Am I Vulgar for not wanting men in woman's bathrooms?

[jamil]

Assuming that you mean sexual miscreant by pervert, then yes, there's probably someone bold enough to do it. My thought is that someone who is trans and bold enough to switch restrooms in public - they're probably passible enough and not looking for conflict...

Who needs to get busted? The chick who's got a crew cut and is (ahem)packing walking into the mens room or the creepy dude with three-day stubble and a Goodwill dress? There's enough laws to be able to address this situation.


So, dumb law? Maybe. Beneficial in 'protecting our children'? Doubtful Will enrage the queer community? Most certainly.

Agreed.

 

[Beowulf]

Yes. According to the official progressive rule book, Kut gets to call us Cracka, or Cracker. JettaKnight, you need to check your privilege.



Hey, I thought you were in favor of Charlotte's law.

I never said I was. I'm just opposed to the ridiculous reaction of the North Carolina government to it. Certainly, all government installations should have to allow it. But should private businesses? I'm not sure. There is an argument that a private business should be able to do what they please, just as a consumer should be free to vote with their feet and go somewhere that aligns with their interests. However, the other side of that argument is that if you want to have full control over what you can and can't do, you should be a private club, rather than a public business.

Personally, I find it a bit of a gray area. If I go the full private business can do what they like route, that means I have to oppose Indiana Code 34-28-8 and endorse the right of any business to deny the ability of their employees to defend themselves by having weapons on company property (even if secured in a vehicle). From a purist stand point, I should support that... but I don't.

In the end, I tend to find myself coming down on the side of the rights of the individual over the rights of the business. If you don't want to serve the public, then don't, but if you do, then you have to serve all of it.

 

[Lowe0]

Post #20 does not address that.

Hold up, you want me to decide whether a quote from an article on a fake news site constitutes hate speech? You sure you want to do that?

 

[jamil]

Hold up, you want me to decide whether a quote from an article on a fake news site constitutes hate speech? You sure you want to do that?

Yes. That's exactly what I want you to do. Now before you get too bent out of shape about that, consider my sig line.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yes. According to the official progressive rule book, Kut gets to call us Cracka, or Cracker. JettaKnight, you need to check your privilege.

Dang. I need to go back and watch South Park season 19 again.

Hey, I thought you were in favor of Charlotte's law.

First pass: "How can anyone be against Charlotte's Web? Only a monster doesn't cry at the end."
Second pass: "Oh, it that what the law is called?"

Is Charlotte's Law, "hey, you choose!"?
So then there's the NC comeback, "No, your plumbing (or DNA, actually) chooses!", right?


Why can't it be like IN's carry law: "Open / concealed? No way do we want to get into that, it turns ugly - look at INGO."




Myself, I find the people who want to carry on a discussion in the restroom to be far more offensive. Seriously, shut your mouth and pee.

 

[jamil]

I never said I was. I'm just opposed to the ridiculous reaction of the North Carolina government to it. Certainly, all government installations should have to allow it. But should private businesses? I'm not sure. There is an argument that a private business should be able to do what they please, just as a consumer should be free to vote with their feet and go somewhere that aligns with their interests. However, the other side of that argument is that if you want to have full control over what you can and can't do, you should be a private club, rather than a public business.

Personally, I find it a bit of a gray area. If I go the full private business can do what they like, that means I have to oppose Indiana Code 34-28-8 and endorse the right of any business to deny the ability of their employees to defend themselves by having weapons on company property (even if secured in a vehicle). From a purist stand point, I should support that... but I don't.

In the end, I tend to find myself coming down on the side of the rights of the individual over the rights of the business. If you don't want to serve the public, then don't, but if you do, then you have to serve all of it.

I don't find it a gray area at all. The business gets to decide. And the market gets to decide. That's as fair as it can get. If a business's policy is unpopular, people will go to businesses with policies they like better.

So why do you think the rights of the individual aren't the right's of business? Business owners can't be individuals too? Why is the individual who walks into a bakery more of an individual than the person behind the counter? When rights collide on private property the fairest way is for the property owner to have priority. As a consumer, you don't have to be there.

In the Target situation, I'm sure they pondered the consequences. Probably the consideration wasn't as much for actual Transgendered people (I mean, c'mon, they are only 0.02% of the population.) The consideration was to be seen as "progressive". The calculation is that more people would appreciate Target's social stand than would be made uncomfortable by it. I'd be surprised if they hadn't focus grouped that before setting the policy.

 

[jamil]

Dang. I need to go back and watch South Park season 19 again.



First pass: "How can anyone be against Charlotte's Web? Only a monster doesn't cry at the end."
Second pass: "Oh, it that what the law is called?"

Is Charlotte's Law, "hey, you choose!"?
So then there's the NC comeback, "No, your plumbing (or DNA, actually) chooses!", right?


Why can't it be like IN's carry law: "Open / concealed? No way do we want to get into that, it turns ugly - look at INGO."




Myself, I find the people who want to carry on a discussion in the restroom to be far more offensive. Seriously, shut your mouth and pee.

But that happens so rarely in the men's room. I can't remember the last time anyone has said anything to me. I mean, that's the place where you can feel free to just let go and rip one. No one says anything. But I'm sure they're thinking it. Last time I heard someone I thought, "damn dude, you need to change yer diet or something."

 

[451_Detonics]

this is what bothers me...45 year old TG with all the male parts still attached in a changing room with girls as young as 6...don't think little girls need to see that...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/t...nue-using-locker-room-with-six-year-old-girls

 

[JettaKnight]

The calculation is that more people would appreciate Target's social stand than would be made uncomfortable by it. I'd be surprised if they hadn't focus grouped that before setting the policy.

I'd be surprised. My impression is that Target is lead by progressives, so group-think just naturally steers the company this way. I'm sure there was some thought, "Yeah, we'll take heat, but not enough to severely impact the bottom line. This is the right thing to do."

Companies are soulless - there's actual people setting the course. Some are highly directed by this (think Ben and Jerry's) and others are more soulless than not (e.g. BP).

I'm with Beowulf - there's some grey. Restrooms are required to ADA compliant, we don't leave that to businesses to decide. So...


If I had a business then I'd just close my restrooms to public completely. Maybe a sign a la, "this is why we can't have nice things" or something.

 

[Beowulf]

I don't find it a gray area at all. The business gets to decide. And the market gets to decide. That's as fair as it can get. If a business's policy is unpopular, people will go to businesses with policies they like better.

So why do you think the rights of the individual aren't the right's of business? Business owners can't be individuals too? Why is the individual who walks into a bakery more of an individual than the person behind the counter? When rights collide on private property the fairest way is for the property owner to have priority. As a consumer, you don't have to be there.

In the Target situation, I'm sure they pondered the consequences. Probably the consideration wasn't as much for actual Transgendered people (I mean, c'mon, they are only 0.02% of the population.) The consideration was to be seen as "progressive". The calculation is that more people would appreciate Target's social stand than would be made uncomfortable by it. I'd be surprised if they hadn't focus grouped that before setting the policy.

Generally, I would agree with you, but then if you start thinking about it, it's not quite that simple. What if the only grocery store in town decides to stop serving some segment of the population. Then what? They have to move? Before you declare that ridiculous, try visiting some of the smaller towns in Indiana. It's pretty easy to be quite some distance from other options. What if it is the town's only doctor or dentist or mechanic? It's easy to make that argument if you live in a city or populated area, where are plenty of options to choose from. Not so much in more rural areas.

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you do actually oppose IC 34-28-8? I know there was quite a bit of discussion on this forum about the law when it up for a vote.

 

[Beowulf]

I'd be surprised. My impression is that Target is lead by progressives, so group-think just naturally steers the company this way. I'm sure there was some thought, "Yeah, we'll take heat, but not enough to severely impact the bottom line. This is the right thing to do."

Companies are soulless - there's actual people setting the course. Some are highly directed by this (think Ben and Jerry's) and others are more soulless than not (e.g. BP).

I'm with Beowulf - there's some grey. Restrooms are required to ADA compliant, we don't leave that to businesses to decide. So...


If I had a business then I'd just close my restrooms to public completely. Maybe a sign a la, "this is why we can't have nice things" or something.

See, now that I can get behind.

 

[JettaKnight]

this is what bothers me...45 year old TG with all the male parts still attached in a changing room with girls as young as 6...don't think little girls need to see that...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/t...nue-using-locker-room-with-six-year-old-girls

Devil's advocate: "He was seen lounging naked in the sauna. In Finland or Germany this would be normal."

Pragmatist: "See, this is why we can't have nice things."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Generally, I would agree with you, but then if you start thinking about it, it's not quite that simple. What if the only grocery store in town decides to stop serving some segment of the population. Then what? They have to move? Before you declare that ridiculous, try visiting some of the smaller towns in Indiana. It's pretty easy to be quite some distance from other options. What if it is the town's only doctor or dentist or mechanic? It's easy to make that argument if you live in a city or populated area, where are plenty of options to choose from. Not so much in more rural areas.

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you do actually oppose IC 34-28-8? I know there was quite a bit of discussion on this forum about the law when it up for a vote.

Let's say you live in that little, rural town and you get into an argument with the owner of the grocery store and he creates a policy where you're no longer allowed to shop there anymore. Should he be able to discriminate against you based on your disagreement?

 

[Beowulf]

Let's say you live in that little, rural town and you get into an argument with the owner of the grocery store and he creates a policy where you're no longer allowed to shop there anymore. Should he be able to discriminate against you based on your disagreement?

I would say it depends. Did the argument happen in the store and was it related to your patronage? Were you being disruptive in the store? If no, then probably not for the same reason. Otherwise you are opening the door for people being discriminated against via code, rather than some characteristic. For example: You don't ban black people in your store. it just so happens that every black person who walks in was disagreeable and you kicked them out as an individual, rather than because you were discriminating against them.

Again, I would really like to let a business owner operate in any fashion they see fit, but if you are open to the public, then you are open to the public.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think it can be summed in, "don't be an *******."

If your trans, go to the restroom and don't make a scene. Don't showcase that you've mastered peeing at a urinal or wave your junk around in view of girls. If your cis, don't make a huge stink about someone passible using "the restroom of their choice" in a manner that is not in rapey sort of way.

Dad, is your 12 y.o. in the restroom and "Colleen" wants to use the women's room?
"Excuse me, my daughter is in there; do you mind waiting?"
If "Colleen" is following this simple rule, he'll be embarrassed you've called him out, but graciously reply, "No problem, I understand."


This whole, "f--- manners, I demand [no] PC!" is the real problem.


I admittedly lump all the LGBTQNA-yada-yada-yada into the category of pervert. However, I will still always offer good manners. Likewise, if you are LGBTQ... stop asking everyone to making so many darn concessions for you. No, you cannot wave your ding-dang-doodle in front of whomever you like. I don't care how faaaaaaabulous you are!



I tire of this thread.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would say it depends. Did the argument happen in the store and was it related to your patronage? Were you being disruptive in the store? If no, then probably not for the same reason. Otherwise you are opening the door for people being discriminated against via code, rather than some characteristic. For example: You don't ban black people in your store. it just so happens that every black person who walks in was disagreeable and you kicked them out as an individual, rather than because you were discriminating against them.

Again, I would really like to let a business owner operate in any fashion they see fit, but if you are open to the public, then you are open to the public.

I'd rather people be respectful and polite to everybody else as well. I'd like for them to serve every paying customer that walks in. But if we're going to maintain that we shouldn't force our morality on others, then we have to allow for the fact that sometimes the store owner will be a jerk and we shouldn't force him to serve people he or she wishes not to.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like the only "men" entering the women's rooms at Target are christian dumbasses trying to make some idiotic point. Here's a clue for the clueless. Trans people aren't going to be hitting on your women, they just want to ****, like anyone else. Same for trans men, they ain't going to enter the men's room and admire your worm.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aims-to-be-sending-men-into-womens-restrooms/

 

[JettaKnight]

Looks like the only "men" entering the women's rooms at Target are christian dumbasses trying to make some idiotic point. Here's a clue for the clueless. Trans people aren't going to be hitting on your women, they just want to ****, like anyone else. Same for trans men, they ain't going to enter the men's room and admire your worm.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aims-to-be-sending-men-into-womens-restrooms/

I'm confused - does a "trans man" have a natural gentleman sausage or one that's made of silicone? Serious question.

 

[DragonGunner]

Hate to break it to you, but your kids are way, way more likely to be molested by someone they trust (like religious leaders, teachers, coaches, grandparents/uncles/cousins, etc) than they are by random strangers in a public restroom. If you want to make decisions based on the fear of something that "opens the door for molestors", then I suggest you nail your own front door shut and never let your kids out... unless you live with some of your relatives, in which case you better just lock your kids up individually in their own rooms and feed them through a slot in the door until they are 18.

Hate to break it to you but you are not likely ever to be attacked where you will have to draw your weapon and kill someone…..so you might as well sell your guns, forget about carrying. See your very failed logic there? Probably not…..and my sons are 26 and 28 now….LOL on a very worthless post….now go sell your guns I will be looking for them in the classified section.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm confused - does a "trans man" have a natural gentleman sausage or one that's made of silicone? Serious question.

Natural, as far as I know. It's surgically constructed. Just as trans women's vagina's are. And if they haven't made the transition yet, they'll likely head into a stall and you'll never know what they have.