Do Men Have a Right to Use Female Dressing Rooms / Bathrooms?

[noonereal]

No, I'm not familiar with it but I did see Johnny Cash in concert as a young kid. I can barely remember it.

OK, I has a story to share if there were a connection. Very cool you saw the man in black.

 

[The Baron]

No, it's not common sense. If you cant articulate a reason why it would become more prevalent than in the past, you dont have an argument.

Your inability to grasp common sense is not a lack of an argument on my part. If you refuse to acknowledge that there are differences in men and women then I can't help you. If you can't understand the very simple logic of minimizing potential problems for women and children they reason may not be for you.

Good example. The change in rules about gays adopting was based on the accumulation of research and studies of children who grew up in gay household and no negative effects different from those in straight homes was found to be significant. It has nothing to do with being 'equal', it has to do with no harm was found.

Unadulterated bull$h!t. Homosexual advocacy groups have been using convenience samples to advance their agenda since the days of Evelyn Hooker.

I seem to have just invalidated this. There's no difference in any treatment/results in the example you provided, no 'suffering.'

Exposing the Schlock Social Science on Gay Parenting—Part 1 | National Review

The mainstream academic journal Social Science Research has just published two articles that expose and challenge the schlock social science on gay parenting that has been uncritically embraced and…

www.nationalreview.com

Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but research draws fire from experts

Joint statement from advocacy groups calls study a "flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents;" author defends his study

www.cbsnews.com

And a potential threat, as you write, would be someone that might attack or harrass in the restrooms. This is a basic premise of the OP. Otherwise, what are the concerns?

Correct that is the basic premise. Men (or women) exposing themselves to to those of the opposite sex and / or children has always been considered "sick" and criminal.

And still you wish to change this because...?

And again, you'd have to demonstrate that there would be more 'threats' to restroom users from trans people than harmful acts that have actually occurred in the past. Men have always used restrooms to corner and rape women...why do you think that some companies/businesses require a key for their restrooms? But I dont see any foundation for increased threats...what have you got?

You really should read this stuff before you post it. You've just stated that I would need to demonstrate that there would be more threats to restroom users (which I don't) and then go on to note that men have always used restrooms to corner and rape women.

You then drive your point home by saying "why do you think that some companies/businesses require a key for their restrooms?".

I dare say it is for the exact same reason I've been stating all along!

As many have discussed here, that's very subjective.

It is subjective and so what? You don't like my sense of "decency". I don't like yours.

The quesetion: "Why? Wouldnt men/women attracted to that same sex 'ogle?" hey, I'm happy to say they didnt...and then for the same reason, not assume trans people would either. So then, why do you?"

In the past, gay men would always been able to ogle or proposition straight men in same sex restrooms. Same for lesbians and straight women.

Why wasnt this ever a concern? It's the same type of sexual harassment or the potential for more, that is being attributed to trans people in restrooms.

I think your assuming it was never a concern but that is simply an assumption on your part and not grounded in anything more.

Having said that, it has never been a concern for me--probably having something to do with the fact that I don't live in gay-friendly metropolitan areas (I can't think of a better way to phrase that) nor do I visit gay "hang-outs) (bars, etc. Again, I can't think of a better way to phrase that).

But even my experience is inconsequential.

Perhaps there is a part of this issue you have not realized. Opening up female restrooms, locker rooms, etc. to trans-men is tantamount to opening up female restrooms, locker rooms, etc. to all men.

 

[The Baron]

LOL, this is not the case, not the case at all. In fact, this statement is ridiculous.

BTW, I have a BS as well (Economic/Finance) and I am a student of psychology.

If you have a BS degree then you know that psychology is not a real science like engineering.

How are men and women different in reference to the biology of consumptions and waste expulsion?

And still there are differences between men and women...I swear it.

With all respect, your post is simply wrong, again.

Oh, please! That's not even possible!

 

[noonereal]

And still there are differences between men and women...I swear it.

then why can't you explain them.

LOL

Psychology is a science because it follows the empirical method.

peace brother

 

[noonereal]

Your inability to grasp common sense is not a lack of an argument on my part.

Of course it is.

Common sense is nothing but mutually agreed judgment. As you and the poster you are responding to do not agree, it is not common sense.

Common sense enjoys no universality. In fact, it is rather subjective.

This is why this sentence really struck me. You had just offer your degree in engineering as proof that you were objective in analysis. This sentence is of course a direct contradiction of that statement.

 

[Lursa]

Your inability to grasp common sense is not a lack of an argument on my part. If you refuse to acknowledge that there are differences in men and women then I can't help you. If you can't understand the very simple logic of minimizing potential problems for women and children they reason may not be for you.

You reiterating your past post with no articulated foundation is worthless. Why are you reducing yourself to such low standards of posting?

Unadulterated bull$h!t. Homosexual advocacy groups have been using convenience samples to advance their agenda since the days of Evelyn Hooker.

Exposing the Schlock Social Science on Gay Parenting—Part 1 | National Review

The mainstream academic journal Social Science Research has just published two articles that expose and challenge the schlock social science on gay parenting that has been uncritically embraced and…

www.nationalreview.com

Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but research draws fire from experts

Joint statement from advocacy groups calls study a "flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents;" author defends his study

www.cbsnews.com

LOL you should have read your links. The great majority of studies claims no difference. There are way more studies that show this and we rolled them out constantly during the SSM debates.

Correct that is the basic premise. Men (or women) exposing themselves to to those of the opposite sex and / or children has always been considered "sick" and criminal.

Why are we focusing on kids all of a sudden? And common behavior in restrooms is not 'exposing' oneself.

If there is overt offensive behavior, harassment, attacking, let's see it.

And still you wish to change this because...?

You really should read this stuff before you post it. You've just stated that I would need to demonstrate that there would be more threats to restroom users (which I don't) and then go on to note that men have always used restrooms to corner and rape women.

You then drive your point home by saying "why do you think that some companies/businesses require a key for their restrooms?".

I dare say it is for the exact same reason I've been stating all along!

Yes, and yet you cant connect the dots? The behavior has always been a problem...so where is there any indication that it will be increased now with trans people?

It is subjective and so what? You don't like my sense of "decency". I don't like yours.

Yet this is about imposing subjective opinion on others.

I think your assuming it was never a concern but that is simply an assumption on your part and not grounded in anything more.

I have no data but since it was never revealed publicly, in the media, as an issue, etc...my guess is that it wasnt an issue that triggered the people involved. (And it would have existed for centuries...British prep schools didnt even worry about it...it was just common knowledge and not made a big deal of.)

So again, it seems to reveal a hypocrisy over the scapegoat du jour...trans people.

Having said that, it has never been a concern for me--probably having something to do with the fact that I don't live in gay-friendly metropolitan areas (I can't think of a better way to phrase that) nor do I visit gay "hang-outs) (bars, etc. Again, I can't think of a better way to phrase that).

But even my experience is inconsequential.

Correct, it doesnt matter here. And you cant recount hearing of it. Good enough to make my claim solid.

Perhaps there is a part of this issue you have not realized. Opening up female restrooms, locker rooms, etc. to trans-men is tantamount to opening up female restrooms, locker rooms, etc. to all men.

I do realize that. And I've never voted on the issue in the OP poll. I dont believe it is a black and white issue.

I am however, asking the questions that reveal the realities of the OP issue.

 

[The Baron]

You reiterating your past post with no articulated foundation is worthless. Why are you reducing yourself to such low standards of posting?

I'm only "reiterating" because you are "not getting it" or willfully ignoring what I'm saying.

Taking certain steps to protect people--especially women and children--is hardly a new concept:

1. People put walls around cities to protect against invaders.
2. A country protects it's borders for the same reason (okay, not in the USA but everywhere else).
3. Child molesters must be identified to the community and are barred from being around children.
4. Men and women have separate bathrooms.
5. I could go on...

All of these thing are done to minimize risk.

You (and others--to be fair) insist that trans people pose no risk. But is that true? No one has posted any data to support such claims. But, for a moment,--and only for a moment--let's assume you are correct and trans folk pose no risk. You are ignoring the inevitable fact that once you begin letting trans-men (or is it trans-women? Honestly, I can't keep up) into women's facilities then you begin letting in all those who want to enter into women's restrooms. A potential rapist, child-molester, freak, etc. all need to do is to claim trans status.

As such, continuing to bar men--all men--from the ladies room simply amounts to common sense.

And I would go so far to say after having this conversation with you that you are not stupid. As such, I suspect that you employ "common sense" to any number of circumstances throughout your day, do you not?

LOL you should have read your links. The great majority of studies claims no difference. There are way more studies that show this and we rolled them out constantly during the SSM debates.

What you are quoting are convenience studies much as Evelyn Hooker did. They simply give you the information you want not what is true.

Why are we focusing on kids all of a sudden? And common behavior in restrooms is not 'exposing' oneself.

See above.

If there is overt offensive behavior, harassment, attacking, let's see it.

See above.

Yes, and yet you cant connect the dots? The behavior has always been a problem...so where is there any indication that it will be increased now with trans people?

So you admit that there is a problem?

Excellent! You're making progress!

Now most folks recognize that when a problem exist it must be fixed. Exacerbating the problem is not fixing it.

Now before you reply that allowing trans folks into opposite sex bathrooms does not exacerbate the problem, see my comments above regarding common sense.

Yet this is about imposing subjective opinion on others.

How is this not exactly what you are trying to do to me and other like-minded people?

I have no data but since it was never revealed publicly, in the media, as an issue, etc...my guess is that it wasnt an issue that triggered the people involved. (And it would have existed for centuries...British prep schools didnt even worry about it...it was just common knowledge and not made a big deal of.)

So again, it seems to reveal a hypocrisy over the scapegoat du jour...trans people.

And yet you have no evidence of hypocrisy.

Correct, it doesnt matter here. And you cant recount hearing of it. Good enough to make my claim solid.

You're claim is still an assumption.

But did it ever strike you that since most people ogle privately that it happens without the person being ogled ever knowing it thus never raising any concerns on their part? Does this not affect how you view your own assumptions?

I do realize that. And I've never voted on the issue in the OP poll. I dont believe it is a black and white issue.
I am however, asking the questions that reveal the realities of the OP issue.

So why not also consider the consequences which I've detailed above. Predators--especially child molesters--will take any in-roads allowed to them.

I'm sure even you would agree with that much.

 

[The Baron]

then why can't you explain them.

I've two daughters.

Trust me.

I can explain them.

Psychology is a science because it follows the empirical method.

Oh, please! Even the Nobel Laureate Sheldon Cooper recognized that psychology isn't a real science.

peace brother

You, too Dude.

 

[The Baron]

Of course it is.

Common sense is nothing but mutually agreed judgment. As you and the poster you are responding to do not agree, it is not common sense.

The "common sense" the other poster and I can't seem to agree to is that risk to women and children should be minimized. This is hardly anything new nor is it something I simply conjured up from my imagination.

Common sense enjoys no universality. In fact, it is rather subjective.

I think you mean "elusive".

This is why this sentence really struck me. You had just offer your degree in engineering as proof that you were objective in analysis. This sentence is of course a direct contradiction of that statement.

Again, I'm talking about minimizing risk to women and children. This is something that does appear to be universally accepted down through time around the world. No doubt someone will seek to jump in here to demonstrate some absurd exception here or there down through the ages, but as I explained to the poster in question:

"Taking certain steps to protect people--especially women and children--is hardly a new concept:

1. People put walls around cities to protect against invaders.
2. A country protects it's borders for the same reason (okay, not in the USA but everywhere else).
3. Child molesters must be identified to the community and are barred from being around children, schools, etc.
4. Men and women have separate bathrooms.
5. I could go on...

All of these thing are done to minimize risk.

You (and others--to be fair) insist that trans people pose no risk. But is that true? No one has posted any data to support such claims. But, for a moment,--and only for a moment--let's assume you are correct and trans folk pose no risk. You are ignoring the inevitable fact that once you begin letting trans-men (or is it trans-women? Honestly, I can't keep up) into women's facilities then you begin letting in all those who want to enter into women's restrooms. A potential rapist, child-molester, freak, etc. all need to do is to claim trans status.

As such, continuing to bar men--all men--from the ladies room simply amounts to common sense."

 

[finebead]

"suspects" huh
so what happens when all these Karens and Darens and other bigots start guessing wrong all the time?

What happens when they dont have their "card"?


See this further shows you don't understand the issue at all, many transgenders do not fully transition but for all other appearances they have, just not the final step so "fully" transition is not the line/bar.
What bathroom should this person use?
View attachment 67344937

There would be no more "guessing" than today. "Guessing" comes at a cost to the person doing the guessing. They have to go hunt down security, and return and point out the person they suspect. If that person has their ID card, it is an approved bathroom visit, and the person who suspected has wasted a lot of time, probably over something that was not worth their time. You should only go summon security if you witness a crime being committed.

What happens when they don't have their card? How often do licensed drivers drive without their license on them? Very Very seldom. This is not an issue. Again, worrying about something not likely to occur.

About folks who decide not to transition fully, I did not write that correctly. What I meant to say is people who decide not to transition AT ALL. They decide to stay in their birth gender after trial transition period. Those people should surrender their card.

 

[AGENT J]

There would be no more "guessing" than today. "Guessing" comes at a cost to the person doing the guessing. They have to go hunt down security, and return and point out the person they suspect. If that person has their ID card, it is an approved bathroom visit, and the person who suspected has wasted a lot of time, probably over something that was not worth their time. You should only go summon security if you witness a crime being committed.

agreed, this is why an id isn't needed nor is justified and its stupid
but that doesnt answer my question . . what happens when all these Karens and Darens guess wrong?
do you think its fine for people to be held up and temporarily detain based on Karne and Daren thinking they are suspect when its none of their business

What happens when they don't have their card? How often do licensed drivers drive without their license on them? Very Very seldom. This is not an issue. Again, worrying about something not likely to occur.

FIrst your claim is wrong about seldom, secondly dodging the question doesn't work, Ill ask you AGAIN,,, what happens when a person doesn't have their card

About folks who decide not to transition fully, I did not write that correctly. What I meant to say is people who decide not to transition AT ALL. They decide to stay in their birth gender after trial transition period. Those people should surrender their card.

uh huh

so what bathroom should that person use?

 

[finebead]

You want other adults to call security on other adults, for peeing in a restroom, and then you want those adults detained until they can present papers, at which time if they have the correct papers, you promise they won’t be harmed.

What if you profile as a trans person due to someone else’s suspicion and you don’t have your paperwork on you? You are using suspicion by random adults as probable cause. Under your guidelines, you can be detained.

Your assertion is TOTALLY INCORRECT. I do NOT want anyone to call security on others for peeing. I never said that. The fact of the matter is that in today's world, adults already DO call security on people that they suspect of being of the opposite sex that are using their restroom. That is a fact, check the videos on youtube, or google and look for news reports. It happens, and security has escorted the individuals away as though they had done something wrong. I am proposing a process by which people in transition can protect themselves from a larger problem from security, by demonstrating that they are in a medically supervised transition program.

You would put your id card with your drivers license. How often when you drive, do you do so without your drivers license? Almost never. In the very RARE case that you are out without your id, it could be cleared up after the fact, like driving without your license. This is not an issue.

 

[finebead]

You mentioned calling for security/help. At that point, why would anyone planning something stay? Wouldnt they try to leave, escape?

Because that trans person didnt believe they were doing anything wrong.


And again, if IDs were required, attackers/perverts would just get fake IDs. Just like in real life now.

Not to mention, if someone is afraid of them, fears an attack or touching or sees ogling, why on earth would they place themselves more in harms way asking for ID?

In the news report I saw, two people were involved in summoning security. One stayed in the bathroom while the other left and returned with security. The person who stayed was taking a video of the return with security, and as they escorted the suspect out of the restroom. That could have been cleared up easily if the trans woman had a medically approved id.

I don't think getting a fake transgender license would be a big problem. Those reproductions are not easy, and just to go in the other sex bathroom??? Police could follow up with the physician and if the person had a fake id, they could be prosecuted. It's just not worth it.

The only person who should ask for an id is a uniformed security person.

 

[AGENT J]

In the news report I saw, two people were involved in summoning security. One stayed in the bathroom while the other left and returned with security. The person who stayed was taking a video of the return with security, and as they escorted the suspect out of the restroom. That could have been cleared up easily if the trans woman had a medically approved id.

I don't think getting a fake transgender license would be a big problem. Those reproductions are not easy, and just to go in the other sex bathroom??? Police could follow up with the physician and if the person had a fake id, they could be prosecuted. It's just not worth it.

The only person who should ask for an id is a uniformed security person.

This all sounds like a nightmare, totally disrespectful, degrading and treating a person as a lesser . . no thanks

the solution is people shouldn't be vile bigoted assholes and they should mind their own businesses . . . i have no interest in empowering Karens and Darens and give them the OK to be vile bigoted assholes lol

 

[finebead]

agreed, this is why an id isn't needed nor is justified and its stupid
but that doesnt answer my question . . what happens when all these Karens and Darens guess wrong?
do you think its fine for people to be held up and temporarily detain based on Karne and Daren thinking they are suspect when its none of their business

FIrst your claim is wrong about seldom, secondly dodging the question doesn't work, Ill ask you AGAIN,,, what happens when a person doesn't have their card


uh huh

so what bathroom should that person use?

Regarding point 1: The problem is that today, the Karens guess wrong, summon security, and the trans person is escorted out in some states, and they have NO WAY to show security that they have a right to be there. An id showing they are in a medically approved transition would provide the proof that they are not doing anything wrong, which they do not have today.

What happens in the rare case that they don't have their card? Exactly the same thing that happens today. What happens when you are caught speeding and you don't have your drivers license?

If a person has done a trial transition and chooses to remain in their birth gender, they would be back to a normal situation and use the restroom of their birth gender. Males would not be dressed as females if they have decided that they want to remain in their birth gender, so their would be no problem.

 

[AGENT J]

Regarding point 1: The problem is that today, the Karens guess wrong, summon security, and the trans person is escorted out in some states, and they have NO WAY to show security that they have a right to be there. An id showing they are in a medically approved transition would provide the proof that they are not doing anything wrong, which they do not have today.

Then thats what needs fixed, the Karnes should be told to go F themselves and security shouldnt care one bit unless there is a crime in progress. An ID is a complete crap. Why does anybody need proof they arent doing anythign wrong? What type of BS bigotry is that? (not you but the Karenr/Daren and or security guard) Arent we innocent in this country till proven guilty?
whats the difference between that and calling security on every black person?

What happens in the rare case that they don't have their card? Exactly the same thing that happens today. What happens when you are caught speeding and you don't have your drivers license?

Again you keep dodging this question. Who said it would be rare? Your example of a DL is not analogous. Theres no speeding equivalent here, theres no DMV equivalent here.
SO ill ask you again, what will happen?

If a person has done a trial transition and chooses to remain in their birth gender, they would be back to a normal situation and use the restroom of their birth gender. Males would not be dressed as females if they have decided that they want to remain in their birth gender, so their would be no problem.

That has nothing to do with my question, What bathroom should the person in the picture use?

 

[Lursa]

I'm only "reiterating" because you are "not getting it" or willfully ignoring what I'm saying.

Taking certain steps to protect people--especially women and children--is hardly a new concept:

1. People put walls around cities to protect against invaders.
2. A country protects it's borders for the same reason (okay, not in the USA but everywhere else).
3. Child molesters must be identified to the community and are barred from being around children.
4. Men and women have separate bathrooms.
5. I could go on...

All of these thing are done to minimize risk.

Yes and as I've continually pointed out, there's been no foundation, no data, no reasonable cases, that indicate such measures are needed re: trans people.

You (and others--to be fair) insist that trans people pose no risk.

I have not. I have said there's no foundation to believe it at this point.

But is that true? No one has posted any data to support such claims. But, for a moment,--and only for a moment--let's assume you are correct and trans folk pose no risk. You are ignoring the inevitable fact that once you begin letting trans-men (or is it trans-women? Honestly, I can't keep up) into women's facilities then you begin letting in all those who want to enter into women's restrooms. A potential rapist, child-molester, freak, etc. all need to do is to claim trans status.

We already take precautions re: predatory males attacking or harassing or ogling women have been at this for...ever.

I brought up the homosexuals in hetero restrooms forever as well. And it was never an issue regarding propositioning or ogling, when of course it should have been right? Why werent those gay men or women acting on their sexual impulses?

Apparently, it was a non-event, in recent history.

As such, continuing to bar men--all men--from the ladies room simply amounts to common sense.

Not so much, sorry. You have not made this case. I dont object to it, but IMO it's not a black and white issue and that's what it is...a societal issue. It's not about common sense.

What you are quoting are convenience studies much as Evelyn Hooker did. They simply give you the information you want not what is true.

And yours are in the great minority and unfounded. They're wrong. It's not about what I want to be true, it's about what is true.

 

[Lursa]

So you admit that there is a problem?

Nothing that we havent been living with...and dealing with and applying precautions for...for at least decades to prevent predatory males from accessing women's restrooms.

Now most folks recognize that when a problem exist it must be fixed. Exacerbating the problem is not fixing it.

You have yet to prove any exacerbation at all.

Now before you reply that allowing trans folks into opposite sex bathrooms does not exacerbate the problem, see my comments above regarding common sense.

Yes, I countered those in my previous post.

How is this not exactly what you are trying to do to me and other like-minded people?

Well if you want to use that as an argument, we'd still have Jim Crow laws and no SSM. So IMO that argument fails.

And yet you have no evidence of hypocrisy.

I gave you an example. Did you not understand it?

But did it ever strike you that since most people ogle privately that it happens without the person being ogled ever knowing it thus never raising any concerns on their part? Does this not affect how you view your own assumptions?

I think that's a good point and likely true. And as such is going to be no different with trans people. There is no significant evidence that they engage in dangerous or even overt behavior.

So again...you seem to be leaning towards it being a non-issue.

So why not also consider the consequences which I've detailed above. Predators--especially child molesters--will take any in-roads allowed to them.

The predators, as I've written, have always been with us. Men. Almost exclusively. And 'again,' you have not proven any prediliction towards aggression or overt acts in trans people.

And we deal with male predators now, right? As possible. And yet, they still manage to kidnap young girls in restrooms, go in and molest young boys or girls in locker rooms, etc.

If society is so concerned about trans people, why are we still allowing lax enough security for these other atrocities to occur, as they still do?

I'm sure even you would agree with that much.

Yes, and see above.

 

[The Baron]

Nothing that we havent been living with...and dealing with and applying precautions for...for at least decades to prevent predatory males from accessing women's restrooms.

And so now you want to freely allow males into women's restrooms...do you see why I'm struggling to understand your position?

You have yet to prove any exacerbation at all.

Most reasonable people would recognize allowing men into women's restrooms when by your own admission (your post no. 399) that men trap and rape women in women's restrooms.
But now you want to allow men to freely enter women's restrooms.

Yes, I countered those in my previous post.

You've countered nothing. Especially when you admit there is a problem but you insist on exacerbating it.

Well if you want to use that as an argument, we'd still have Jim Crow laws and no SSM. So IMO that argument fails.

False equivalency. Keeping men out of women's restrooms in not even a reasonable comparison to Jim Crow.

I gave you an example. Did you not understand it?

I don't think you understood it.

I think that's a good point and likely true. And as such is going to be no different with trans people. There is no significant evidence that they engage in dangerous or even overt behavior.

So again...you seem to be leaning towards it being a non-issue.

That people may not notice is irrelevant. It is still a problem. No one notices the pervert watching child-porn in the privacy of his own home and it is still a felony.

The predators, as I've written, have always been with us. Men. Almost exclusively.

So men are the exclusive problem?

And 'again,' you have not proven any prediliction towards aggression or overt acts in trans people.

Like this?
Seriously, you could have done a simply Google search yourself.

And we deal with male predators now, right? As possible. And yet, they still manage to kidnap young girls in restrooms, go in and molest young boys or girls in locker rooms, etc.

Why do you not see these are all critical reasons for keeping men out of women's restrooms.

By your own logic you are stating that "since men are going to continue to rape women and molest little girls anyway we might as well let them into women's restrooms, etc.".

Do you not understand how such logic undermines any credibility you might have?

If society is so concerned about trans people,

For the record, I'm not.

I couldn't give a crap.

why are we still allowing lax enough security for these other atrocities to occur, as they still do?

Because we continue to elect into office so many rapist and child molesters into public office. As they never wish to be held accountable for their own crimes they adopt penalties that amount to little more than a slap on the wrist.
I think most reasonable people will agree that rape and child molestation should be a capital crime.

Yes, and see above.

NOT reasonable. Not even remotely so.

 

[Lursa]

And so now you want to freely allow males into women's restrooms...do you see why I'm struggling to understand your position?

I clearly wrote that it's not a black and white issue and I didnt write what you dishonestly claimed above. My participation in this thread is to point out what IMO is an issue with prejudice and trumped up fear against trans people, and so my focus has been to shoot holes in the arguments that pretend otherwise.

Most reasonable people would recognize allowing men into women's restrooms when by your own admission (your post no. 399) that men trap and rape women in women's restrooms.
But now you want to allow men to freely enter women's restrooms.

You've countered nothing. Especially when you admit there is a problem but you insist on exacerbating it.

False equivalency. Keeping men out of women's restrooms in not even a reasonable comparison to Jim Crow.

I don't think you understood it.

That people may not notice is irrelevant. It is still a problem. No one notices the pervert watching child-porn in the privacy of his own home and it is still a felony.

So men are the exclusive problem?

Like this?
Seriously, you could have done a simply Google search yourself.

Why do you not see these are all critical reasons for keeping men out of women's restrooms.

By your own logic you are stating that "since men are going to continue to rape women and molest little girls anyway we might as well let them into women's restrooms, etc.".

Do you not understand how such logic undermines any credibility you might have?

For the record, I'm not.

I couldn't give a crap.

Because we continue to elect into office so many rapist and child molesters into public office. As they never wish to be held accountable for their own crimes they adopt penalties that amount to little more than a slap on the wrist.
I think most reasonable people will agree that rape and child molestation should be a capital crime.

NOT reasonable. Not even remotely so.

Your laundry list of rather repetitive 'na huh' isnt convincing. I read your apprehensions...I also view them as unfounded in any significant substance thus far.

If the current precautions we use to protect people in restrooms...almost always males are the offenders... are not sufficient...then that should be examined and addressed. Unless there's some kind of physical security...predatory males get into locker rooms and restrooms, etc. It's not like they cant do so, even as you worry about trans women going in. If a predatory trans person wants to get in...what's to stop them even with laws against it? It doesnt stop predatory males.

So if predatory behavior is the concern...society needs to address that. But to open a door into inflammatory and as yet baseless rhetoric about trans people? Why do we need that? If people are in danger in restroom and locker rooms, etc...we should fix it, period.

 

[The Baron]

Sorry I got this out-of-order. I'm a man so I'm not paying attention...

Yes and as I've continually pointed out, there's been no foundation, no data, no reasonable cases, that indicate such measures are needed re: trans people.

Once again...like this?

I have not. I have said there's no foundation to believe it at this point.

See the article I've just posted for you...that you could have found with no effort.

We already take precautions re: predatory males attacking or harassing or ogling women have been at this for...ever.

I'm really struggling here to understand you...do you agree that "predatory males attacking or harassing or ogling women" is a problem or not?

Because it seems reasonable to believe that if you did think it a problem you would want to keep men out of women's restroom.

By contradistinction, if you do not see it as a problem then it is reasonable to believe that you have no issue allowing men into women's restrooms.

I brought up the homosexuals in hetero restrooms forever as well. And it was never an issue regarding propositioning or ogling, when of course it should have been right? Why werent those gay men or women acting on their sexual impulses?

To say that it went unnoticed is simply to say such ogling, etc. simply went unnoticed...it is not to say that it did not happen.

Not so much, sorry. You have not made this case. I dont object to it, but IMO it's not a black and white issue and that's what it is...a societal issue. It's not about common sense.

I will agree that societal issues can certainly have many shades of gray. But this is not a societal issue. This ultimately comes down to protecting the fairer-sex and children and that, point-of-fact, is black-and-white.

And yours are in the great minority and unfounded. They're wrong. It's not about what I want to be true, it's about what is true.

Not at all true. This is a subject I've studied for the last 28 years. I'm honestly not trying to be smug or insulting but you really have no idea...but that in another debate.

 

[Lursa]

Sorry I got this out-of-order. I'm a man so I'm not paying attention...

Once again...like this?

See the article I've just posted for you...that you could have found with no effort.

I have continually and fairly consistently said 'significant.'

And then I addressed it further under the more general 'predatory' behavior.

I'm really struggling here to understand you...do you agree that "predatory males attacking or harassing or ogling women" is a problem or not?

Because it seems reasonable to believe that if you did think it a problem you would want to keep men out of women's restroom.

By contradistinction, if you do not see it as a problem then it is reasonable to believe that you have no issue allowing men into women's restrooms.

To say that it went unnoticed is simply to say such ogling, etc. simply went unnoticed...it is not to say that it did not happen.

Please address what I wrote at the end of my previous post before asking me more questions.

And ogling is not predatory behavior. IMO it's a non-issue anyway but again, it's hypocritical to focus on it here after ignoring it previously for gays in such situations.

I will agree that societal issues can certainly have many shades of gray. But this is not a societal issue. This ultimately comes down to protecting the fairer-sex and children and that, point-of-fact, is black-and-white.

Again, you ignore my comments on dealing with their safety and predators...why? I dont agree with your last sentence above...but you seem to disagree with my previous post.

Not at all true. This is a subject I've studied for the last 28 years. I'm honestly not trying to be smug or insulting but you really have no idea...but that in another debate.

All of a sudden you're a sociological expert on this? Or a law enforcement one? Can you be more specific?

And if you had countered my specifics on dealing with predatory concerns, period, I may be more likely to believe you.

 

[The Baron]

I clearly wrote that it's not a black and white issue and I didnt write what you dishonestly claimed above. My participation in this thread is to point out what IMO is an issue with prejudice and trumped up fear against trans people, and so my focus has been to shoot holes in the arguments that pretend otherwise.

Calm down! I said I was struggling to understand where you are coming from and frankly you have been arguing to allow men into women's restrooms.

No?

Your laundry list of rather repetitive 'na huh' isnt convincing.

I've not countered with such.

I read your apprehensions...I also view them as unfounded in any significant substance thus far.

And yet even you acknowledge that women and children are raped, abused, molested by men in women's restrooms.

You did say that!

If the current precautions we use to protect people in restrooms...almost always males are the offenders... are not sufficient...then that should be examined and addressed.

No argument here.

Unless there's some kind of physical security...predatory males get into locker rooms and restrooms, etc. It's not like they cant do so, even as you worry about trans women going in. If a predatory trans person wants to get in...what's to stop them even with laws against it? It doesnt stop predatory males.

I don't disagree with you here.

But saying it's going to happen anyway so we might as well let men into women's restrooms makes no sense.

So if predatory behavior is the concern...society needs to address that.

I'm with ya!

But to open a door into inflammatory and as yet baseless rhetoric about trans people? Why do we need that?

Read the article I posted for you.

If people are in danger in restroom and locker rooms, etc...we should fix it, period.

Amen! But the two issues are not mutually exclusive.

I'm starting to think that you think they are...

 

[Lursa]

Calm down! I said I was struggling to understand where you are coming from and frankly you have been arguing to allow men into women's restrooms.

I'm calm but sometimes having to spell things out a variety of ways get's wordier.

No?

I've not countered with such.

And yet even you acknowledge that women and children are raped, abused, molested by men in women's restrooms.

You did say that!

No argument here.

I don't disagree with you here.

But saying it's going to happen anyway so we might as well let men into women's restrooms makes no sense.

I'm with ya!

Read the article I posted for you.

Amen! But the two issues are not mutually exclusive.

I'm starting to think that you think they are...

I've addressed all this. I have acknowledged predators on women and kids.

And I'm not saying "it's going to happen anyway," I have continually written that you have no foundation for assuming there will be any significant increase in predatory behavior and that the assumption that there will be is an indication of prejudice and not fact (This last part is newer, goes to my reasons for posting).

I have explicitly said the issues re: predatory males/ trans people are NOT mutually exclusive and that's why I have written that if the safety of women and kids is of such concern....why havent we done more already? And if you see such concern, why not advocate for more precautions, PERIOD, rather than focusing on and inflaming unfounded fears of of trans people?

 

[The Baron]

I have continually and fairly consistently said 'significant.'

Really? You don't think 18 times more likely to commit a violet crime is "significant".

And then I addressed it further under the more general 'predatory' behavior.

Per the article, trans-women commit crimes at a rate similar to other men.

See why I don't want to let them in the ladies room.

Please address what I wrote at the end of my previous post before asking me more questions.

Are you talking about these comments?
"
All of a sudden you're a sociological expert on this? Or a law enforcement one? Can you be more specific?

And if you had countered my specifics on dealing with predatory concerns, period, I may be more likely to believe you."

If so, I'm happy to but I'll do it in a private post if you don't mind.

And ogling is not predatory behavior.

I suppose there are degrees. As a young man I was certainly known (not exactly the right word) to look at a pretty lady more than once.

IMO it's a non-issue anyway but again, it's hypocritical to focus on it here after ignoring it previously for gays in such situations.

I don't think anybody's ignoring it but as I stated earlier, if it goes unnoticed that doesn't make it not a problem.

Just because the peeping-tom goes unnoticed doesn't mean he's not committing a crime.

Again, you ignore my comments on dealing with their safety and predators...why?

Actually I addressed it rather specifically in my post no.

I dont agree with your last sentence above...but you seem to disagree with my previous post.

OK...I think...

All of a sudden you're a sociological expert on this? Or a law enforcement one? Can you be more specific?

See my comment above about a PM...if the homosexuality part is what you're talking about.

And if you had countered my specifics on dealing with predatory concerns, period, I may be more likely to believe you.

I address them in my last few post...somewhere...

If there is something you want more clarity on, just let me know.