Men in women's bathrooms

[BuckToothMoron]

Inappropriate for whom? I don't think men care if women use their restrooms. I think they'd assume the ladies are crowded. Unless you don't really look like a woman???

It would be inappropriate. I know you got this hang up over the fact "OMG penis!!!" I promise you you'll never know I'm there. See, I go in, do my thing, I leave.

Get over it.

This isn't about YOU! This about people who will exploit the regulation in order to perpetrate crimes on innocent victims. We can't take this chance just to appease YOU. Society doesn't work that way. YOU have to exhibit tolerance as well. Use the men's room... there are stalls you can use... there is NO reason for you to be in the women's restroom with your penis. IF you have the operation and remove your penis, I have absolutely no problem with you being in the women's restrooms.

But we cannot stand for this because there are too many bad repercussions which harm little children. It has nothing to do with YOU! It's not because of hate and bigotry toward YOU! We're not afraid YOU will molest little children! We're afraid of perverts exploiting this law to violate our children. It's essentially declaring open season for sexual predators in public restrooms and not a damn thing can be done to prevent it or stop it.

And it's not just rape and child molesting, it's taking digital pictures and videos from under the stall or over the stall or through a hole... all kinds of ways a pervert can get their jollies with the latest technology. But you don't seem to care... this is all about YOU and what YOU think YOU deserve. You are the most selfish and intolerant person here.

Boss gets to the real issue here. Allowing anybody to choose the bathroom they want based on how they feel, rather than their actual plumbing, allows the criminal element an unwarranted opportunity to victimize. I am sure some people feel like their body parts don't match how they self-identify, but you can't put innocent people at risk because nature screwed up. Sorry transgenders, if you own a penis you must use the boys room.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Your "social policy" sure seems pretty Republican from this end. Do you mean because you're pro choice? Yeah, you're such a rebel.

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

You claim you're Libertarian. Not much daylight between Libertarians and Republicans on most things just like there isn't much daylight between Dems and Greens.

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You're just a Democrat bitch, you've never not voted Democrat for President in your life

Oh, you're absolutely right there, and I will keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love.

You're just as partisan as I am, Kazzie old boy...and you'd have voted for the socially far, far, far right ideologue, Cruz. I'd say that makes you the hackiest of hacks.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

You sound like an transgender libertarian. Which restroom do you use?

 

[kaz]

Your "social policy" sure seems pretty Republican from this end. Do you mean because you're pro choice? Yeah, you're such a rebel.

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

You claim you're Libertarian. Not much daylight between Libertarians and Republicans on most things just like there isn't much daylight between Dems and Greens.

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You're just a Democrat bitch, you've never not voted Democrat for President in your life

Oh, you're absolutely right there, and I will keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love.

You're just as partisan as I am, Kazzie old boy...and you'd have voted for the socially far, far, far right ideologue, Cruz. I'd say that makes you the hackiest of hacks.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

You sound like an transgender libertarian. Which restroom do you use?

 

[Seawytch]

Your "social policy" sure seems pretty Republican from this end. Do you mean because you're pro choice? Yeah, you're such a rebel.

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

You claim you're Libertarian. Not much daylight between Libertarians and Republicans on most things just like there isn't much daylight between Dems and Greens.

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You do? Where? Where do you keep saying "I'm not a Libertarian"? I've seen you spout some "no true Scott" fallacy about him coming to his Libertarian views later than you or something equally ridiculous, but never that your'e not a Libertarian.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

Yes Kaz, you're partisan. I readily admit to being partisan despite voting frequently for Republicans on down ticket races, I'm a true blue Democrat through and through. It's called self awareness...look into it, hack.

 

[P@triot]

"The left for years claimed that all it wanted was for LGBT persons to be left alone, but this was a lie." (what isn't a lie from that side of the aisle?)

"Here’s how it works. First, the left tried to elevate sexual orientation and gender identity to special protected status in law but failed repeatedly using the democratic process. Undaunted, the administration turned to lawmaking-by-rulemaking. Specifically, President Barack Obama’s Departments of Justice and Education issued diktats reinterpreting Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination in federally funded education programs to mean “gender identity discrimination.”

Of course, when Title IX was passed in 1972, “sex” referred then to what it still refers to now: the basic biological reality of being male or female. Nevertheless, having made their discovery to the contrary (over 40 years after the law was passed), the administration went around the country threatening schools with revocation of millions in educational funds if they did not allow kids unfettered access to the locker room of their choice.

Following this lead, Chicago Public Schools cites Title IX and sexual harassment policies to justify its new policies.

A law from the 70's designed mostly to protect girls and women from sexism and harassment in schools is now being used to grant boys the right to undress in the girls’ locker room (and vice versa), all in the name of psychological comfort and acceptance."

New Chicago Schools Bathroom Policy Proves Liberals’ Extreme Agenda

 

[P@triot]

I'm a true blue Democrat through and through. It's called self awareness...look into it, hack.

It's not called "self-awareness" it's called being full of hate. That is why you are a "true blue Democrat". You hate that other people are free. You hate that other people have choice. You hate that you can't control others. And most of all, you hate heterosexuals. You are full of hate.

 

[kaz]

Your "social policy" sure seems pretty Republican from this end. Do you mean because you're pro choice? Yeah, you're such a rebel.

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

You claim you're Libertarian. Not much daylight between Libertarians and Republicans on most things just like there isn't much daylight between Dems and Greens.

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You do? Where? Where do you keep saying "I'm not a Libertarian"? I've seen you spout some "no true Scott" fallacy about him coming to his Libertarian views later than you or something equally ridiculous, but never that your'e not a Libertarian.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

Yes Kaz, you're partisan. I readily admit to being partisan despite voting frequently for Republicans on down ticket races, I'm a true blue Democrat through and through. It's called self awareness...look into it, hack.

No, I keep saying I'm a libertarian, moron. You actually don't know the difference, do you? That damned government education again. Google "how to capitalize" and then Google "proper names."

You're welcome

As for partisan, got it, voting Republican once in what will be seven elections is a partisan Republican, just the same as you voting what will be for Democrats seven times in seven elections.

You're a brainiac, bloke

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"The left for years claimed that all it wanted was for LGBT persons to be left alone, but this was a lie." (what isn't a lie from that side of the aisle?)

I remember when the cry of the wicked was “Don't force your morality on me!” That was a few decades ago. Foolishly, we gave in to them, and now they force their immorality on everyone else.

 

[kaz]

"The left for years claimed that all it wanted was for LGBT persons to be left alone, but this was a lie." (what isn't a lie from that side of the aisle?)

I remember when the cry of the wicked was “Don't force your morality on me!” That was a few decades ago. Foolishly, we gave in to them, and now they force their immorality on everyone else.

True, though leftists have always tried to do that.

The other thing is they need causes no matter how contrived. Blacks have equal rights, so now they have to move on to unequal rights like achieving income equality through force rather than opportunity.

Women have equal rights, so they have to move on to getting free birth control and government funded abortions.

The last thing the left does when their cause prevails is end the war.

Gays being left alone to live their own lives just makes them all the more desperate to concoct ridiculous causes which drives them to preposterous positions, like that in the name of transgenders we need to provide free access to bathrooms for sexual predators, for what? What real benefit is there to a woman in a guy's body going to the women's room? I mean that's a gulag to them, having to use the men's room

 

[Silhouette]

Well the good news is that someone is fighting back.

 

[Silhouette]

I tried to post this thread and it was immediately removed without reason by the mods. So maybe one of you can put the headline out there...

NC governor sues Obama administration over bathroom law challenge | Fox News

The state was facing a Monday deadline set by the administration to respond to its demand that North Carolina either scrap the law or face legal action and risk losing federal funds...McCrory refused, and instead filed suit.
..."The Department’s position is a baseless and blatant overreach," the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina, says. "This is an attempt to unilaterally rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation by the Courts."

So now the fed will have to demonstrate with excruciating scientific detail how a man is "actually a woman instead" in order to justify pulling federal funds from North Carolina, schools, healthcare, roads, infrastructure. Talk about blackmail. Oh, this should get very interesting considering the scientific community's outlook on the issue: BREAKING: Johns Hopkins & American College of Pediatricians Formerly Denounce Sex-Change Procedures

 

[Silhouette]

I guess the Fed allowed the Governor an extra week to respond if he agreed to meekly apologize and retract the law. However, as he correctly pointed out, the law was created by the NC State Legislature. So they were trying to force him to violate separation of powers as well, to bring him to his knees.

To the Governor's credit, he nutted up and fought back. Called them on their BS and now they're going to have to prove to the entire country why everyone must now consider any man "also a woman". Good luck with that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

now they're going to have to prove to the entire country why everyone must now consider any man "also a woman".

There's no such thing as a "transgender" man or woman.

People like Bruce Jenner (or whatever name he goes by this week) are simply a man who has undergone voluntary genital mutilation, and acquired a drug habit (hormones).

He is no more a woman, than an apple tree is now an orange tree because you picked off some of the apples and tied a few oranges to the branches, and injected some orange juice under the bark.

If Jenner wants to do what he did, fine, I don't have a problem with it. But trying to make laws to force the rest of us to act like he's a woman, is ludicrous.

 

[Slade3200]

now they're going to have to prove to the entire country why everyone must now consider any man "also a woman".

There's no such thing as a "transgender" man or woman.

People like Bruce Jenner (or whatever name he goes by this week) are simply a man who has undergone voluntary genital mutilation, and acquired a drug habit (hormones).

He is no more a woman, than an apple tree is now an orange tree because you picked off some of the apples and tied a few oranges to the branches, and injected some orange juice under the bark.

If Jenner wants to do what he did, fine, I don't have a problem with it. But trying to make laws to force the rest of us to act like he's a woman, is ludicrous.

Which law is trying to be passed to force the rest of us to act like Jenner is a woman? I didn't hear about that one... Link please

 

[Seawytch]

Your "social policy" sure seems pretty Republican from this end. Do you mean because you're pro choice? Yeah, you're such a rebel.

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

You claim you're Libertarian. Not much daylight between Libertarians and Republicans on most things just like there isn't much daylight between Dems and Greens.

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You do? Where? Where do you keep saying "I'm not a Libertarian"? I've seen you spout some "no true Scott" fallacy about him coming to his Libertarian views later than you or something equally ridiculous, but never that your'e not a Libertarian.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

Yes Kaz, you're partisan. I readily admit to being partisan despite voting frequently for Republicans on down ticket races, I'm a true blue Democrat through and through. It's called self awareness...look into it, hack.

No, I keep saying I'm a libertarian, moron. You actually don't know the difference, do you? That damned government education again. Google "how to capitalize" and then Google "proper names."

You're welcome

As for partisan, got it, voting Republican once in what will be seven elections is a partisan Republican, just the same as you voting what will be for Democrats seven times in seven elections.

You're a brainiac, bloke

Ah so a distinction without a different. Big L or little L ...same whore different dress, hack.

 

[kaz]

Your "social policy" sure seems pretty Republican from this end. Do you mean because you're pro choice? Yeah, you're such a rebel.

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

You claim you're Libertarian. Not much daylight between Libertarians and Republicans on most things just like there isn't much daylight between Dems and Greens.

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You do? Where? Where do you keep saying "I'm not a Libertarian"? I've seen you spout some "no true Scott" fallacy about him coming to his Libertarian views later than you or something equally ridiculous, but never that your'e not a Libertarian.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

Yes Kaz, you're partisan. I readily admit to being partisan despite voting frequently for Republicans on down ticket races, I'm a true blue Democrat through and through. It's called self awareness...look into it, hack.

No, I keep saying I'm a libertarian, moron. You actually don't know the difference, do you? That damned government education again. Google "how to capitalize" and then Google "proper names."

You're welcome

As for partisan, got it, voting Republican once in what will be seven elections is a partisan Republican, just the same as you voting what will be for Democrats seven times in seven elections.

You're a brainiac, bloke

Ah so a distinction without a different. Big L or little L ...same whore different dress, hack.

So it's not that you were given a crappy government education, it's that you didn't care. So maybe they told you how to write the English language and you just weren't listening. Got it. Nice defense of government there. So why did they let you graduate then?

 

[Seawytch]

Your "social policy" sure seems pretty Republican from this end. Do you mean because you're pro choice? Yeah, you're such a rebel.

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

You claim you're Libertarian. Not much daylight between Libertarians and Republicans on most things just like there isn't much daylight between Dems and Greens.

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You do? Where? Where do you keep saying "I'm not a Libertarian"? I've seen you spout some "no true Scott" fallacy about him coming to his Libertarian views later than you or something equally ridiculous, but never that your'e not a Libertarian.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

Yes Kaz, you're partisan. I readily admit to being partisan despite voting frequently for Republicans on down ticket races, I'm a true blue Democrat through and through. It's called self awareness...look into it, hack.

No, I keep saying I'm a libertarian, moron. You actually don't know the difference, do you? That damned government education again. Google "how to capitalize" and then Google "proper names."

You're welcome

As for partisan, got it, voting Republican once in what will be seven elections is a partisan Republican, just the same as you voting what will be for Democrats seven times in seven elections.

You're a brainiac, bloke

Ah so a distinction without a different. Big L or little L ...same whore different dress, hack.

So it's not that you were given a crappy government education, it's that you didn't care. So maybe they told you how to write the English language and you just weren't listening. Got it. Nice defense of government there. So why did they let you graduate then?

Sure Kaz, you're the original rebel....that would have voted for the partisan ideologue, Cruz.

Kaz uses a little "L" so as not to be seen as a "joiner". You're only fooling yourself.

 

[kaz]

Um ... OK? Which policy are you referring to?

- Pro choice
- All drugs should be legal
- There should be no government marriage
- Prostitution should be legal
- Gambling should be legal
- There should be no morality laws
- Euthanasia should be legal

I'm not seeing a Republican position in there, maybe you can point me to it

Nope, in fact I keep saying I'm not a Libertarian

You do? Where? Where do you keep saying "I'm not a Libertarian"? I've seen you spout some "no true Scott" fallacy about him coming to his Libertarian views later than you or something equally ridiculous, but never that your'e not a Libertarian.

So you agreed you will "keep voting for Democrats for President but that's because I see what Republicans do to the country I love."

I've voted Republican once in the last six elections and this election will be one in seven. There's even a chance I'll vote for Hillary depending on what the third parties do because at least I don't believe she'll roll back free trade.

And that makes me as partisan as you. I don't belong to any party and I don't consistently vote for any party. And I argue with Republicans on this board all the time and you never argue with Democrats. Buy a dictionary.

Yes Kaz, you're partisan. I readily admit to being partisan despite voting frequently for Republicans on down ticket races, I'm a true blue Democrat through and through. It's called self awareness...look into it, hack.

No, I keep saying I'm a libertarian, moron. You actually don't know the difference, do you? That damned government education again. Google "how to capitalize" and then Google "proper names."

You're welcome

As for partisan, got it, voting Republican once in what will be seven elections is a partisan Republican, just the same as you voting what will be for Democrats seven times in seven elections.

You're a brainiac, bloke

Ah so a distinction without a different. Big L or little L ...same whore different dress, hack.

So it's not that you were given a crappy government education, it's that you didn't care. So maybe they told you how to write the English language and you just weren't listening. Got it. Nice defense of government there. So why did they let you graduate then?

Sure Kaz, you're the original rebel....that would have voted for the partisan ideologue, Cruz.

Kaz uses a little "L" so as not to be seen as a "joiner". You're only fooling yourself.

Who made the Libertarian Party the determiner of who is libertarian? They are only a small minority of libertarian minded people. I reject your crap that they get to decide. They are libertarians who need to belong to a larger group. I believe in the individual. I think a libertarian "party" is contradictory to that ideology. Particularly with all their purity tests. It is in fact the purity tests why I refuse to join the party. What's not libertarian about that?

 

[Silhouette]

Which law is trying to be passed to force the rest of us to act like Jenner is a woman? I didn't hear about that one... Link please

The fed who created law (illegally) outside Congress that says "a man who thinks he is a woman is equal to a woman in that he gets to use a private segregated hygiene retreat denoted "women" above the door". That law.

What the NC lawsuit is ALL about is forcing the fed to provide exact clarity on how a man who believes he is a woman is "a protected class". And this should really get interesting. I sensed a tone of tension in Loretta Lynch's throat in her press conference yesterday. And that tension isn't coming from any real anger she has about crazy men wanting protected status. It's about how difficult it's going to be for her lawyers and herself to frame up an exact statement of clarity on how a delusional man who thinks he is a woman "has protected status" according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For one thing, men so afflicted are on the DSM still as mentally disturbed. So, if she thinks she's going to cite the APA's handbook to show "men believing they are women are completely normal people with a right to do so and a right to force others to play along" (to their real detriment: violation of expectation of segregated privacy in intimate hygiene areas), she's got her work cut out for her.

Clarification is the thing that was making Lynch's throat tighten up. Because in poker that's called "calling your cards on the table". Lynch has a 2 of clubs, a 4 of diamonds, a 7 of spades, 3 of diamonds and 8 of clubs "high". North Carolina has a royal flush. The only thing Lynch has is a couple of aces up her sleeve in the form of pocket Justices on the US Supreme Court who will do anything Obama and she ask them to do. The first of which will be to put a stay in place IN ORDER TO VIOLATE THE PRIVACY OF WOMEN AND GIRLS WHERE THEY EXPECT TO BE PRIVATE; BEHIND DOORS DENOTED "WOMEN"...

 

[Slade3200]

Which law is trying to be passed to force the rest of us to act like Jenner is a woman? I didn't hear about that one... Link please

The fed who created law (illegally) outside Congress that says "a man who thinks he is a woman is equal to a woman in that he gets to use a private segregated hygiene retreat denoted "women" above the door". That law.

What the NC lawsuit is ALL about is forcing the fed to provide exact clarity on how a man who believes he is a woman is "a protected class". And this should really get interesting. I sensed a tone of tension in Loretta Lynch's throat in her press conference yesterday. And that tension isn't coming from any real anger she has about crazy men wanting protected status. It's about how difficult it's going to be for her lawyers and herself to frame up an exact statement of clarity on how a delusional man who thinks he is a woman "has protected status" according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For one thing, men so afflicted are on the DSM still as mentally disturbed. So, if she thinks she's going to cite the APA's handbook to show "men believing they are women are completely normal people with a right to do so and a right to force others to play along" (to their real detriment: violation of expectation of segregated privacy in intimate hygiene areas), she's got her work cut out for her.

Clarification is the thing that was making Lynch's throat tighten up. Because in poker that's called "calling your cards on the table". Lynch has a 2 of clubs, a 4 of diamonds, a 7 of spades, 3 of diamonds and 8 of clubs "high". North Carolina has a royal flush. The only thing Lynch has is a couple of aces up her sleeve in the form of pocket Justices on the US Supreme Court who will do anything Obama and she ask them to do. The first of which will be to put a stay in place IN ORDER TO VIOLATE THE PRIVACY OF WOMEN AND GIRLS WHERE THEY EXPECT TO BE PRIVATE; BEHIND DOORS DENOTED "WOMEN"...

You are right with one thing, that this is a very complicated issue. Don't simplify it by painting the demented old man violating little girls int he bathroom argument. You know there is a flip side to the coin, which is the actual class that is trying to be protected:

This is a picture of a natural born female... he does not belong in the little girls room

This is a natural born male... he does not belong in the Men's room

If either of those two were in the opposite restroom it would cause more discomfort and "risk" of an incedent according to your arguments.

I know you all hate being called bigots but when you constantly bring up the mental illness and the 50 year old pervert molesting little girls scenario it makes you look either dishonest or misinformed. This issue is about the "class" of people you see above. Yes there are other factors that need to be considered, however recognizing the goal and the issue is the first step.

Frankly I wish both the state and Feds would butt out of the whole deal and not try and regulate which bathroom people use. If somebody does something inappropriate in a bathroom then there are laws that can be enacted on them. We've been able to handle ourselves in the restroom up till now, I'd hope we could continue to handle this great responsibility.