Reply With Quote
So if you're not terrified, what's the harm in letting them use the bathroom they identify with
Spurraider "Blake had the most posts in this thread" actually started this thread and is here again in it
So if you're not terrified, what's the harm in letting them use the bathroom they identify with
Define "identify with" and tell me exactly how you screen outright perverts that claim they "identify" as female.
Whats the harm in having men with s use the men's restroom?
Blake definitely has his pantyhose in a wad over this issue.
well, duh. i never made the "i dont really care about this stuff" claim. i started the thread because i found the topic to be relevant
Clearly it's not just relevant to Blake, but personal...
How do we screen them now? Is it currently a problem that requires a law to prevent that risk?
I never said I don't really care about this stuff. If you read my posts instead of just counting the number of them, you might have caught that.
I find the topic interesting.
I find the fear of guys wearing a wig and going into girls bathrooms when they're "at their most vulnerable" fascinating and at times stupidly hilarious.
You're the one worried about where s belong.
i never said you don't care about the topic. i was specifically referring to caityln, who you have referred to numerous times in this thread, despite "not caring"
I don't care about Jenner's or lack of it at all.
Just using "Caitlin" as a point of reference because of all the posters here that care greatly that she be called a man.
I could use Rupaul or some other trans if it'll help you keep up.
its fine, just stop acting like you dont care if you are going to keep mentioning them
double
I don't care if Caitlin has a penis or not. That was the specific question posed to me.
Rif.
It depends on where "now" is.
Traditionally s legally used the men's restroom and Vags used the Women's.
Really simple to police. Guys could be arrested for peeping women's restrooms.
Personally I don't want guy pervs peeping my daughter or grand daughters.
Again. Someone define "identify".
Lawmaker Delivers Mind-Bending Series Of Arguments Against LGBT Protections
A few days after voting to kill a proposal to ban employee discrimination against LGBT individuals in Nebraska, Republican state Sen. Bill Kintner took to talk radio to explain why “men in dresses” don’t deserve protection.
What followed was a heated discussion of LGBT rights, marked by level of candor rarely seen in national politics. Kintner argued that there are no problems with discrimination in Nebraska; that the Cons ution allows people to violate gay individuals’ civil rights; and that businesses should be able to “make it known” if they don’t want to serve LGBT people by providing them with bad service.
Kintner also challenged Nebraskans to elect him out of office if they don’t like his positions on LGBT equality.
“When there’s a majority of people in our state that thinks [LBGT rights are an] important issue, and thinks that they want representation to do that, it’ll happen,” Kintner said. “There were 40,000 people who elected me to represent them … they sent me down here to do this job.”
Listen:
Kintner’s comments came amid a heated national conversation about LGBT rights — particularly, whether states should enact laws to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender iden y. Last week, North Carolina passed what many consider to be the most anti-LGBT law in the country, preventing its cities and counties from offering discrimination protections. On Monday, Georgia’s governor vetoed a similar bill that would have allowed businesses like adoption agencies to refuse to serve same-sex couples.
These bills are mostly justified by claims of “religious liberty” — meaning, business owners should be able to refuse to serve same-sex couples if they feel that sexuality violates their religious beliefs.
Kintner’s comments, however, offered a window into some of the other reasons lawmakers may be pushing these initiatives. For instance, Kinter suggested that LGBT individuals don’t deserve a protected class.
“If you have another protected class, you will have problems,” he said, and laid out a hypothetical situation in which a poorly-performing male employee pretends to be a woman to prevent being fired.
“So if you get an employee who is habitually late — he’s just not a very good employee — and you sit him down and say ‘Joe, you’re late too often, you don’t get your work done on time, you’re not doing the job right, you’ve gotta straighten up or we’re going to replace you. And he says, ‘You know, I feel like a woman today. Now we’ve got a whole problem if you’re trying to get rid of him,” Kintner said.
NewsTalk 1290 host Matt Tompkins then challenged Kintner, saying that transgender people don’t consciously choose their gender iden y. Kintner responded by, among other things, misgendering and dead-naming transgender icon Caitlyn Jenner:
TOMPKINS: The reason the LGBT community believes this is a civil right is because — like being black or being a woman or being old — you don’t choose to be transgender, you don’t choose to be gay. You’re saying they’re making a choice, and using that choice to file a frivolous lawsuit?
KINTNER: Yes. Let’s think about Bruce Jenner. Because he wears a dress, does that make him a woman? Of course it doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t.
Another notable exchange came when Kintner argued that the First Amendment of the Cons ution allows people and businesses to violate the civil rights of LGBT people. Kintner also said that businesses should be allowed to slyly indicate that they don’t want to serve LGBT people by providing them with bad service.
TOMPKINS: The First Amendment doesn’t grant you the right to discriminate against other people and violate their civil rights that the Cons ution also protects.
KINTNER: Oh yes it does. Oh yes it does.
TOMPKINS: There are people affected that are being discriminated against. It may not be signs on the restaurant or signs at city hall, but it is happening, so I don’t understand why it’s…
KINTNER: Well, if you have a restaurant, and they’re not overtly discriminating but, you know, they’re kind of making it known that you know, we don’t like men sitting around in dresses, you now, that stuff takes care of itself. Word will get out that this place doesn’t serve everyone. It doesn’t give everyone equal treatment. If you’re a man wearing a dress it takes you an hour to get waited on, and for everyone else it takes 20 minutes … that’s called bad service.
TOMPKINS: But that argument was the same argument people used in the civil rights era. You’re saying it’s okay that if a black person, if it takes an hour for them to get service, that’s just bad service so a black person just shouldn’t go to that restaurant?
KINTNER: That’s called bad service.
This is not the first time Kintner has made controversial comments about LGBT individuals. He made waves in 2013 for opposing what he called “ sexual bills” that would allow same-sex couples to adopt or be foster parents.
In his recent radio interview, Kintner said he believed those views were keeping him in office. That, he said, is why he would not support discrimination protections for LGBT individuals.
“If I would have come out and said I supported this, I would not be sitting here as a senator,” he said. “There is no doubt in my mind.”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/0...lgbt-comments/
Repugs depend on hate, paranoia, polarization
I still don't understand what is driving this fear that a bunch of guys, in an internet age, will dress up as women or pretend to be transwomen in order to access a women's restroom to watch women walk into toilet stalls or wash their hands. How many times have you ever seen the genitals of someone you're sharing a restroom with?
In this weird universe you guys think you live in where men are so desperate to hear women piss and in a closed stall, how does this law prevent those pervs from just claiming to be transgender men who were born women and still have a vagina? How are you going to police every man who looks like a woman, or vice versa, to make sure they're going into the correctly assigned restroom?
Rest assured... Most likely guys won't be peeping your grand daughters until they start posting their selfies on the internet or texting topless pics to their boyfriends. They're no more likely today to go buy a dress, makeup, and whatever else to go into a women's bathroom than they were 10 years ago, so this call for new laws about restroom access is just old-fashioned fear-mongering.
Last edited by Spurminator; 03-28-2016 at 02:17 PM.
lol not terrified
Seriously?
Just in the name of politically correctness you deny these pervs are out there?
http://www.xvideos.com/tags/upskirt
Golly if there's a woman symbol on the bathroom door, how'd those dudes get the pictures? Baffling.
It certainly is baffling when gots like you condone it.
The Political Correctness card is lazy. No one said there aren't pervs out there. They're just much more likely to do the search you just did than to go into a bathroom themselves and try to see it, especially if doing so requires them to dress up like a woman. And if they ARE that desperate, do you really think laws like this will stop them?
You still haven't been able to quantify how many times this actually occurs today without any laws against it.
uhh...the laws are already in place. The PC Police want to overturn them and allow it.
BTW, "identifying as" doesn't even mean you have to dress transgender. It's just an unprovable claim of "state of mind".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
