• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trans Bathroom issue easily explained.

And this still refuses to recognize that location is a key component in that. It is very rare for anyone to be sexually molested or raped in a public restroom because the chances of getting caught are very high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is very rare for someone to be trans. So, by your logic, we should just ignore their disproportionately loud noises.
 
Yep. What it says on your BC (and you can get it changed after surgery) determines which locker room you use. People need to be responsible for maintaining clarity of this issue if they are going to make that change.
Are people aware that you can have your actual birth sex on your birth certificate changed without having any surgery at all? Think about the implications. It's going to make for some interesting situations. Crime statistics: Guess a lot more "females" are going to be listed as committing rape and other sexual crimes. Medical stats: Death certificates will be reading: Sex: Female Cause of Death: Prostate Cancer.
 
And if you notice anyone, male or female, transgender or cisgender ogling anyone else in a locker room, that could be considered voyeurism. Even women in locker rooms cannot sit or stand and stare at other women or girls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe it's best pre-op stay out of public lockerrooms/showers/changing areas. If for nothing else common courtesy. I live by that.
 
If they face any discrimination imposed by government, you don't say what it is. As far as I know, homosexuals can vote, travel, enter into contracts, own land, etc. just like anyone else in this country. If private persons choose to discriminate against them, it is up to majorities in each state to decide what forms of that discrimination, if any, to prohibit by law.

...subject to federal civil rights mandates.

It's that added clause which throws all this into the big debate zone. If not for federal involvement, there would be no issue. Each state would do as it sees fit. Of course, we saw how that can turn to **** in a hurry...but, hey why quibble over something that is rare, to paraphrase Rogue.
 
...subject to federal civil rights mandates.

It's that added clause which throws all this into the big debate zone. If not for federal involvement, there would be no issue. Each state would do as it sees fit. Of course, we saw how that can turn to **** in a hurry...but, hey why quibble over something that is rare, to paraphrase Rogue.

I'm glad that logic was not applied in the aftermath of Loving vs Virginia.
Who knows if I could have been allowed to marry my wife down here in the deep south 15 years ago?
 
I'm glad that logic was not applied in the aftermath of Loving vs Virginia.
Who knows if I could have been allowed to marry my wife down here in the deep south 15 years ago?

It's rare. So, we shouldn't worry about it. That seems to be the argument of the day.
 
It's a matter of demanding a right, but allowing the responsibility that comes with to go by the wayside. We have a responsibility to protect our children, but because someone gets all butt hurt over where they pee or change their clothes and demands a new right, we fail in upholding that responsibility.

If you are truly concerned about "protecting the children" then set up restroom attendants in every multistall public restroom, whether designated male, female, or other and that would take care of protecting everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I believe it's best pre-op stay out of public lockerrooms/showers/changing areas. If for nothing else common courtesy. I live by that.

And I simply don't care if they come in and think it should be fine fact for others who are accompanying someone of the opposite sex to enter.

We need to get over this prudish belief we have that nakedness is always sexual. It is just a body, whether make or female.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's rare. So, we shouldn't worry about it. That seems to be the argument of the day.

Wasn't when I was a kid.
Your position opens up the possibility of miscegenation laws, or Jim Crow laws returning in various states,especially in the Deep South.
You do understand the Law of Unintended Consequences,do you?
 
And I simply don't care if they come in and think it should be fine fact for others who are accompanying someone of the opposite sex to enter.

We need to get over this prudish belief we have that nakedness is always sexual. It is just a body, whether make or female.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trying to force your morality on everyone again I see.
 
If you are truly concerned about "protecting the children" then set up restroom attendants in every multistall public restroom, whether designated male, female, or other and that would take care of protecting everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then these people are going to complain when business owners like me pass on the extra cost of having to hire a bathroom attendant to them.
It's easy to take a position when one is not the one who has to bare the costs.
 
Wasn't when I was a kid.
Your position opens up the possibility of miscegenation laws, or Jim Crow laws returning in various states,especially in the Deep South.
You do understand the Law of Unintended Consequences,do you?

POE's law in action, I suspect.

Do you honestly believe I was being serious? I was mocking several posters with the posts you've been taking serious.
 
Trying to force your morality on everyone again I see.

Offering an opinion is "forcing something on someone" all of a sudden?
No one,s stopping you from being a prude.
 
And I simply don't care if they come in and think it should be fine fact for others who are accompanying someone of the opposite sex to enter.

We need to get over this prudish belief we have that nakedness is always sexual. It is just a body, whether make or female.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yaaaa.. And you are probably perfectly ok with underage girls being alone with their tennis instructor. Teachers inviting them over to their house for extra lessons. Underage girls going to the massage parlor to be groped by a hulking dude once a week. Doctors making them pull their pants down to get a shot on the buttcheek when all the boys get it in the arm. etc, etc. Last thing we need is naked guys running around town square with body paint on their winky, being "non sexual".

We dont need underage people mingling in these naked areas. It will just entice them to be sexualized in a situation where they would have had to PURPOSElY try very hard to mingle naked before. Save if for 2 people that really like eachother and end up going to eachothers house to "study".

Why are you purposely trying to destroy innocence earlier?? Im sorry... But if ANY 15 year old girl sees a naked man dangling around THEY WILL THINK SEXUAL stuff no matter what. Same with if a boy sees some giant titties and muff walking around. Its just the way it works. You are lying to yourself and society.
 
POE's law in action, I suspect.

Do you honestly believe I was being serious? I was mocking several posters with the posts you've been taking serious.

Seeing the positions you have taken in the past,I am justified for taking you seriously.

You do know what emoticons are,do you?
They are used to denote emotions and things like sarcasm.
 
Im no longer sure if this song applies more to "traditionalists" or "Crossdresser's Rights to have extra rights above non-crossdressers". Maybe both?

 
No. The bathroom issue is based on the fact that men are more likely to molest children

Well, then, we shouldn't allow them in the men's room either.

and rape women than are women. That's all.

Oh, please. A public bathroom is not an ideal location for a predator. Nothing would stop such a rapist from entering the women's room anyway.


Your position is nonsense.
 
Wrong. It's about people CLAIMING to be TG using that claim to give them access to locker rooms where they are allowed to freely ogle our daughters.

Oh please. If there any scare mongering that you reject? Nothing is stopping someone from dressing as a woman to "ogle your daughters" now. If someone wants to do that, they will, and no ban of transgender bathroom use will change that.
 
That's not it at all. The worry is that molesters will exploit the restroom issue. And it doesn't even have to be a molester, what parent wants pervy men in changing rooms and restrooms ogling their young daughters? What woman wants pervy men in the locker room ogling them at the gym?

People who pretend not to get this are fooling nobody.

Anyone can already do this.

I would think pro gun people would understand: This ban will only affect law abiding people. This ban will not affect criminals. This ban is nothing more than harassing law abiding citizens, just like gun control.

In that frame, can you see it?
 
Those who wrote the 14th could have easily limited its scope to just freed slaves or even all black people people or nonwhites, only limit the protection on race, but they didn't. Instead they left it very broad for us. Your interpretation is not important, and neither is their reasoning since any insight into that and how far any of them intended it to cover is subjective speculation.

Your assertion that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment meant to make its meaning broad enough to apply to homosexual conduct is not important, because it is just subjective speculation.

What various parts of the Fourteenth Amendment mean is not just "subjective speculation," any more than what the Second Amendment means, for example. What this or that part of the Constitution means can be--and should be--determined by careful analysis of its text and history. Of course the reasons behind any constitutional amendment are highly relevant to its meaning, and that is why Supreme Court decisions interpreting what various parts of those amendments usually have discussed those reasons in detail.
 
Well, then, we shouldn't allow them in the men's room either.
Well, a wise parent would not allow a small boy to go into one unescorted. So, you're partially on target.



Oh, please. A public bathroom is not an ideal location for a predator. Nothing would stop such a rapist from entering the women's room anyway.


Your position is nonsense.
Laws permitting men to enter a public restroom without challenge or suspicion will certainly make life easier for the sexual predators. Your denial is nonsense.
 
Seeing the positions you have taken in the past,I am justified for taking you seriously.

You do know what emoticons are,do you?
They are used to denote emotions and things like sarcasm.

I'm pretty consistent in my position that state's rights need federal limits, especially with regards to civil rights. But, since I have been rather vocal about the trans farce, your confusion is justified.
 
Well, a wise parent would not allow a small boy to go into one unescorted. So, you're partially on target.

If that works for the men's room, why not the women's.

Laws permitting men to enter a public restroom without challenge or suspicion will certainly make life easier for the sexual predators. Your denial is nonsense.

Sexual predators that use restrooms for their misdeeds will not be affected, at all, by this ban. Only law abiding citizens will be affected; this is effectively harassing law abiding citizens.
 
LMAO wow those are easily some of the most dishonest, meaningless and retarded comments I have read on this topic.
"Sexual Deviants", Gays are only discriminated against for what they do, people are FORCED to occupy rooms with private parts exposed WOW!!!:lamo
Bigotry and lies noted. :popcorn2:

I'm glad to see you, once again, fall back on accusing another poster of "lies." It is standard procedure on these forums for many people who share your political views, whenever--and it is often--they can't refute arguments which make them peevish.
 
I guess I should watch that video. But all I can see is that, as usual, it is some dude mansplaining why women shouldn't mind having dudes in their private spaces. Quelle surprise.

You should not watch it. Just more pro-tranny nonsense...
 
Back
Top Bottom