Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Am I right to infer that you're not terribly bright? If said person wasn't a sexual predator - they would have no desire to cross-dress in public and use public restrooms of the opposite sex.So am I right to infer that your objections accrue from disquietude over the risk that the M-->F transin the ladies room may be a sexual predator instead of merely a law abiding person who is trans?
I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.
I also disagree that males are feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims at all where as with the female to males, it's definitely a way for them to gain access to victims. There's a lot of loathsome transgendered men out there, believe me.
I suppose with the type of people he knows, that would be the reason. I've met lowlifes who think people change gender from male to female because they've been in jail and they got raped. It's a reflection of the judgers life.Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
So am I right to infer that your objections accrue from disquietude over the risk that the M-->F trans in the ladies room may be a sexual predator instead of merely a law abiding person who is trans?
It IS allowed for trans women to be in Women's restrooms and you will have to submit to that reality.I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.
I also disagree that males are feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims at all where as with the female to males, it's definitely a way for them to gain access to victims. There's a lot of loathsome transgendered men out there, believe me.
You're missing the point entirely. People who believe they are not the sex they were born are in deep delusion. Which according to any volume of the DSM means they are not sane. Those who cannot process reality on its terms are insane.
Given that is the case, it explains neatly why MDs who drug or amputate healthy organs from males or females trying to "help" them, make them sign a waiver (that they aren't legally able to consent to) that says "you know this won't really change your gender". It's malpractice defined.
So, the entire question needs to back up to its roots. The roots are in malpractice. So, men seeking to use women's restrooms, no matter what the reason, can never be allowed. Period. The rest of society owes these mentally ill people a stark view of what they are denying every day. Playing along only makes them, and us all, more mentally ill as a society.
You're missing the point entirely. People who believe they are not the sex they were born are in deep delusion. Which according to any volume of the DSM means they are not sane. Those who cannot process reality on its terms are insane.
Given that is the case, it explains neatly why MDs who drug or amputate healthy organs from males or females trying to "help" them, make them sign a waiver (that they aren't legally able to consent to) that says "you know this won't really change your gender". It's malpractice defined.
So, the entire question needs to back up to its roots. The roots are in malpractice. So, men seeking to use women's restrooms, no matter what the reason, can never be allowed. Period. The rest of society owes these mentally ill people a stark view of what they are denying every day. Playing along only makes them, and us all, more mentally ill as a society.
I noticed Home Depot has three restrooms now. Men, Women, and Either. I must admit I was curious to see if the either had urinals or if everyone had to squat. I did not check.
Sadly...the problem is not solved. Barack Obama's highly illegal, unconstitutional mandate that anyone can use any bathroom they choose means that even though an "either" is still available - any twisted, sexually deviant pig can and will still walk into the ladies restroom to view women and little girls.I noticed Home Depot has three restrooms now. Men, Women, and Either. I must admit I was curious to see if the either had urinals or if everyone had to squat. I did not check.
Problem solved without government interference.
As it should be.
Sadly...the problem is not solved. Barack Obama's highly illegal, unconstitutional mandate that anyone can use any bathroom they choose means that even though an "either" is still available - any twisted, sexually deviant pig can and will still walk into the ladies restroom to view women and little girls.
The only way to truly solve this problem is to convert everything to single occupancy. The only step left will be for Dumbocrats to make a mandate insisting that nobody has the right to privacy and that they must accomodate [sic] the wishes of a disturbed, sexual deviant who wants to join them.
They will do it too. But it will infuriate the American people and bury their repulsive little party.
So how is Dad going to prevent Maurice from whipping out his dick in front of his daughter? I'm sure gender neutral rest rooms wil have to accommodate a full range of first amendment rights to piss in a manner you prefer. That would include urinals for women avec penis, women sans penis who prefer the straddle urinal, stalls with and without doors for those who might want to share all manner of sights and sounds as they perform evacuation rituals never before attempted. It's an exciting time to be an American......yo.
Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
So am I right to infer that your objections accrue from disquietude over the risk that the M-->F transin the ladies room may be a sexual predator instead of merely a law abiding person who is trans?
I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
I also disagree that males are feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims at all where as with the female to males, it's definitely a way for them to gain access to victims. There's a lot of loathsome transgendered men out there, believe me.
It IS allowed for trans women to be in Women's restrooms and you will have to submit to that reality.I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.
I also disagree that males are feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims at all where as with the female to males, it's definitely a way for them to gain access to victims. There's a lot of loathsome transgendered men out there, believe me.
You're missing the point entirely. People who believe they are not the sex they were born are in deep delusion. Which according to any volume of the DSM means they are not sane. Those who cannot process reality on its terms are insane.
Given that is the case, it explains neatly why MDs who drug or amputate healthy organs from males or females trying to "help" them, make them sign a waiver (that they aren't legally able to consent to) that says "you know this won't really change your gender". It's malpractice defined.
So, the entire question needs to back up to its roots. The roots are in malpractice. So, men seeking to use women's restrooms, no matter what the reason, can never be allowed. Period. The rest of society owes these mentally ill people a stark view of what they are denying every day. Playing along only makes them, and us all, more mentally ill as a society.
language shows you not to be a complete dingbat.It IS allowed for trans women to be in Women's restrooms and you will have to submit to that reality.I disagree that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. I think it's rapidly becoming the opposite, actually.
I also disagree that males are feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims at all where as with the female to males, it's definitely a way for them to gain access to victims. There's a lot of loathsome transgendered men out there, believe me.
You're missing the point entirely. People who believe they are not the sex they were born are in deep delusion. Which according to any volume of the DSM means they are not sane. Those who cannot process reality on its terms are insane.
Given that is the case, it explains neatly why MDs who drug or amputate healthy organs from males or females trying to "help" them, make them sign a waiver (that they aren't legally able to consent to) that says "you know this won't really change your gender". It's malpractice defined.
So, the entire question needs to back up to its roots. The roots are in malpractice. So, men seeking to use women's restrooms, no matter what the reason, can never be allowed. Period. The rest of society owes these mentally ill people a stark view of what they are denying every day. Playing along only makes them, and us all, more mentally ill as a society.
Hey, as long as they have the appropriate plumbing and they're not bothering anyone, I personally don't much care. I'm not so interested in total strangers - or other people in general - that I want to start DNA testing folks in the bathroom.
But I'm also not interested in being told that I have to pretend a person built like a linebacker with a five o'clock shadow and a skirt is a "woman".
Traditionalism is self defeating. Clearly it's more damaging to tradition for a woman to sex change to a man but traditionalists have the view that a woman is NEVER responsible for her actions so therefore the men changing into women must be focused on.Are you people talking about people transsexuals or crossdressers?
And I'm not asking with regard to nefarious types who might dress "however" as an affectation adopted specifically to act upon criminal intent. I'm asking with regard to people who are just going about their lives like most everyone else -- working, shopping, hanging out, walking down the street, etc.Why is there so much focus on men who dress as women rather than women who dress as men?
Women wearing pants doesn't bother people, but men wearing dresses does.
If you're of a mind to take offense at crossdressers, then rationally, you'd take equal offense at women who style themselves to appear as men as with men who style themselves to appear as women. That just doesn't make sense.
Society doesn't seem to find this offensive (woman dressed as a man)
Society finds this offensive (man dressed as a woman)
And don't tell me it has something to do with looking like a man in a dress. I have no idea which of the following female appearing individuals is a woman. I also don't care.
And yet what I see in this thread's posts is haranguing about men in women's bathrooms. Looking at the athletes above, I am hard pressed to know which of them (save the one with the beard) is male/female.
Again, what's rational about that? It's clear that wearing dresses/skirts and other items that in the west are considered female are not innately gender specific.
And it's obvious that neither small children nor their parents go "ape shit" over seeing body parts attached to live humans. Similarly, nudity itself isn't a problem for young or old people. You cannot possibly think that people raised in the societies pictured here don't at all stages of their lives see male and female genitals being used and not being used.
In looking for studies that examined sexual predation among societies like Yanomamö, Herero and Himba that have not "Westernized" (for want of a better term), I can't find a thing that indicates these people even experience sexual predation of children. Yet it's quite likely that children of all ages in those societies see "body parts" all the time.
It's rather hard to conceive that genital squeamishness is a more advanced state of being than not being so. Accordingly, it stands to reason that no child is innately going to "flip out" because they see an adult urinating. That happens when children are taught to think penises and vaginas are "something secret" or untoward.
Now you may wonder why I'd write the comments above. The reason is because this is a political forum. I would expect that people here would at least be very astute about the existential humanity. The human bran works the same whether it develops in New York or Namibia. In this thread's context, that means that the line of argument that intimates or asserts overtly that one's child seeing a man's penis or woman's vagina is somehow distressing is most surprising. How can one engage in social and political discourse, debate, yet also attempt to advance such irrational ideas, ideas that just don't bear out when considered rationally? (I wanted to say "provincial," but I can't because the people who don't have "bathroom issues" literally are provincial in the objective application of that term.) It just doesn't make sense to me that one would talk about issues of humanity and not be really well informed about humanity, not culture, humanity.
Lastly, I'll point out that insouciance toward "doing one's business" existed in the early days of Western culture. The Romans, for example, had no issue with it. The bathrooms are open to all genders and all ages, so imagine men, women, and children all standing or sitting, doing their business next to one another in an open space. People are discussing business or gossiping to one another while going to the bathroom.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
No need to infer it, since I actually SAID it quite clearly.So am I right to infer that your objections accrue from disquietude over the risk that the M-->F trans in the ladies room may be a sexual predator instead of merely a law abiding person who is trans?
Also, I'm just not fond of people who deliberately try to make other people uncomfortable in order to make some sort of statement. I find it crass.
On a more practical note, sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, which means the likelihood of a male predator feigning transgenderism to gain access to victims is much higher than the reverse.
Progressives continue to deny science, biology, reality, etc.
"The assault on science, reason, masculinity, and femininity continues to gain steam."
Matt Walsh: Dads, we can’t expect our sons to become real men if we don’t teach them how
Wow...what an intelligent comment. Way to provide supporting evidence for your accusation.Man! You are very stupid.
Progressives continue to deny science, biology, reality, etc.
"The assault on science, reason, masculinity, and femininity continues to gain steam."
Matt Walsh: Dads, we can’t expect our sons to become real men if we don’t teach them how
Simple solution to a simple problem. If you do it without question then more power to you. You may even belong there. If you can't then you have no fucking business using the women's bathroom, and sure as shit not the locker room. In other words dude trans.......If you look like a dude in a dress you have more problems than determining which bathroom to use, and it's YOUR problem.
Simple solution to a simple problem. If you do it without question then more power to you. You may even belong there. If you can't then you have no fucking business using the women's bathroom, and sure as shit not the locker room. In other words dude trans.......If you look like a dude in a dress you have more problems than determining which bathroom to use, and it's YOUR problem.
Looking at the people above, there is nothing that convincingly, rationally makes it clear which direction their sex change went. Moreover, were I to see any of them in public, I would not have the first idea that they were born as the sex opposite that which they appear in either of their photos.
For folks who have expressed the "comfort issue" re: what restroom trans people use:
Look at the above photos again and ask yourself these questions:
Realizing that the people pictured above, when they were mid-process in their sexual transformation -- i.e., they had not had their SRS, but had begun taking the hormones that transform their superficial traits to those of their intended sex -- looked as they do in the photos on the right.....
- Are you truly saying you think they should have used the ladies room/women's locker room during that period? Making them do that is exactly what several states' bathroom laws require.
- Do you honestly not see how that causes more problems than if they simply went to the men's room to relieve themselves? Yet using the ladies' room is exactly what you've been advocating they do.
- Those of you here who think that even after the SRS they are still women and therefore they should use the ladies' room/locker rooms, what makes you think that their going to the ladies room makes any sense at all? Someone earlier talked about being made uncomfortable by a trans person using the facilities designated for the "to be" sex. Using the facilities of their "legacy" sex isn't going to produce any less discomfiture.
About this business of sexual predators:
Principled or Unprincipled? Logical or illogical?
What does it mean to be unprincipled? It means either (1) having no principles or (2) irrationally or inconsistently applying one or several principles one may claim to have. It is to be, in a word, absurd.
- For one to ascribe to the notion that the bathroom laws that have been passed will somehow reduce the incidence of or risk of being a victim of a sex-related crime, one must necessarily ascribe to line of logic that argues laws are an effective tactic for stopping or reducing the quantity of illegal and/or undesirable behavior/acts.
- Given that rationally you must accept the noted line of argument, reconcile the rationality of your acceptance of that principle with the following assertion: gun control laws do not inhibit gun-related crimes.
Now people may attempt to deflect away from facing their unprincipled thinking and positions by crying "liberal this" or whatever the other insipid and off-point notion that enters their feeble minds. People may try to claim logical soundness is a matter of opinion. The fact is that sound reasoning, soundness, is neither liberal nor conservative -- like truth, it just is -- and it is not a matter of opinion because it can be shown objectively.
Another question for anyone who's concerned about trans people committing sex (or indecent exposure) crimes in restrooms:
The answer to that question is zero and it's zero in every state, regardless of what laws they have or had.
- How many times has a trans person been convicted of committing a sex crime in a restroom/locker room?
