College Kids Can’t Explain Why a Short White Man Isn’t a Tall Asian Woman

[jmotivator]

I leave the camping area because most people want some privacy to pee or poop, even in your own home. But on top of this, it is a bad idea to do either of those things near your campsite. Plus it is generally considered polite since both smell. I wouldn't pee or poop near someone of my own gender out in the woods.

I have never been in a women's room that didn't have a door on the stall, even if the lock didn't work and you had to hold it closed with your foot. If you are seriously worried about people seeing you naked, you simply won't use that restroom. Go somewhere else. Maybe you should expect more out of restrooms you are in.

But see, there in lies the problem with your side of the argument, Roguenuke. To sum up so far: By saying that Transgender should be able to use the restroom they want we have a situation where the argument of equal protect dictates that the same consideration should be given to everyone, so hetero men would be given access to the women's room, and the men's room given access to hetero women. You seem fine with that. But that is where the logic problem starts.

In an effort to give transgender the access to their chosen gender bathroom we will end up eliminating gender bathrooms all together. This succeeds in not giving the 0.17% of people who are transgender what they actually want and forcing your preffered bathroom habits on everyone else who don't want it... even the ones you think you are defending. It's not like you can argue that genderless bathrooms would be fine with transgender people, gender identity seems pretty important to them...

The end result will be transgender people still peeing with non-transgender people of their same biological sex.

Typical outcome of the modern SJW movement: No "progress", only more confusion.

Some people may think the solution would be reserving one omni-gender bathroom for whoever wants to use it (easily meeting the accommodations of 0.17% of the population), but that is a no go because that is the precise accommodations that were just shot down by the 4th Circuit.

 

[Absentglare]

But see, there in lies the problem with your side of the argument, Roguenuke. To sum up so far: By saying that Transgender should be able to use the restroom they want we have a situation where the argument of equal protect dictates that the same consideration should be given to everyone, so hetero men would be given access to the women's room, and the men's room given access to hetero women. You seem fine with that. But that is where the logic problem starts.

In an effort to give transgender the access to their chosen gender bathroom we will end up eliminating gender bathrooms all together. This succeeds in not giving the 0.17% of people who are transgender what they actually want and forcing your preffered bathroom habits on everyone else who don't want it... even the ones you think you are defending. It's not like you can argue that genderless bathrooms would be fine with transgender people, gender identity seems pretty important to them...

The end result will be transgender people still peeing with non-transgender people of their same biological sex.

Typical outcome of the modern SJW movement: No "progress", only more confusion.

Some people may think the solution would be reserving one omni-gender bathroom for whoever wants to use it (easily meeting the accommodations of 0.17% of the population), but that is a no go because that is the precise accommodations that were just shot down by the 4th Circuit.

I think you are the only one confused here.

There's nothing confusing about when a parent joins a young child in EITHER bathroom. Bathroom gender signs should be treated as recommendations for courtesy, you may have heard of personal responsibility before, and i don't remember these bathroom nazis coming out in force against adults who bring children of an opposing gender into a public bathroom.

What the hell do you people do in public bathrooms anyway ? I have NEVER seen anyone else's genitals in any public restroom even though i use the urinals all the time.

Just go where you want. It's not like bathrooms give you a free pass to be an exhibitionist or a pervert. If everyone can keep their genitals to themselves in the bathroom, then it doesn't matter !!

 

[Kobie]

agree, the law, while stupid and rigid, is apparently designed to prevent issues where someone who is male, and looks male, claims they "identify" with being a woman so they can leer and ogle in a ladies' restroom

If someone like that walks into the men's restroom, assuming he didn't act any different than other dudes in the place, why would any man be concerned

now where the law is STUPID is that my wife would certainly be concerned if someone who looks like the person you posted walked into the ladies room

I'm curious where this rash of cases of such a thing occurring happened that a law was necessary.

 

[Kobie]

Well, three things:

1. Since his opening point was about gender use of restrooms before questioning each student, my gut feeling from watching their reactions is that their responses to subsequent examples were geared to prevent undercutting their original support for gender-neutral restrooms.

2. I wonder how many students he had to interview and weed out before coming up with these particular examples?

3. There were eight students total questioned. He asked six questions. Only one student answered all the questions in a P.C. way. One answered five that way. One answered four that way. Two answered three that way. One answered two that way. Two only answered the FIRST question about bathrooms in an "accepting" way.

Not a very comprehensive examination, nor one supportive of much concern for the videos main theme IMO.

That's why these videos are pretty much useless except for wingnuts to post them and then say "HA HA LOOK AT TEH STOOPID LIBZ!!!1" It's pointless mental masturbation, which many of this forum's conservatives have down to a science.

 

[roguenuke]

But see, there in lies the problem with your side of the argument, Roguenuke. To sum up so far: By saying that Transgender should be able to use the restroom they want we have a situation where the argument of equal protect dictates that the same consideration should be given to everyone, so hetero men would be given access to the women's room, and the men's room given access to hetero women. You seem fine with that. But that is where the logic problem starts.

In an effort to give transgender the access to their chosen gender bathroom we will end up eliminating gender bathrooms all together. This succeeds in not giving the 0.17% of people who are transgender what they actually want and forcing your preffered bathroom habits on everyone else who don't want it... even the ones you think you are defending. It's not like you can argue that genderless bathrooms would be fine with transgender people, gender identity seems pretty important to them...

The end result will be transgender people still peeing with non-transgender people of their same biological sex.

Typical outcome of the modern SJW movement: No "progress", only more confusion.

Some people may think the solution would be reserving one omni-gender bathroom for whoever wants to use it (easily meeting the accommodations of 0.17% of the population), but that is a no go because that is the precise accommodations that were just shot down by the 4th Circuit.

First the .17% number is the number of people who are on the sex offender list in NC, not the transgender population.

Second the vast majority of people are more comfortable using the restroom designated for their sex. This won't change in all likelihood. Plenty of people have the opportunity to use a different restroom and don't because of what we are used to doing.

Third, if it did change it would be more of a gradual thing happening in society. It won't be some sudden thing unless we just go to single stall rooms. This means that transgenders wouldn't likely be upset as a whole about the change.

 

[jmotivator]

First the .17% number is the number of people who are on the sex offender list in NC, not the transgender population.

The number is immaterial, it's low either way.

Second the vast majority of people are more comfortable using the restroom designated for their sex. This won't change in all likelihood. Plenty of people have the opportunity to use a different restroom and don't because of what we are used to doing.

Well no, they don't "have the opportunity" because people used have the right to question why they are in the wrong bathroom. In the new system you wouldn't be able to question them since now bathroom choice is a "right" and YOU should feel ashamed for asking them why they are in the bathroom designated for the opposite sex.

Third, if it did change it would be more of a gradual thing happening in society. It won't be some sudden thing unless we just go to single stall rooms. This means that transgenders wouldn't likely be upset as a whole about the change.

No, that isn't true at all. The way it has been argued for transgender, and the 4th circuit ruling, opens up all bathrooms to whoever wants to use them since bathroom choice is a "right" and we all enjoy equal protection. The signs on the bathroom doors are rendered null and void. Don't think for a moment that sex offenders aren't already keen on this decision.

Essentially the "gradual thing" is only as long as it takes people to realize the extent of this new found "right". You put too much trust in the controlling mechanism of cultural mores that this crusade specifically targets for destruction.

 

[jmotivator]

There's nothing confusing about when a parent joins a young child in EITHER bathroom.

What the hell are you talking about? Do mothers usually join their male children in the men's bathroom? Do fathers take their daughters into the women's room?

Bathroom gender signs should be treated as recommendations for courtesy

Hah! "Courtesy" you say. This whole idiotic movement doesn't know the first thing about "courtesy".

you may have heard of personal responsibility before, and i don't remember these bathroom nazis coming out in force against adults who bring children of an opposing gender into a public bathroom.

It depends on the age and it always has. A 3 or 4 year old has no clue what is going on, nor would the child every conceivably pose a threat to anyone. Now, if a mother decided to bring her 16 year old son into the women's room you better believe someone would say something.

What the hell do you people do in public bathrooms anyway ? I have NEVER seen anyone else's genitals in any public restroom even though i use the urinals all the time.

It's less about the chance accidental exposure than about the opening this poses for purposeful exposure and opportunity to peep.

Just go where you want. It's not like bathrooms give you a free pass to be an exhibitionist or a pervert.

It doesn't give you a "pass" but it gives you more opportunity and an unassailable excuse for being there in the first place. It's your "right" after all. :roll:

If everyone can keep their genitals to themselves in the bathroom, then it doesn't matter !!

But not everyone wants to.

 

[Absentglare]

What the hell are you talking about? Do mothers usually join their male children in the men's bathroom? Do fathers take their daughters into the women's room?

Of course, it is a completely normal thing.

Taking Opposite Gender Child in Public Restrooms | Potty Training Concepts

Hah! "Courtesy" you say. This whole idiotic movement doesn't know the first thing about "courtesy".

Big of you to admit that your movement doesn't understand courtesy.

It depends on the age and it always has. A 3 or 4 year old has no clue what is going on, nor would the child every conceivably pose a threat to anyone. Now, if a mother decided to bring her 16 year old son into the women's room you better believe someone would say something.

Sometimes the baby changing station is only in the women's room.

And no, most people have the courtesy to treat the bathroom with the privacy it deserves and overlook meaningless observations.

It's less about the chance accidental exposure than about the opening this poses for purposeful exposure and opportunity to peep.

So, it's an imaginary problem and it's a problem no matter the gender of either the viewed or the viewer. Why make a big fuss about someone who uses a bathroom and neither exposes themselves or peeps on another ...?

It doesn't give you a "pass" but it gives you more opportunity and an unassailable excuse for being there in the first place. It's your "right" after all. :roll:

No, it doesn't, no at all.

But not everyone wants to.

Which is a problem that has nothing to do with gender.

 

[roguenuke]

The number is immaterial, it's low either way.



Well no, they don't "have the opportunity" because people used have the right to question why they are in the wrong bathroom. In the new system you wouldn't be able to question them since now bathroom choice is a "right" and YOU should feel ashamed for asking them why they are in the bathroom designated for the opposite sex.



No, that isn't true at all. The way it has been argued for transgender, and the 4th circuit ruling, opens up all bathrooms to whoever wants to use them since bathroom choice is a "right" and we all enjoy equal protection. The signs on the bathroom doors are rendered null and void. Don't think for a moment that sex offenders aren't already keen on this decision.

Essentially the "gradual thing" is only as long as it takes people to realize the extent of this new found "right". You put too much trust in the controlling mechanism of cultural mores that this crusade specifically targets for destruction.

Most people have used the restroom they look like, even if they have differing plumbing. Of course public restrooms are a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of things anyway. Even if someone might not look like they belong, it would be rude in most cases to stop them.

It is only relatively recently that it became this huge issue, mainly because transgenders just started being able to switch within areas where people knew them as their birth gender. So that led to people discovering their existence (well that and the Internet), and it kinda of became a push and shove from there. But it all has been in just the last 30 years or so.

 

[Caine]

You mean like him:

According to these laws he must use the women's restroom, but I don't think there is anyone who less like they belong in the women's restroom.

According to which laws?

 

[Carjosse]

According to which laws?

The laws that say a trans-person must use the washroom of the gender they were assigned at birth. Believe it or not he was born a woman.

 

[jmotivator]

You mean like him:

According to these laws he must use the women's restroom, but I don't think there is anyone who less like they belong in the women's restroom.

That is a self defeating argument. Arguing that a woman pumped up on steroids and dressed like a man doesn't belong in the women's bathroom only underlines the reason why actual men don't belong in the women's bathroom.

The problem is that the 4th Circuit ruling essentially means that bathroom choice is a "right" and everyone belongs where they want to be. So an actual man that dresses like the woman in that picture can now use the women's room if he wants to.

 

[jmotivator]

Most people have used the restroom they look like, even if they have differing plumbing. Of course public restrooms are a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of things anyway. Even if someone might not look like they belong, it would be rude in most cases to stop them.

"In most cases"? Please elaborate. In what cases would it be appropriate?

It is only relatively recently that it became this huge issue, mainly because transgenders just started being able to switch within areas where people knew them as their birth gender. So that led to people discovering their existence (well that and the Internet), and it kinda of became a push and shove from there. But it all has been in just the last 30 years or so.

And?

 

[jmotivator]

Of course, it is a completely normal thing.

Taking Opposite Gender Child in Public Restrooms | Potty Training Concepts

Whoa, did you ever miss the point. I stated quite clearly that parents often take small children into the bathroom with them regardless of their sex. I stated that female parents take their kids to the women's room and men take their kids to the men's room.

We have this other thing in our country called "parental supervision" that seems foreign to you. But taking you child into the bathroom with you is only acceptable up to a certain age at which point the child needs to start going into the bathroom by themselves.

Big of you to admit that your movement doesn't understand courtesy.

Nah, it's your movement that doesn't understand courtesy, and you know that.

Sometimes the baby changing station is only in the women's room.

And? Are you suggesting a man use the women's room for the changing station?

And no, most people have the courtesy to treat the bathroom with the privacy it deserves and overlook meaningless observations.

If everyone treats the bathroom with privacy and "overlooks meaningless observations" then why can't transgender people use the bathroom meant for their biological sex? You are undermining your own argument. You can't argue something is a moral imperative and meaningless at the same time.

So, it's an imaginary problem and it's a problem no matter the gender of either the viewed or the viewer. Why make a big fuss about someone who uses a bathroom and neither exposes themselves or peeps on another ...?

No, it isn't an imaginary problem. In fact, the transgender issue that started this whole mess is an imaginary problem. They literally imagine they are the opposite sex.

No, it doesn't, no at all.

Hah, you are in denial. A sexual predator now has free access to the women's room by law.

Which is a problem that has nothing to do with gender.

Of course it does. The majority of sexual predators are men, and you support a standard that would give free access to the women's room by sexual predators. This is all the more beneficial to sexual predators given that the public bathrooms are the one place where security cameras are not allowed.

 

[ellesdee]

These laws are never going to stand. Either a transgender is going to get arrested just for peeing, and there's going to be a lawsuit, or some poor manly looking lady is going to find herself in the middle of an embarrassing scene where she is forced to prove she is a woman. Again, lawsuit...

Enjoy them while they last. These laws are doomed in the long run.

 

[ellesdee]

No, it isn't an imaginary problem. In fact, the transgender issue that started this whole mess is an imaginary problem. They literally imagine they are the opposite sex.

It's an imaginary problem because most transgenders have already been using the bathroom of the sex they identify with. It's very possible that you've been in the bathroom with one, probably moreso for women.

Hah, you are in denial. A sexual predator now has free access to the women's room by law.

They already have had that. Very few places in this country actually had stated laws forbidding men from entering the women's room. That in itself is simply not a crime.

 

[Carjosse]

That is a self defeating argument. Arguing that a woman pumped up on steroids and dressed like a man doesn't belong in the women's bathroom only underlines the reason why actual men don't belong in the women's bathroom.

The problem is that the 4th Circuit ruling essentially means that bathroom choice is a "right" and everyone belongs where they want to be. So an actual man that dresses like the woman in that picture can now use the women's room if he wants to.

No because he is not trans-gendered. The man in the picture is as male as you or I. Why do you care so much about where people go to the washroom?

 

[jmotivator]

It's an imaginary problem because most transgenders have already been using the bathroom of the sex they identify with. It's very possible that you've been in the bathroom with one, probably moreso for women.

And none of you seem to get that the issue is not really the transgender, it's the fact that accommodating transgender in sex-designated bathrooms eliminates sex designated bathrooms as matter of equal protection.

They already have had that. Very few places in this country actually had stated laws forbidding men from entering the women's room. That in itself is simply not a crime.

And nobody said it was a crime, but it was the prerogative of the private establishment, now it isn't. Nobody is claiming that the act of going into the bathroom of the opposite sex is the crime, only that it facilitates the committing of a crime.

 

[jmotivator]

No because he is not trans-gendered. The man in the picture is as male as you or I. Why do you care so much about where people go to the washroom?

Why do you care? You wouldn't be arguing a side if you didn't.

 

[Absentglare]

Whoa, did you ever miss the point. I stated quite clearly that parents often take small children into the bathroom with them regardless of their sex. I stated that female parents take their kids to the women's room and men take their kids to the men's room.

We have this other thing in our country called "parental supervision" that seems foreign to you. But taking you child into the bathroom with you is only acceptable up to a certain age at which point the child needs to start going into the bathroom by themselves.

A man can take his daughter into the women's room, and a mother can take her son into the men's room.

Nah, it's your movement that doesn't understand courtesy, and you know that.

Completely false, you're being dishonest here. The only reason this is an issue is because discourteous bigots cannot stand the thought of letting people choose to use public restrooms.

And? Are you suggesting a man use the women's room for the changing station?

Of course i am. You want a man to change a ****ing baby on a public mens restroom floor ?

If everyone treats the bathroom with privacy and "overlooks meaningless observations" then why can't transgender people use the bathroom meant for their biological sex? You are undermining your own argument. You can't argue something is a moral imperative and meaningless at the same time.

Ah- okay, i see the problem. You don't understand the difference between freedom and subservience to your commands when it comes to other people. Yes, other people want freedom to make their own choices, too, and they don't want you to make them on their behalf.

No, it isn't an imaginary problem. In fact, the transgender issue that started this whole mess is an imaginary problem. They literally imagine they are the opposite sex.

Nope, nothing imaginary about it. It sounds like you don't understand the difference between imaginary and subjective. If a nerve is pinched, i might feel pain- the pain is real, it is not imaginary (existing ONLY in imagination). It sounds like you are very ignorant on GID.

Hah, you are in denial. A sexual predator now has free access to the women's room by law.

You don't seem to understand how the laws work.

Of course it does. The majority of sexual predators are men, and you support a standard that would give free access to the women's room by sexual predators. This is all the more beneficial to sexual predators given that the public bathrooms are the one place where security cameras are not allowed.

This is, of course, complete bull****. You don't have a real argument, you're just redefining terms to strain justification for your prejudice. It's just absolutely pathetic, authoritarian blustering.

 

[Carjosse]

Why do you care? You wouldn't be arguing a side if you didn't.

I just want what causes the least amount of issues, which is letting transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. You seem to think that these laws will stop sexual predators from going into women's bathrooms.

 

[ellesdee]

And none of you seem to get that the issue is not really the transgender, it's the fact that accommodating transgender in sex-designated bathrooms eliminates sex designated bathrooms as matter of equal protection.

I think this issue is far more complex than either side is making it out to be. Obviously, some guidelines need to be created to ensure only transgenders enter into the bathroom they identify with. I don't support the idea that any man who claims to feel like a woman should be allowed in the woman's bathroom.

And nobody said it was a crime, but it was the prerogative of the private establishment, now it isn't. Nobody is claiming that the act of going into the bathroom of the opposite sex is the crime, only that it facilitates the committing of a crime.

But it's already been facilitated. There is and was nothing stopping a pervert from walking into a woman's bathroom.

I just don't understand the conservative logic. Do you actually want born-male transgenders who have completely transitioned to the opposite using the men's room, transgenders who are typically attracted to men?

 

[Caine]

I think this issue is far more complex than either side is making it out to be. Obviously, some guidelines need to be created to ensure only transgenders enter into the bathroom they identify with. I don't support the idea that any man who claims to feel like a woman should be allowed in the woman's bathroom.



But it's already been facilitated. There is and was nothing stopping a pervert from walking into a woman's bathroom.

I just don't understand the conservative logic. Do you actually want born-male transgenders who have completely transitioned to the opposite using the men's room, transgenders who are typically attracted to men?

Im perfectly okay with gay people in the bathroom with me... so...... yeah.