- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31,926
- Reaction score
- 29,390
- Location
- Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And for those keeping up, obviously my phone likes to change words at will, like "posting" to "paying".
What I truly dont understand is why you dont extend this logic to gay wedding cakes.
What I truly dont understand is why you dont extend this logic to gay wedding cakes.
"Gay wedding cakes"?
Does that mean a cake that lisps?
It doesn't matter if this person is very masculine, the policy has to apply to everyone equally. Plus, it is still a locker room owned by the gym, not those using the locker room. The gym gets to decide the policy. If swine doesn't like it, they can join a different gym.
Based on the fact that this person's features much more resemble a man than a woman, by your own definitions, can't I argue that the club's policies are in direct conflict with "real world" norms of behavior?Except we don't determine in real life who uses which restroom by actual biology, but rather by how people look, their appearances. Those pictures prove it because almost everyone on here arguing about this would have stopped the first person from entering that female restroom and been shocked as hell to see the second in a male restroom. No one checks for the physical presence of a penis or vagina to determine which locker room or restroom a person uses. And DNA would be too expensive to actually check.
Because these people are not being refused service. If a gay customer came into a bakery requesting a rainbow cake for their wedding and the baker refused because they would refuse such an order for anyone, then I'd say the same to the gay customer. The reasoning behind the refusal is what matters. In this case, no one was refused service because of who they are.
A woman was refused service because she was uncomfortable with changing next to a big ass hairy dude in a dress, and she was a paying member of the gym. The tranny wasn't even a member of the gym-he was just visiting.
That doesn't exactly jive with what you posted earlier...
Based on the fact that this person's features much more resemble a man than a woman, by your own definitions, can't I argue that the club's policies are in direct conflict with "real world" norms of behavior?
So, in other words, all's it really takes is a dress, a little eye liner, and a desire to use the women's facilities? Face it, you can't define your position because your position has some serious flaws.Women, biological women, can appear masculine. In reality, we generally go off of what the person wears along with their attributes. For instance, very few employees at stores would stop a person from entering the ladies' room or a women's dressing room due to their looking masculine, or vice versa. Heck, I've called a woman "sir" before and had to apologize because it was wrong. It was based off of what she was wearing, her hair cut, and her "masculine" features. It happens.
So, in other words, all's it really takes is a dress, a little eye liner, and a desire to use the women's facilities? Face it, you can't define your position because your position has some serious flaws.
I don't know exactly what transpired between the woman who's membership got revoked and the people who revoked it but I can say with dead certainty that she had every right to object to the presence of a man in the woman's locker room.
Danger? Who said anything about danger? I'm talking about some creep just trying to get an eye full. That, in itself, is a violation of the rights of every woman subjected to his presence.It really does just take that. Now, I would expect people to hold anyone accountable, even bring charges as necessary, for anyone who sexually assaults or harasses someone in a locker room, regardless of gender identity.
She didn't have a right to do what she did, harass others about the policy and claim that it put her and/or them in danger. There is absolutely no evidence that she or anyone else is in danger from a policy allowing people in the locker room as the sex/gender they identify as.
Danger? Who said anything about danger? I'm talking about some creep just trying to get an eye full. That, in itself, is a violation of the rights of every woman subjected to his presence.
Her getting banned for carrying on about the policy does not validate the policy nor does invalidate her fears of what the policy COULD lead to. You just agreed that "a dress, a little eye liner, and a desire to use the women's facilities" is all it takes to gain access. Well, now that creeps all over the world know that this particular club is a "judgment free zone" do you think the women there are more or less safe today because of it?First, there is no evidence at all that "some creep" was "just trying to get an eye full".
Second, the woman complaining, banned from PF made the claim that she and others were put in danger from the policy, and that is part of what got her ban, along with her harassing others at the gym for 4 days straight about the policy.
Her getting banned for carrying on about the policy does not validate the policy nor does invalidate her fears of what the policy COULD lead to. You just agreed that "a dress, a little eye liner, and a desire to use the women's facilities" is all it takes to gain access. Well, now that creeps all over the world know that this particular club is a "judgment free zone" do you think the women there are more or less safe today because of it?
Who are you to say that her fears are irrational? Maybe she's been a victim of this kind of thing in the past? The fact is we can't and shouldn't try to speculate on the roots of her fears and it is irresponsible to let someone that is OBVIOUSLY not a woman into the women's locker room because of some feel good policy that is basically PC-run-amuck.Her fears were irrational. There isn't even any evidence that it is common for a man to decide to dress as a woman just to "peep" in women's locker rooms. If they wanted to, they honestly could do that now. Or they could just ask a friend of theirs who was a woman to film inside the locker rooms while women were changing and be less likely to get caught and get arrested for sexual harassment.
Who are you to say that her fears are irrational? Maybe she's been a victim of this kind of thing in the past? The fact is we can't and shouldn't try to speculate on the roots of her fears and it is irresponsible to let someone that is OBVIOUSLY not a woman into the women's locker room because of some feel good policy that is basically PC-run-amuck.
Determined how?Because the male an is, I don't know... a male?
Physical appearance and DNA do not determine who is male or female.Calling a male a male is not bigotry... is there something else that I am missing or is your argument that bad?
Strawman.Just because I have an irrational fear of spiders or heights, doesn't mean they aren't my fears, nor that I might not have been either bitten by a spider or fallen from some high place in the past. .
A woman was refused service because she was uncomfortable with changing next to a big ass hairy dude in a dress
Strawman.
Spiders and heights aren't next to you while you're changing your clothes.
Physical appearance and DNA do not determine who is male or female.
How do you know this?Claiming to “identify” as something other than one's biological reality certainly doesn't do it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?