Truth is that they do not have to “pose” as anyone. There have been a couple of cases here where a child has been attacked in a public bathroom by a predator. All public rest rooms should be monitored
You make some good points. But then, this is not the fault of the real transgenders, is it? That would be the fault of someone who is a heterosexual cisgender male pretending to be transgender and disguising himself as such, to gain access to female-only bathrooms and lockers. Because the real transgenders who do feel like women, are not interested in raping women... So if a rapist enters a female bathroom or locker room with the intention of raping a woman, guess what, there are already laws against that. Rape is illegal. It is a big time felony. So do we need an additional law to curb that? Say, a robber gets a make-up artist and disguises himself as an old lady in order to gain access to a senior center, where he knows that there are some valuables such as jewelry. The old ladies are having a jewelry party. So the guy disguises himself like one, gains access, and proceeds to robbing the old ladies of their jewelry. OK, so, because a criminal pretended to be an old lady to commit a crime, you feel like there should be a new law prohibiting real old ladies from going to that center??? And then, consider this. Say, imagine a world where there's never been any issue regarding transgenderism and bathrooms/locker rooms. What would prevent a male criminal from, again, getting a good make-up artist, some fake breasts and a female dress, and convincingly disguising himself into a female, to do exactly the same thing you're fearing regarding transgenders? Look at a movie like White Chicks. Make-up artists can indeed pretty much make anybody look like the other gender. I mean, this possibility already exists, regardless of transgenderism. --------------- So, you say, "is it so very difficult for transgenders to use the bathroom assigned to people of their biological sex?" Absolutely. If a male to female transgender really looks a lot like a woman (and many do), and dresses like one and all, how would that person walk into a male's bathroom just because that person was born a biological male? How would the male population frequenting that bathroom respond to suddenly someone who entirely looks like a woman, walking in? Look, this person here is a male-to-female transgender (I got to the picture by just performing a Google Image search and bumped into this picture of one of them, posted by an organization called International Center for Transgender Care. So this is a real picture of a real person who is a male-to-female transgender). Where do you suppose that this person would best fit in, a female bathroom or a male bathroom? So, some governors like the former governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory wanted a law that would make it a crime for this person to walk into a female bathroom. Do you think it's reasonable? And from the standpoint of this person, where do you think this person would feel (and be) safer? In a male bathroom, or a female bathroom? And this person here is a female-to-male transgender. So, according to you, since this person was born female, this person should only frequent a female bathroom or locker room, right? So please tell me now, how would your daughter and your wife feel, if they were there in a state of undress, and this person walked in??? See how the situation is a bit more complex than what you're saying?
So long as they were not inside the stall with me it is not an issue. Male nurses look after female patients and vice versa. The biggest issue I would have is that most men are........not as accurate let’s say and require more cleaning up after themselves To be honest I know lots of women who have used a men’s toilet because there was no line up. And I even know of women who have used a “she wee” when at festivals rather than pee their pants It’s waaaay better than squatting on spinifex!
Laws don't stop rapist or pedophiles. They are only there to hold them accountable after the fact. If laws stopped crimes then we wouldn't have any crimes so lets stick with reality here. How many children and women are we comfortable sacrificing to insure a very small minority feels comfortable in the bathroom of their choice? Nope, just fake old ladies. Kind of makes sense, huh. Again, I NEVER stated anything related to fear of transgenders or what transgenders might or might not do. My point is that you can't insure the saftey of women and children while legally allowing biological males in their locker rooms and bath rooms. If you don't think advantages will be taken by the criminal element to take advantage of these policies then you are just ignoring the obvious for a political end. We can go on and on with the what if's all day. What you can't refute is rapist and pedophiles will take advantage of these laws and increase the danger to THE MAJORITY over a small minority all because we don't want to hurt someones feelings over bathroom accommodations. You deciding one day you want to be a female isn't my problem and most won't subject their family to additional risk so that you feel better about your bathroom usage. Thats just the facts and no amount of political theater is going to change the protective nature of a father or husband who feels their family member is under threat. If you really intended on fixing the problem then provide unisex accommodations instead of trying to make everyone else accommodate those few who feel the need to have access to a bathroom or locker room of their choice.
First of all, let me clarify: I'm a heterosexual cisgender male. None of this applies to me. All people in my family are heterosexual cisgender people. While I have a few friends who are homosexual, most of my friends are heterosexual and none of them are transgender. So, no vested interest, here. Two, I have no political agenda here. I'm just thinking about the issue, and looking at the multiple sides of it. It's not a black-and-white issue, it has multiple shades of gray. Three, you say rapists would take advantage of it, but never answered my question, can't they already take advantage of it regardless of the transgender issue, simply by disguising themselves? What would change? Four, you didn't answer my questions. You carefully dodged them, apparently, not addressing any part of my post that comes after I inserted that ------ separator. I said, what would males think/do if a person looking like the one in my first picture walked into their bathroom? And what would females (your wife, daughter) think/feel if a person looking like the one in my second picture walked into their bathroom? Still, that's what you're advocating for. Go by biological sex. Trying to force the person in picture 1 into a male bathroom and the person in picture 2 into a female bathroom would be absurd. It's not simply a question of hurting someone's feelings about bathroom accommodations. It's that a person like the one in my first picture walking into a male bathroom is just not an option... would make men uncomfortable there, and it wouldn't be safe for that person. A person like the one in my second picture walking into a female bathroom / locker room / shower would freak out everybody there. They'd be calling the cops on the person. It's not really as simple and as optional as you're saying. All that I'm saying is that it is more complex than that. And sure, laws don't prevent all crimes; they are instruments to punish crimes. To a certain degree. Because laws are deterrents. Say, if we had no laws against robbing banks. Perfectly legal to do so. No consequences whatsoever. Don't you think a bunch of people would be going into banks and robbing them, when they needed money to buy the newest iPhone if they didn't have enough to buy it? So, bank robbing being by law illegal, doesn't eliminate all bank robbing but makes it way less frequent than if it weren't illegal. So, a transgender looking like the ones I depicted, simply interested in relieving him/herself of #1 or #2 safely and comfortably and without freaking out anybody else and without having the cops called, going in, doing his/her business, going out, not committing any crime, why in the hell do we need laws to prevent that from happening??? And if that's allowed then rapists will take advantage? Like I said, they'd have to be PRETENDING and DISGUISING themselves to take advantage, and there isn't anything preventing them from ALREADY doing so, regardless of any bathroom laws pertaining to transgenders. Do you have any stats showing how many heterosexual cisgender males have disguised themselves as transgenders and went into female bathrooms and locker rooms and showers to engage in rape, in states that have passed transgender bathroom laws? If you do, please share... or else, this is a solution in search of a problem, one that may not even exist in the real world. If any of these stats exist, it is likely to be anecdotal, extremely rare cases, and like I said, independently of transgenderism, the same pervs could have done it just as easily much before this issue has ever been brought to people's attention. They'd have to disguise themselves... before, and after these laws. They'd have to pretend... before, and after these laws. Nothing would have been changed. Like YOU said, laws don't prevent crimes, and I'll add, they don't enable crime either. Someone bent on donning a disguise to have access to a restricted area in order to commit a crime, will do so regardless of the existing laws. I see no relationship between these laws, and any higher incidence of such crimes. If you have hard evidence of it, then please share and I'll listen.
You certainly take a lot for granted while dismissing the obvious. 1. Anyone looking like the 1st picture you posted isn't even being questioned about her bathroom use. EVER. So why does she need a law to use the ladies room of her choice in the first place? You're using extremes to make your point. 2. You act like this only applies to bathroom use. It doesn't so lets stop pretending. 3. If you pass a law allowing biological males in female locker rooms, bath rooms, or any other exclusive female facility, what crime is committed if a man decides to wear a womans dress, go into a female locker room, disrobe and shower with other women? He doesn't have to be transgender, homosexual, or any other gender dysphoria you can come up with. And if the police are called for this man exposing himself to women and children, the response will be, he isn't breaking any laws. 4. Now what are you going to do about prison populations? You can't just make this policy for bathrooms only. It will be considered racist or unconstitutional. Now you have men, claiming to be women, incarcerated with other women? The Biden administration wasted no time in demanding policies that gut legal protections for women by denying female athletes fair competition in sports, ignoring women’s unique health needs, and forcing vulnerable girls to share intimate spaces with men who identify as female. Biden’s order instructs federal agencies (which includes prisons) to reinterpret federal laws and regulations that prohibit sex discrimination including Title IX to include gender identity so that women and girls are no longer protected in sports, locker rooms, and other intimate venues. But this doesn't happen, Right? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ton-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/ During the Beacon Hill Judiciary Committee hearing on the transgender rights bill, a group of representatives of the gym and health club industry testified that such a bill would hurt their businesses by allowing people to use locker room and bathroom facilities based on their gender identity or expression, rather than on their biological sex. They argued that women would feel uncomfortable sharing facilities with anatomical males, particularly if the women had young children with them. Turning a blind eye on the repercussions based on a picture of what most would consider as a female, doesn't make your point. Instead it proves you have to reach to the extreme.
OK, you made your case. I concede. You are correct. I'm wrong. Hey, I bet you don't see this, here, very often, huh? Someone acknowledging someone else's point and conceding.
I don't think your wrong. I think your passion for people in general provides you with a certain bias. Just like mine does. I bear no animosity towards any human being dealing with gender dysphoria issues or sexual preferences that don't align with mine. I am a live and let live kind of guy. Without going into great detail, I am of the opinion that women and girls are our most valued gifts and their saftey and rights take precedence above all others. No exceptions. You obviously have a lot of knowledge and history (which I read through) that brings a certain level of compassion to your claims. I respect what you are attempting to protect and understand your reasoning behind it. But on the matter of reinterpreting federal laws and regulations that prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of gender identity, well, that brush is much too broad for me.
I'm glad to hear about your "live and let live" attitude, which I share. And yes, women and girls are a great gift. I'm one of the lucky guys. I go through life while enjoying the privilege of being married to a fabulous woman, a highly intelligent, rock-solid, resilient, resourceful, beautiful, sexy creature... I love her dearly. She is the best thing that has ever happened to me - together with the two phenomenal kids we made together. I think she is in many ways a much better human being than I am. I barely feel that I deserve her, so I'm always in awe of the fact that she does seem to love me dearly too, despite my shortcomings, which she doesn't seem to mind. And then, yes, our daughter... another beautiful creature in all senses of the word, inside and outside. Then, there are the two guys in our family. Me, and my son. So, we guys have always been in awe of the female half of the family. Growing up with two fabulous females, my son has developed a healthy respect for women, which is reflected in his incredibly good choice of a fiancée. What a nice young woman! They will get married in July, and we are thrilled. She is just as solid and just as competent a human being, as my wife and my daughter. You are right that if anybody threatened my wife's, my daughter's, or my daughter-in-law's safety, I'd take strong action. Again, you're absolutely right. Interacting with you was a pleasure. You're a damn smart and well-informed poster. We need more of you, here. Cheers.
Mate - if the choice comes down to doing that or peeing my pants the guys better watch out! . But honestly if the male toilet had no urinal and only stalls - what is the problem? It’s not as if everyone can see......
First off, thank you so much for the kind works CenterField. I think you are being much kinder than I deserve but I have found that individuals with higher educations tend to extend those olive branches a lot further than necessary. I think they call it character. I most certainly enjoyed debating this issue with you. I also wish we had more informed posters like yourself. People willing to debate a position to find common ground instead of the need for winning. Makes conversations much more interesting. If you take nothing away from this post, do take this. I actually learned something reading through your provided information. I would like to add one additional note. After 37 years of marriage, a daughter, two sons, and two grandchildren, I can tell you this by observation and practice. As men get older and testosterone levels start to drop, we become a little softer of the heart and start to recognize interactions in a different light. It only took me 61 years to figure this out but, On average, Women are smarter than men. 25 years ago you couldn't have choked that out of me. Being a staunch Republican, I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the last election no matter what ticket she ran on. Call me crazy but after my military career, I see a lot of value in a female, US Army Officer, who is the first Samoan voting member of Congress. I haven't figured out what attracts me more. US Army Officer or Samoan, but both attributes seem to get my attention. Kind of creepy, huh.
Thanks for your equally kind words. I wouldn't quite put it as women are more intelligent than men. When we look at distribution of intelligence in IQ Bell Curves by gender, the distribution is similar for men and women. I'd put it as each half of the species is wired differently and has different strengths. Since prehistoric times, women were in caves tending to their offspring and men were hunters bringing food to the women and to the offspring. So, there were evolutionary advantages in women being more nurturing and empathic, and men being more pragmatic go-getters. The fact that testosterone increases aggressiveness is an evolutionary trait. If you go for wisdom instead of intelligence, then you may have a point. My wife gave me a T-shirt that reads, "If at first you don't succeed, try doing it the way your wife told you." LOL. She is right! This said, these days, with modern society, there is no more need for that role difference, nurturing versus hunting. Food is widely available in your neighborhood grocery store. Women now do go out to work and bring the dough home just like men. So, the fact that most positions of political leadership are still occupied by men is an anachronism. I do look forward to our first female president, one day. Maybe a woman's softer touch is needed to make things less adversarial. I'm not that excited for that first one being Kamala Harris if Uncle Joe croaks. That's not because she is a woman. That's because I think she is phony, opportunistic, and untrustworthy. I did not like Joe Biden's pick for veep. Oh well. Tulsi Gabbard: yes, fine gal. I could have voted for her. But this is where the problem resides: our de facto two-party system (where left and right representation has no nuances) fosters a distortion. Party activists tend to be more radical than the silent majority. So, activists tend to vote in primaries more often than the silent majority. Therefore, for candidates to earn the nomination, they need to appear more radical during the primaries. Truly centrist politicians don't stand much of a chance, unless they lie about their ideas and cater to the extremist wing. So, Tulsi Gabbard is not afraid of issuing positions that go against the extreme left of her party. Gasp, God forbid, she even crosses the aisle from time to time! So she is immediately deemed a DINO and dismissed. It was indeed frustrating to see an intelligent, capable, experienced, well-prepared woman get 2 delegates total! She was deemed the most disliked Dem primary candidate. Same thing with the GOP. Get a moderate, centrist, competent, experienced candidate like John Kasich. He gets 13.8% of the votes and 161 delegates, against Trump's 1,441. GOP centrists are called RINOs. I think America needs a large (that is, electorally competitive) centrist party. Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski belong in the same party rather than in opposing parties. If we had at least five, ideally seven major parties, there would be better ideological representation with more purity, and winning candidates would have to compromise and get coalitions to get elected and to govern (then, things would get done). Far-left, left, center-left, center, center-right, right, far-right. That's how it is in most major democracies. Our de facto two-party system is killing us, leading to radicalization and lack of compromise, and paralysis. These days, one party's main mission is to obstruct the other, rather than pursuing the people's business. What one party does, the other undoes, and we don't move forward. We are in a situation of stagnation while other countries move forward, and we are slowly losing our position of world leaders. Given your fondness for Tulsi's military background, what do you think of Tammy Duckworth?
To be honest, I knew nothing of her until you asked. I had to look her up. I am not sure where she stands on issues and would have to get better acquainted with her policies before casting my vote, but with that being said, she is obviously a very brave individual. Apparently, she was a US Army helicopter pilot and her helicopter was hit by an RPG fired by Iraqi insurgents. She suffered severe combat wounds, which caused her to lose both of her legs. After reading Mrs. Duckworth's former military history, I would tend to hold her in very high regard. I was a high school to flight school U.S. Army helicopter pilot so even if I disagreed with her politically, she has my utmost respect to say the very least. Call me old fashion but I lived on Air Force bases and grew up in the military. I didn't join because I wanted to server my country. I joined because I wanted to be like them. My Dad was stationed at McCoy Air Force base (Now Orlando International Airport) which is why its airport designation is MCO. We were there during the Cuban missile crises. Talk about being on high alert. It was chaos. That base hosted KC-135 refuelers and B-52's. As a young influential man growing up I adored the salutes, respect, and formal everyday interaction of these men in service. And heres a kicker for ya, I never knew anything about racism or racist until I was in high school off base. Not that it didn't exist, it just didn't exist in my world. As you might imagine, my generation grew up making fun of each others cultures hence, Blazing Saddles, The Jeffersons, All in the Family, Sanford & Son and the list goes on. We found great fun exploiting each others idiosyncrasies at each others expense but those days are looooooong gone.
Yes, I highly respect our military too. Tammy Duckworth made a point of being a helicopter pilot because it was the only position a woman could have and participate in combat. That takes guts!
In 1993, the United States Armed Forces lifted the Combat Exclusion Policy prohibiting women from serving in combat roles. The change only pertained to aviation positions and it wasn’t until 2013 that the policy was lifted from all assignments. I think you meant to say, she took an aviation role because it didn't exclude women in combat. Do you know why women were excluded in participating in combat in the US military? It wasn't for chauvinistic reasons. It was the fear of the psychological effect or trauma it would have on soldiers in combat seeing or providing medical aid to women dismembered on the battlefield. This could insight ignoring the Geneva Convention and/or retaliation against orders. Has more to do with the mental conditioning of male soldiers than it does the protection of females.
No there are two genders. There are rare instances where a person can have some of both. They are known as hermaphrodites. There are people who are dissatisfied with their gender but that dissatisfaction doesn't change their gender. But in the end, there are only two genders, both of which are required for reproduction.
That is a very Trumpist thought. Time is change, it will occur. Trying to live in the past is injurious only to the person so doing.
What deep thought. How would it be possible to hurt someone else by living in the past? Thanks for the feedback.
