- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,271
- Reaction score
- 55,005
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Daniel Kagan, state senator from Arapahoe County embroiled in restroom controversy, resigning
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/05/daniel-kagan-colorado-state-senator-resigning-restroom-controversy/
His accuser says she wanted an apology, not a resignation...and she still wants her apology. OK, that makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that:
1. The guy is accused of using an unlabeled restroom which, I presume by some kind of informal agreement, was designated "women only"
2. We're in a new era of gender ambivalence, why should this restroom be gender specific?
3. Isn't the accuser making an unwarranted determination of the guy's gender? I mean, who is she to decided whether he's male or female?
4. Why isn't incumbent upon the accuser to accept the possibility that the guy might be gender fluid and has a fundamental human right to use the restroom of his choice?
OK, seriously, who among us hasn't lived or worked in a place where the nearest restroom is inconveniently located? We all need to use the can at some point so why not just hang an "occupied" sign on the door or, even easier, just lock the damned door when you go in? It's ridiculous that something like this is an issue anywhere and downright pathetic that it's an issue with some state legislature
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/05/daniel-kagan-colorado-state-senator-resigning-restroom-controversy/
State Sen. Daniel Kagan, who earlier this year was found to have “more likely than not” used a private, women-only restroom, is resigning, the spokesman for Senate Democrats said Wednesday.
The resignation, effective Jan. 11, had been rumored for weeks after the Nov. 6 election, in which Democrats retook the Senate majority, with a 19-16 edge come January. The Cherry Hills Village Democrat’s statement did not refer to the allegations he faced during the 2018 session.
His accuser says she wanted an apology, not a resignation...and she still wants her apology. OK, that makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that:
1. The guy is accused of using an unlabeled restroom which, I presume by some kind of informal agreement, was designated "women only"
2. We're in a new era of gender ambivalence, why should this restroom be gender specific?
3. Isn't the accuser making an unwarranted determination of the guy's gender? I mean, who is she to decided whether he's male or female?
4. Why isn't incumbent upon the accuser to accept the possibility that the guy might be gender fluid and has a fundamental human right to use the restroom of his choice?
OK, seriously, who among us hasn't lived or worked in a place where the nearest restroom is inconveniently located? We all need to use the can at some point so why not just hang an "occupied" sign on the door or, even easier, just lock the damned door when you go in? It's ridiculous that something like this is an issue anywhere and downright pathetic that it's an issue with some state legislature