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

[oldpink]

This must be what that moral high ground I keep hearing about looks like....

“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

There is nothing moral about Alinskyite tactics.

 

[churchmouse]

This must be what that moral high ground I keep hearing about looks like....

Did you not read my in thread warning.
You are not immune.
I said stand down and I meant it.
I said the one and only and I meant it. I even posted it twice for the benefit of those who do not realize i am looking their way. You are not along here but you alone have not paid attention.
You have been trolling this thread for a while.

Next one and you are out.

 

[Lowe0]

Did you not read my in thread warning.
You are not immune.
I said stand down and I meant it.
I said the one and only and I meant it. I even posted it twice for the benefit of those who do not realize i am looking their way. You are not along here but you alone have not paid attention.
You have been trolling this thread for a while.

Next one and you are out.

Which forum rule, specifically, did my post break?

 

[churchmouse]

Which forum rule, specifically, did my post break?

Seriously.
Moderators have full discretion to tone down any activity they see getting close to the edge.
In my view you have stirred enough in here tonight as have many others.




Give it a rest.

I edited my original post as it upset someones tender sensibility's.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Let me just roll this grenade into the room… for those who don't have an issue with men sharing the restroom with their wives and daughters, how about the locker room shower? Who would ever abuse that privilege? Ask your female relatives how they feel about that, because isn't that the logical extension of this argument? If you have a penis, use the men's room. If you have a penis and like to wear a dress because you feel like a woman, still use the men's restroom…. JHC, not that difficult.

I think this is the problem. The INTENTION was to allow those who are LEGITIMATELY TG to enter the facilities they identify with, and have likely been doing for decades discretely. However it was written poorly, and probably in the interest of not pissing off any SJWs (that vocal minority that everyone fears lest they be called a bigot even for reasonable views) were written too vaguely.

I dont think anyone really wants a random pervy man walking into the womens restroom and vice versa. Going back to that extreme minority with the big hammer, everyone is just too damned scared to say the wrong thing and use one of the wrong 56 flavors of gender identity in their rules, pissing SOMEBODY off... whiny liberal SJWs are famous for that) Im sure their intention was to allow someone like Jenner to go into the ladies room, but not Mary Kay Letourneau or Deb LaFave to go into the little boys room. However the latter is how everyone is focusing the argument due to how vague it is written in fear. (That and the fundie idea that TG="uncontrolled pervert who actively seeks out unattended kids to rape")

In an effort to be like Starbucks who tried to step away from the 2A/OC movement they have done the same... the legislators and target, et al tried to err on the side of caution and be politely vague, and it has blown up in their faces because we live in fear of SJWs for saying the wrong word and triggering somebody. Heaven forbid we confuse a homosexual with a pansexual or bisexual person because we used a term that is too vague or too specific. Imagine if we were as bad as them? There would be lawsuits and Ferguson level riots over INGOers use of "CCW permit" and "clips". "Is that a Glock?" "NO ITS A HI-POINT!!! STOP TRIGGERING ME!!!!!"

 

[Route 45]

Unless I missed it, I've never seen anyone in one of these delightful public restroom threads explain how to enforce such a ridiculous law.
I suppose we could expand the TSA, they don't seem to have a problem messing with peoples' junk.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Have you guys read anything by Matt Walsh? He has some good articles on the topic.

The Matt Walsh Blog - Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips)

 

[bigus_D]

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.

Hopefully he/she washes her/his hands before leaving. Seriously, some people have no decency!

 

[jamil]

How is the law misdirected? From what I've read, the law, much like Indiana's gun preemption law, it prevents NC political subdivisions from making laws that force people and businesses from having to play along with this fad. It doesn't prohibit Target from doing what they're doing but it prevents Charlotte, NC from passing an ordinance requiring Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a making them do as Target is doing. Of course it's being misrepresented as discriminatory but it seems like a pretty good solution to me.

Ah. Well in that case nevermind. If the law is to prevent municipalities from imposing reqiured social policies I'm good with that.

I'm gonna go with my original instinct. I finally got around to reading the bill. It does way more than prevent municipalities from imposing social policies on businesses. I'm not down with that.

I oppose governments forcing businesses to impose social policies on their businesses. The NC law does that. Whether the particular social policy is from the left or right, the businesses should have the right to make their own policies for using public accommodations within their own facilities.

 

[Birds Away]

I'm gonna go with my original instinct. I finally got around to reading the bill. It does way more than prevent municipalities from imposing social policies on businesses. I'm not down with that.

I oppose governments forcing businesses to impose social policies on their businesses. The NC law does that. Whether the particular social policy is from the left or right, the businesses should have the right to make their own policies for using public accommodations within their own facilities.

Hey, mister, that sounds an awful lot like freedom to me.

 

[churchmouse]

Hey, mister, that sounds an awful lot like freedom to me.

Exactly.

 

[Birds Away]

Exactly.

No matter who you vote for today they don't seem to be offering much of that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm gonna go with my original instinct. I finally got around to reading the bill. It does way more than prevent municipalities from imposing social policies on businesses. I'm not down with that.

I oppose governments forcing businesses to impose social policies on their businesses. The NC law does that. Whether the particular social policy is from the left or right, the businesses should have the right to make their own policies for using public accommodations within their own facilities.

I guess I missed it. Where does the law prevent businesses from creating their own policies? I see where it talks about schools and government agencies; I see the part about claiming to have authority over local governments when it comes to legislating such thing; but I don't see where it says Target must provide a separate men's and ladiies' room and they can't have their policy. Like I said, maybe I missed it.

 

[jamil]

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.

Post #52. If you can't find the answer there, well, you're probably not going to understand much else that I would have to say about it.

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.

No, no. Please do advocate for whatever social change you want. Just be civil about it. And don't try to repress arguments from the other side. Don't try to belittle, marginalize, ridicule, and make straw monsters of the people who disagree with you to try to remove their voice from the discussion.

For example, when you say things like,

Please explain how squeamishness about trans-gendered folks is a social good that "works"?

You are trying to marginalize my opinion by making light of my point as a sort of straw man. If you have a valid, logical, relevant point, please make it. But allow the other side the same. Civil debates bring about representative change. An uncivil debate in which one side squelches the other, can end up in tyranny. Both sides do it, but the left, having the media with the most people tuned in, has an enormous advantage.

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.

Dude, it's a little more complicated than that.

Live with prejudiced and in misery? WTF? C'mon man. Don't you think you're overplaying your hand at least a little? I don't think imposing on people who have no issues with their gender identity is the most workable solution for prejudice and misery. You post as if you have the moral high ground yourself. Move over. I'd say we care in different ways, and it's my opinion that my way is more effective.

I think telling Bruce Jenner that "she's brave and beautiful woman" does more harm than good. It doesn't help him with his disorder. Transgendered people have a suicide rate of 41%. The suicide rate for transgenders who have completed the surgery is even higher. Obviously helping them become what their disorder makes them think they are doesn't help them. But it's become politically correct to do that.

Helping people accept reality has helped many people with other disorders. It seems like that would be a more effective treatment for this disorder, and save more of them from suicide. Making laws that force people to accept people as the gender their disorder makes them think they are does not help them accept reality.

The left doesn't seem interested in curing them. They seem more interested in putting them on a pedestal and parading them around as a catalyst for other social change. The way I see it, they're being used to further an agenda.

As far as the "prejudiced" part of that, you're not going to change that by ridicule.I realize many millennials who've grown up on reddit think ridicule is the way to accomplish everything, but life has taught the people who grew up without the internet differently. I'll get salty with people on the internet when I perceive they've gotten salty with me. But I'm not going to take away your voice through ridicule, derision, and marginalization. I'd appreciate if you'd do the same.

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.

Pushing for social change is fine. As I said, please do. I do all I can to push for social changes like repealing stupid gun laws. But I don't do that via Saul Alinsky. The civil rights movement didn't win because they straw-manned bigots. I'm not asking to keep your mouth shut. I'm asking you to be honest and understand the opposing arguments, before you start accusing them of orders of magnitude more evil than there is.

This issue is in no way the same as the civil rights movement. We're talking about how to treat people with this specific mental disorder. One side says, let's play along with them and help them be what they think they are. The other side should be saying, no, let's help them cope with reality. Probably if the nation were having that discussion more could be accomplished to help them.

I lived through the 60s and 70s. The civil rights movement didn't use Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals to end segregation. They did it by convincing people it was wrong. If you want to stop the prejudiced against various social groups, informing people in a non-confrontational way is a much better way. Growing up the schools had programs to help blacks and whites get to know each other. We went on survival weekend trips and paired up with a person from the opposite race. We had to get past race to depend on each other. And in the process we got to know each other. Your way won't accomplish that. It'll only **** people off. It'll only further divide people.

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.

Again, marginalizing isn't an argument. "Because I say so, so get used to it" isn't an argument. Why don't you just try arguing against what I'm actually saying?

 

[jamil]

I guess I missed it. Where does the law prevent businesses from creating their own policies? I see where it talks about schools and government agencies; I see the part about claiming to have authority over local governments when it comes to legislating such thing; but I don't see where it says Target must provide a separate men's and ladiies' room and they can't have their policy. Like I said, maybe I missed it.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. It defines restrooms accessible to the public as "public accommodations" and requires that people use the restroom for their biological sex. The way it looks to me, Target's policy in NC is pretty much void. They're using the constructs concocted by the civil rights act ("public accomodation") to force their social policies on businesses, much like the civil rights act did.

 

[churchmouse]

No matter who you vote for today they don't seem to be offering much of that.

We are still mulling over our limited choices.

 

[Expat]

Don't worry guys, I am going to start spending more time in the women's room... you know, to give the little darlings extra protection and training on safety procedures.... and I have candy. Lots of candy...

 

[oldpink]

Again, those damn rep nazis...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. It defines restrooms accessible to the public as "public accommodations" and requires that people use the restroom for their biological sex. The way it looks to me, Target's policy in NC is pretty much void. They're using the constructs concocted by the civil rights act ("public accomodation") to force their social policies on businesses, much like the civil rights act did.

Here's how I'm digesting it: Page 1, Part 1 applies to schools. Page 2, after the heading that starts with Article 81 appears to be talking about government agencies, court houses, etc.. Part 2 and section 2.1 - 2.3 appear to be talking about employment law having to do with contractors. Now, Part 3, starting at the bottom of page three appears to be clarifying that discrimination against the sex of the person is confined to biological sex and by implication, disallows discrimination charges to be brought by perceived sex. And it asserts state authority over local actions in this regard. Paragraph 143.422-11 merely says that folks that have public accommodations (restrooms) according to biological sex shall not be grounds for a discrimination charge.

(The way I read it).

 

[Plague421]

EDIT***

I made a post with a link to what turns out to be a spoof/hoax website.

---

I apologize for failing to see that before I posted the link.

Mods feel free to delete this post.