.

So even in the worst case scenerio, this law will not apply.

Except for the fact that this law/mandate would allow men, still with their male sexual parts in women's restrooms. These men are mentally confused, even thou they think they are a woman, they still have male sexual organs. Meanwhile not all would act upon their male hormones, remember that they are mentally confused about their sex. Not all transgenders are homosexual, or bisexual. Quite a few still like using their male parts for intercourse with women and minors.

Women and minors also have a right to feel secure in the restroom, in the locker rooms, etc and not have males with them when undressing or using a restroom.

Do you understand the problem yet, or not?

BTW, this law/mandate makes it easier for such perverts (not saying all transgenders, there are other perverts who are not trangenders who will use this mandate as well) to do their heinous acts including violence, or attempted rape etc.

Before this mandate, if there were people around and saw a man dressed as a woman, they would be stopped from entering women's restrooms. Now, anyone who tries to do this gets arrested, and a lawsuit against them...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: malevolent

no, but I am asking you just what do you think I was justifying? and yes, I agree that the mother (or FATHER) should have accompanied her into the bathroom. but then, if she was with her father and the only choice is women only and men only bathroom, we are back to either ignoring the signs, or sending her in alone, aren't we?

if it were my daughter at that age i would not let her go alone i would accompany her to a stall in the mens room so she could do her business with me there outside the stall when i know nothing could harm her. i dont have a daughter i do have 2 sons and they used the womans room with their mother several times cause i was at work and they had to shop.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Except for the fact that this law/mandate would allow men, still with their male sexual parts in women's restrooms.

There have been no laws which prevented that. Until very recently, in a very few locations.

Before this mandate, if there were people around and saw a man dressed as a woman, they would be stopped from entering women's restrooms.

Evidence? You think transexuals have not been using the "wrong" restrooms all this time?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

...
There is literally no situation where this law is applied to a pervert. If you are caught for raping some one or perving out on children, that will be what you are charged with NOT a 500 bathroom fine. If you commit a dozen crimes. They do not charge you with all 12. They drop the small BS and stick it to you on the big charge.

So even in the worst case scenerio, this law will not apply.

Except for the fact that this law/mandate would allow men, still with their male sexual parts in women's restrooms. These men are mentally confused, even thou they think they are a woman, they still have male sexual organs. Meanwhile not all would act upon their male hormones, remember that they are mentally confused about their sex. Not all transgenders are homosexual, or bisexual. Quite a few still like using their male parts for intercourse with women and minors.

Women and minors also have a right to feel secure in the restroom, in the locker rooms, etc and not have males with them when undressing or using a restroom.

Do you understand the problem yet, or not?

BTW, this law/mandate makes it easier for such perverts (not saying all transgenders, there are other perverts who are not trangenders who will use this mandate as well) to do their heinous acts including violence, or attempted rape etc.

Before this mandate, if there were people around and saw a man dressed as a woman, they would be stopped from entering women's restrooms. Now, anyone who tries to do this gets arrested, and a lawsuit against them...

I don't know what anything you just said has to do with ANYTHING....


Who would have stopped them from entering the bathroom???

A cop?

So would this mystery cop just allow someone to be assaulted while he watched, because "now assault is legal , since trans genders can use their bathroom of choice.."

No the cop would intervien..

You have no point at all, it is reaching so ridiculously far, it's pretty obvious you have some deep seeded hate for alternative life styles..

originally posted by: Phage

There have been no laws which prevented that. Until very recently, in a very few locations.

There were no laws either allowing it. It was common sense, women having their own private rooms for changing, and using restroom without people with male organs being in the same restroom, or locker.

originally posted by: Phage
Evidence? You think transexuals have not been using the "wrong" restrooms all this time?

Again, I made a distinction between transexuals who have had sex reassignment, and transexuals who still have their male organs. The majority of transexuals who have been using women's restrooms are those who have undergone sex reassignment surgery, or looked so much like women that no one noticed.

Now, everyone who "thinks they are a woman trapped in the body of a man including those who still have male sexual organs and look like men" by law can go into women's restrooms, locker rooms, and other female private areas.

Heck, they don't even have to state that "they think they are a woman" already there have been men dressed as women, and even some not dressing at all like women going into women's restrooms and simply stating "it is the law and it says I can do so"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There were no laws either allowing it.

Laws do not allow things.

Now, everyone who "thinks they are a woman trapped in the body of a man including those who still have male sexual organs and look like men" by law can go into women's restrooms, locker rooms, and other female private areas.

Just like they always have been able to. Unless, of course, you can provide an example of a law which had prohibited it.