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

[Beowulf]

​The first person depicted is not transgender.

AJ Kearns? Uhm, not according to the myriad of internet news articles talking about how interesting it was that a "man" gave birth to a child. He was born Vicky Anne Kearns.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

AJ Kearns? Uhm, not according to the myriad of internet news articles talking about how interesting it was that a "man" gave birth to a child. He was born Vicky Anne Kearns.

Then he's living as a male and will use male restrooms.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, "defense of marriage" amendments often included "or marriage-like status" clauses specifically to prevent that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions

Besides, how did they even propose that without getting laughed out of the room? "Sure, separate but equal didn't work last time, and it's a reminder of one of the most shameful episodes in our nation's history, but let's try it again and see if it sticks this time." Really?

So, you are trying to ignore the fact that when such legislation was introduced by a liberal legislature it ignited a sh*tstorm almost as bad as RFRA?

Separate but equal has been in play since the introduction of public restrooms. Race is an entirely different issue than being the wrong f**king gender.

 

[Beowulf]

Then he's living as a male and will use male restrooms.

Not according to the NC law he wouldn't. The law specified the gender on the birth certificate, not what they were living as. That's my whole point. The law was stupid.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Not according to the NC law he wouldn't. The law specified the gender on the birth certificate, not what they were living as. That's my whole point. The law was stupid.

Then if I read you right we're on the same page. If that individual in the picture goes into a woman's restroom there's a pretty good possibility its other occupants will run out screaming even though he/she is biologically female and has every legal right to be there.

Is that what proponents of these laws really want? Can't they see that everything will go more smoothly if people make their own discreet choices?

 

[Beowulf]

Then if I read you right we're on the same page. If that individual in the picture goes into a woman's restroom there's a pretty good possibility its other occupants will run out screaming even though he/she is biologically female and has every legal right to be there.

Is that what proponents of these laws really want? Can't they see that everything will go more smoothly if people make their own discreet choices?

They are way too busy making decisions based on their feelings without using their brains and logic to follow through where this foolishness ends up.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Can't they see that everything will go more smoothly if people make their own discreet choices?

If that were happening (i.e., being discreet) this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[halfmileharry]

Seeing if I get banned for this here at INGO……?
I was on another forum and a guy said nothing should be wrong with both genders using bathroom at same time, they do in other countries now and anyone thinking otherwise has too much space in there head……I commented that those kind of people open the door to those child molesters who could enter without drawing attention to themselves then prey on victims, this just happened in the news in Canada where its legal for "men" to use woman's bathroom…..Law enforcement has a tough enough time with molesters….lets not make their jobs any harder. Well the mod lost his ever loving mind and closed the thread and said for ME to never do that again, that I was almost banned !!!!! Others had made their concerns known also….but my mention why not was in his words…"Vulgar" and then started his own thread without showing my words saying "how Vulgar….think george carlin…and how he had to stop a forum meltdown……".All I can think of is what type of man thinks what I said was so vulgar….? Wow….and it was in their off topic section……scary stuff.

View attachment 46974

My logic...IF you were vulgar you'd want men in the restroom.

 

[jamil]

Rape victims don't choose to be raped. On the other hand, no one is forcing businesses to take a stand on social issues, in either direction. Those that do so accept the results, both positive and negative.

Well, isn't the NC law in response to Charlotte imposing an ordinance requiring businesses to allow people to use which ever restroom for the sex they identify with?

You've lost me here. Who is being forced to hide? Who are you describing as "mentally defective?" Who is trying to impose themselves on others?

1) Who is being forced to hide? People who disagree and are publicly ridiculed and shamed for it. Like the pizza people who had death threats against them.

2) Who is mentally defective? Gender Identity Disorder AKA Gender Dysphoria is a DSM-5 recognized mental illness for which there is only one prescribed, politically correct, treatment. Surgery. And is not very effective. The suicide rate among transgendered people is very high anyway, and is even higher among those who have undergone the surgery.

3) Who is trying to impose themselves on others? People who demand municipalities force businesses to adopt their social standards. Transgender people make up 0.02% of the US population. Females make up just over half of the population. So you have activists trying to get laws passed to force businesses to let 0.02% of the population override the wishes of over half, to use whatever restroom they want depending on where their mental disorder takes them.

Live our lives at their mercy?

I don't understand why people are transgender. I've certainly seen enough about it now to see that it is a genuine condition, and that people who have it can't wish it away. It is a mental defect? I suppose that terminology is accurate. But describing such people as being unable to understand objective reality is absurd. They're painfully aware of what their gender is or is SUPPOSED to be. Their reality is that their hardware and their software is incompatible.

If such a person enters my restroom, or my wife's (I asked her and she is utterly indifferent to the possibility) discreetly enters a restroom stall, takes care of business and leaves, this imposes nothing on me. Or on you.

Can't handle it? Pee at home.

First, I probably wouldn't describe it as unable to understand objective reality. They know what sex they were born as. But they have a strong desire to behave lie and be treated as members of the opposite sex. They want to believe they are the opposite sex. In short, it is a delusion.

Second, we probably need to ask more than just you and your wife. You don't get to set societal standards by yourself. Let's find out the truth about how many women feel uncomfortable with men using the women's room. Do you think that matters?

I'll ask another question. Do you think that gender-specific restrooms have outlived their usefulness and we should now do away with them all together and have just one restroom type for all? If your answer to that is no, I have to admit I'm puzzled by that. If your answer is yes, okay, you're consistent, but you only get one vote and your vote shouldn't be amplified through the disproportionate voice of the radical elements, who mob-shame and deride people who disagree. In other words, you don't get to coerce your social will by using the heckler's vote and calling people who simply disagree with you "vulgar".

 

[jamil]

Why?

Because in this country a majority cannot suppress the basic rights and human dignity of a minority, particularly when exercise of those rights harms no one.

Is it a human right to use the restroom gender one identifies with? I think it's not a human right to use some one else's restroom at all. Businesses put them there for customer's convenience. I have no problem with businesses making their own policies. If people don't like the policies they can make other arrangements. I do have a problem with communities dictating what businesses' social policies must be.

 

[jamil]

Personally, I find this entirely ridiculous. First off, I don't get the appeal to the supposed loss of the "America that was". Last I checked, that America included racism, government enforced segregation, forcing American citizens into concentration camps based on their ethnicity, genocide against native peoples, and a myriad of other abuses. Why the hell anyone would want America to return to that, I have no idea.

Second, I don't quite get this conflation of trans-gendered people with child molesters. They aren't even remotely the same groups. It would be like me getting upset at the US government allowing immigration of Cambodians because they might be Nickelback fans. While, it's certainly possible that one of these Cambodian immigrants might be a Nickelback fan (poor taste knows no national boundaries after all), it would be literally the height of insanity to assume they all are and make policies based on that assumption.

Finally, for those who are getting their underwear in a knot, just to be clear:

You want this person to go into the bathroom with your wives and daughters...


and you want this person to go into the bathrooms with your husbands and sons...


Do I have that right?

It's not all or nothing. Some social constructs are good and useful. Some are not. We can denounce the ones that were harmful while keeping the ones that work.

 

[Lowe0]

Well, isn't the NC law in response to Charlotte imposing an ordinance requiring businesses to allow people to use which ever restroom for the sex they identify with?

Complying with that ordinance is just following a law, not taking a public position on the matter.

 

[Beowulf]

It's not all or nothing. Some social constructs are good and useful. Some are not. We can denounce the ones that were harmful while keeping the ones that work.

Please explain how squeamishness about trans-gendered folks is a social good that "works"? I have yet to hear a real practical explanation on why this is so important that we need government to get involved and check our genitalia. I mean, I think we get enough of that when we go to the airport without wanting to expand that any further.

Honestly, this can all be corrected with proper restroom design anyway. Floor to ceiling stalls, with either a smaller a adjoining area with urinals or urinals in stalls as well. For smaller establishments with single occupant restrooms, just pull down the man and woman signs and just put a dual sign (or just mark it "restroom"), just like they do on airplanes... or houses. Seriously, it's not that complex.

 

[Alpo]

After being in a few countries where people drop trou and poop in the street (women too), methinks this shouldn't be an issue.

 

[jamil]

Please explain how squeamishness about trans-gendered folks is a social good that "works"? I have yet to hear a real practical explanation on why this is so important that we need government to get involved and check our genitalia. I mean, I think we get enough of that when we go to the airport without wanting to expand that any further.

Honestly, this can all be corrected with proper restroom design anyway. Floor to ceiling stalls, with either a smaller a adjoining area with urinals or urinals in stalls as well. For smaller establishments with single occupant restrooms, just pull down the man and woman signs and just put a dual sign (or just mark it "restroom"), just like they do on airplanes... or houses. Seriously, it's not that complex.

I think I've answered this either in this thread or the social justice retards thread. I don't really want to paste that here.

 

[jamil]

After being in a few countries where people drop trou and poop in the street (women too), methinks this shouldn't be an issue.

Well, so far we've heard mostly from white men and social justice warriors hell bent on making society what it thinks it should be. What do the women think? I don't think men really care all that much if women use their bathrooms.

 

[DragonGunner]

Please explain how squeamishness about trans-gendered folks is a social good that "works"? I have yet to hear a real practical explanation on why this is so important that we need government to get involved and check our genitalia. I mean, I think we get enough of that when we go to the airport without wanting to expand that any further.

Honestly, this can all be corrected with proper restroom design anyway. Floor to ceiling stalls, with either a smaller a adjoining area with urinals or urinals in stalls as well. For smaller establishments with single occupant restrooms, just pull down the man and woman signs and just put a dual sign (or just mark it "restroom"), just like they do on airplanes... or houses. Seriously, it's not that complex.

LOL…ya last time I was on a plane the bathroom had 10 stalls….woman, men, children all over the place in there….sure was crowded. We are talking public bathrooms…not one bathroom go in and lock the door. Once again this is a none issue except the minority of men who want to be in the right to use the woman's bathroom and feel its impeding the Constitutional rights to be freaks. Its not so much the freak problem I have, I do not classify them with molesster…..but if it opens the door for molester to enter a bathroom for "opportunity" without anyone being able to call it out if made legal….thats the problem….but some will think I'm the vulgar one.


Edit: Re read and I was wrong, and see your point on "single" bathrooms…..and apologies for misunderstanding….I would agree with you….been long day!!!!! Sadly though in order to do that to bathrooms, your going to need the government to make such laws for establishment to obey……and do we want to do that because somebody who is to squeamish as a man to use mans bathroom?????

 

[Beowulf]

LOL…ya last time I was on a plane the bathroom had 10 stalls….woman, men, children all over the place in there….sure was crowded. We are talking public bathrooms…not one bathroom go in and lock the door. Once again this is a none issue except the minority of men who want to be in the right to use the woman's bathroom and feel its impeding the Constitutional rights to be freaks. Its not so much the freak problem I have, I do not classify them with molesster…..but if it opens the door for molester to enter a bathroom for "opportunity" without anyone being able to call it out if made legal….thats the problem….but some will think I'm the vulgar one.

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.

 

[Beowulf]

I think I've answered this either in this thread or the social justice retards thread. I don't really want to paste that here.

I went back and re-read some of your posts in this thread (I'm not chasing down what you wrote in anther thread or on your 3rd grade book report... I have better things to do). I don't see you answering that question. What I do see is you advocating that people stop pushing for social change because it is going to incite violence from reactionaries who oppose it.

Great advice... except you are asking people to live with prejudice and in misery because some other people just can't quite handle minding their own business. No social change has happened without the people who want it pushing for it. That's not how women got the right to vote, that's not how the civil rights movement helped end segregation, and that's not how the marriage equality movement got the Supreme Court to overturn state bans on same-sex unions. Asking people to count on the general populace to outgrow their bigotry... eventually, and to keep their mouths shut until then is pretty ridiculous. Last I checked, this country was founded on the principal that free citizens don't need to ask government for permission to exercise their rights and to live their lives.

I get that this is a subject that makes people uncomfortable. I really do. But the fact of the matter is, so did mixed-race marriages not that long ago. Heck, look at the shift in the public acceptance of same-sex marriage in just the last 20 years. Peoples attitudes do shift, but they don't do it on their own. People need to have their beliefs challenged, forcing them to take a hard look at what they believe and see if it really is right. If you end up deciding it is, great. You are free to feel that way. But just because you are uncomfortable with something doesn't mean you get to dictate what other people do and how they live. That's un-American.

I tell you what. When the Liberal Gay Agenda (tm) starts going door-to-door and forcing you to have a sex-change operation and get gay-married to a turtle, I'll join you in opposing it. Until then, it's my humble opinion that you are just going to have to deal with the fact that other people live differently than you, no matter how icky you think it is.

 

[Lowe0]

and feel its impeding the Constitutional rights to be freaks

Why was the little freak in Colorado

Pity the whack job that crosses her trail in the wrong "Room"

Let me see if I can recap where we're at here... a bunch of people want to exercise their right to free speech to call others freaks and whack jobs, but then think they have a right not to be shamed or ridiculed for saying it. That about covers it?