Ignoring gender?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With public bathrooms I don't even care what's the gender of the person in the next stall.Nore should they care about my gender or sex.It doesn't need to match the sign on the door.

Since you do your business in a closed stall it doesn't matter.
I have no problem going to the ladies bathrooms just like I have no problem with ladies going to the men bathrooms.

I have seen moms take their young boy to the men bathrooms just like I have seen dads take their young girl to the ladies bathrooms.
Nobody has a problem with that so I assume it will be the same with gender.

And that's fine when people adopt such practices as their way of life on their own. Would you agree with the government or a bureaucrat in some agency somewhere demanding you do it in your business or your school? And if you don't comply, you may be subject to fines, loss of funding, etc?

 

[Sylvain]

Sylvain: France is not a nation founded by Puritans.

Still I'm sure even puritans have no problem with a single dad taking his little girl to the ladies bathroom.
Even though they might have a problem with a man going to the ladies room because he feels it's his correct gender.

 

[oldpink]

Hopefully, no group tries to force their will upon another group and people can go to the bathroom in public restrooms that match their gender, not just their physical sex, by whatever means that physical sex is to be arbitrarily determined.

Old Pink: And it's not about domination and supremacy for the majority to tell gender non-conforming people that their sincerely held gender identity is invalid and when they are in public, they have to choose to utilize the restroom facilities associated with some legalistic definition of their gender?

My politics is that of an arch Conservative, Objectivist Libertarian. As far as I'm concerned, the individual is the supreme unit of society. I can see no legitimate reason to restrict individual choice with regard to gender identity, so any place that is exclusive to a particular gender is inclusive of everyone with that gender identity.[...]

You can say you're for individual supremacy, yet the only way to make it legal for people with identity issues to use the private facilities they want is through *surprise* GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY.
IOW, anyone who doesn't want to have things totally subverted is told to sit down, shut up, and just take it.
So much for libertarianism.

 

[Crossbow Porpoise]

Chezuki,

The pics smilie was not meant to be included in the reply. It was early in the morning and even with my glasses on, my vision was a bit blurry.

 

[Sylvain]

And that's fine when people adopt such practices as their way of life on their own. Would you agree with the government or a bureaucrat in some agency somewhere demanding you do it in your business or your school? And if you don't comply, you may be subject to fines, loss of funding, etc?

I will pee wherever I want!

Things would be simpler with one single bathroom for everybody anyway.

Heck, we even have a single locker room in some public swimming pools in Europe.Same for the showers.
Not a big deal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I will pee wherever I want!

Things would be simpler with one single bathroom for everybody anyway.

Heck, we even have a single locker room in some public swimming pools in Europe.Same for the showers.
Not a big deal.

I understand. But would you want the federal government dictating that? That's where we're going here, in the states. We have people demanding everybody else accept and tolerate their lifestyle and if they don't come along willingly, they'll most likely unleash the lawyers and sue and get the feds to force people to go along.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So that's why Paris smells that way.

I keed! I keed!

I would actually expect the neo-Puritans today to pitch a fit if a full-grown man were to walk his little girl into the women's restroom to help her go today. He would be expected to take her into the men's room and use the stall dividers to help him shield her innocent eyes.

Old Pink: The people I see trying to use the power of the government to enforce their way for public restrooms are those promulgating the bathroom bills, the ones trying to write some idiotic legal definition of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman for the purpose of using the men's restroom or the women's restroom. So, if you are against people using the power of government to write their definitions of gender into law, I'm right there with ya, brother! No more bathroom bills! Women in the women's restroom based on the individuals' own definitions of themselves as women. No government involved.

 

[Crossbow Porpoise]

For those of you who are jumping in late, let me sum up the major points of this thread again:

1. CathyinBlue is not Snapdragon and vice versa
2. Transgender women are a threat to people who have penises, although this threat has never been specified.
3. No one, and I mean no one, wants to see Chezuki's naughty bits.
4. Someone went to a wedding in drag and has been asked to show everyone pictures.

 

[Sylvain]

For those of you who are jumping in late, let me sum up the major points of this thread again:

1. CathyinBlue is not Snapdragon and vice versa
2. Transgender women are a threat to people who have penises, although this threat has never been specified.
3. No one, and I mean no one, wants to see Chezuki's naughty bits.
4. Someone went to a wedding in drag and has been asked to show everyone pictures.

Hey I didn't want to see Chezuki's meat but I did.

 

[Sylvain]

So that's why Paris smells that way.

I keed! I keed!

I'm not a Parisian so I don't take offence, and that's probably true.

 

[oldpink]

So that's why Paris smells that way.

I keed! I keed!

I would actually expect the neo-Puritans today to pitch a fit if a full-grown man were to walk his little girl into the women's restroom to help her go today. He would be expected to take her into the men's room and use the stall dividers to help him shield her innocent eyes.

Old Pink: The people I see trying to use the power of the government to enforce their way for public restrooms are those promulgating the bathroom bills, the ones trying to write some idiotic legal definition of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman for the purpose of using the men's restroom or the women's restroom. So, if you are against people using the power of government to write their definitions of gender into law, I'm right there with ya, brother! No more bathroom bills! Women in the women's restroom based on the individuals' own definitions of themselves as women. No government involved.

You can start lecturing about the so called "bathroom bills" the very moment you lecture about the GBLTUVWXYZ crowd stops making laws of their own FORCING other people to accept their agenda for same.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Women in the women's restroom based on the individuals' own definitions of themselves as women. No government involved.

No exceptions? No standards? "Individual's own definitions" is a pretty broad brush.

 

[Joe G]

Women in the women's restroom based on the individuals' own definitions of themselves as women. No government involved.

Please tell me when and where you and any of your female relatives will be in a public restroom. For about 5 minutes I'll make sure some guys define themselves as women and join you in there.

Fair right?

 

[CathyInBlue]

You can start lecturing about the so called "bathroom bills" the very moment you lecture about the GBLTUVWXYZ crowd stops making laws of their own FORCING other people to accept their agenda for same.

Could you be at all specific about these laws forcing other people to accept the gay agenda? I'm aware of laws forbidding the continued denial of the rights of gay people to marry and to enjoy all of the same rights the government protects of heterosexual married people. I'd be overjoyed for you to explain how oppressors being prevented from continuing to oppress a people is equivalent to that people oppressing the erstwhile oppressors.

No exceptions? No standards? "Individual's own definitions" is a pretty broad brush.

Painted with the pigment of individualism on the canvas of justice!

Please tell me when and where you and any of your female relatives will be in a public restroom. For about 5 minutes I'll make sure some guys define themselves as women and join you in there.

Fair right?

Provided your temporary women do not commit the crimes of public indecency, voyeurism, or other sex-based offenses, I have no problem with your scenario.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Provided your temporary women do not commit the crimes of public indecency, voyeurism, or other sex-based offenses, I have no problem with your scenario.

I highly doubt that. Very easy to claim on the internets. Much different if it actually happens.

Some smug SOB waltzing into the women's room, clearly a man making no effort to look or act like a woman... telling you in a matter-of-factly way "yeah I identify as a woman today, toots" as he struts around the room, darting eyes around.... knowing he has the shield of social justice guarding him from your judgement.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I carry a knife. Be sure to let them know if I see a great hairy eyeball in the gaps around the door, I'll be sticking that knife into said eyeball. That's how I defend against suffering the crime of voyeurism.

 

[Joe G]

I carry a knife. Be sure to let them know if I see a great hairy eyeball in the gaps around the door, I'll be sticking that knife into said eyeball. That's how I defend against suffering the crime of voyeurism.

Wow! Deadly force for someone who was just seeing if the stall was inhabited??

From someone who severely scolded CM earlier about how he raised his daughter, I'm shocked. Hope your lawyer is on speed dial for that "crime of voyeurism" defense when someone is blinded or even killed when he (oops, meant "she") was innocently checking the stalls.

Guess you're not as open minded as you claim.

 

[CathyInBlue]

From someone who severely scolded CM earlier about how he raised his daughter, I'm shocked. Hope your lawyer is on speed dial for that "crime of voyeurism" defense when someone is blinded or even killed when he (oops, meant "she") was innocently checking the stalls.

Remember you said that the next time a gender non-conforming person is accused of voyeurism for reasonably checking stalls for occupancy when they are utilizing the facilities the same as anyone else.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

That's how I defend against suffering the crime of voyeurism.

That is an impossile statement for you to make.

 

[Joe G]

Remember you said that the next time a gender non-conforming person is accused of voyeurism for reasonably checking stalls for occupancy when they are utilizing the facilities the same as anyone else.

I'M not for the "non-conforming" persons to be in there in the first place remember - YOU, however, are.

In fact, you invited them in and have "no problem" with them being there.

Would you stab a traditional woman in the eye for checking under/through the crack to see if it was occupied? If not, why not the "hairy eyeball" male who identifies as a woman?