Men in women's bathrooms

[Yousaidwhat]

If a little girl seeing a penis isn't (and I quote) "inherently harmful" then why is it illegal for a child to purchase a Playboy or Playgirl? Why is it illegal for a child to enter a strip club?

Because we're a bunch of prudes in the United States for starters. More seriously because all of those things have an UNDENIABLE sexual part to them. You're comparing a playboy to an anatomy text book for all intents and purposes, they aren't the same.

You do realize you not only made the most degenerate comment in world history, it was also the dumbest ever made

You're being hyperbolic, chill out.

it's ok for grown men to change and shower with little girls and that no harm is done to a little girl were any of that to occur.

What. Harm. Is. Done. Nudists are a thing, and while I haven't done extensive research I imagine if there were massive findings of Nudist female children being majorly mentally screwed up just because they saw a penis...well, I think it'd be a thing.

where do you derive the power to decide what is harmful and what is not harmful for my children?

I DIDN'T. I ACTUALLY ASKED YOU HOW IT WAS HARMFUL AT ALL. I repeat again...when you take your kids out into public they are going to see shit you might not like. Just like if you turn on the TV there is a chance theres something on you don't like.

I also love the fact that dozens and dozens of links to horrific sexual assaults is "anecdotal" in your mind.

It's called that because it's not exactly Representative of things.Kind of like how dozens and dozens of stories isn't evidence of a crime wave in a country as big as the united states.

The whole point is that a child is horribly harmed by seeing adults naked.

Based on...what research, what logical idea is this? Forcing a child, sure but just seeing it as you see a toe or a leg? Why?

hat's exactly why it is illegal for a little boy to purchase a Playboy and why it is illegal for a little girl to purchase a Playgirl.

How the hell do you keep mixing up anatomy with sex? You can use your damned finger for sex it has other damned uses, Jesus Christ.

That is perfectly ok for three grown men to triple team an 8 year old girl in a porn?!?

...Are you serious or just like trying to be flame tastic in your trolling? I realize you're deeply emotional and stuff about this but chill. the. hell. out. How are the two things even remotely similar and who the hell is fine with that? You understand that this would be like if you said it's okay for a little girl to see another woman naked...but then saying you'd totally be okay with three grown ass women to molest her?

They aren't the same fucking thing.

How you can sit here and act like it's curious why anyone would be opposed to little children showering with grown adults of the opposite sex is mind-boggling.

I asked what harm it did to the kids, I'm not boggled, I understand that some people are opposed because they have their sensibilities and they run counter to this means and does.

May I inquire as to why we even have laws that require us to wear "clothing" in public places if this is not such a big deal to you?

 

[P@triot]

How the hell do you keep mixing up anatomy with sex? You can use your damned finger for sex it has other damned uses, Jesus Christ.

There is no "sex" in a Playboy. It's just naked people. Individuals naked. Not multiple people. Not sex. Nice try - but your'e not lying your way out of this.

 

[P@triot]

If a little girl seeing a penis isn't (and I quote) "inherently harmful" then why is it illegal for a child to purchase a Playboy or Playgirl? Why is it illegal for a child to enter a strip club?

Because we're a bunch of prudes in the United States for starters. More seriously because all of those things have an UNDENIABLE sexual part to them. You're comparing a playboy to an anatomy text book for all intents and purposes, they aren't the same.

You do realize you not only made the most degenerate comment in world history, it was also the dumbest ever made

You're being hyperbolic, chill out.

it's ok for grown men to change and shower with little girls and that no harm is done to a little girl were any of that to occur.

What. Harm. Is. Done. Nudists are a thing, and while I haven't done extensive research I imagine if there were massive findings of Nudist female children being majorly mentally screwed up just because they saw a penis...well, I think it'd be a thing.

where do you derive the power to decide what is harmful and what is not harmful for my children?

I DIDN'T. I ACTUALLY ASKED YOU HOW IT WAS HARMFUL AT ALL. I repeat again...when you take your kids out into public they are going to see shit you might not like. Just like if you turn on the TV there is a chance theres something on you don't like.

I also love the fact that dozens and dozens of links to horrific sexual assaults is "anecdotal" in your mind.

It's called that because it's not exactly Representative of things.Kind of like how dozens and dozens of stories isn't evidence of a crime wave in a country as big as the united states.

The whole point is that a child is horribly harmed by seeing adults naked.

Based on...what research, what logical idea is this? Forcing a child, sure but just seeing it as you see a toe or a leg? Why?

hat's exactly why it is illegal for a little boy to purchase a Playboy and why it is illegal for a little girl to purchase a Playgirl.

How the hell do you keep mixing up anatomy with sex? You can use your damned finger for sex it has other damned uses, Jesus Christ.

That is perfectly ok for three grown men to triple team an 8 year old girl in a porn?!?

...Are you serious or just like trying to be flame tastic in your trolling? I realize you're deeply emotional and stuff about this but chill. the. hell. out. How are the two things even remotely similar and who the hell is fine with that? You understand that this would be like if you said it's okay for a little girl to see another woman naked...but then saying you'd totally be okay with three grown ass women to molest her?

They aren't the same fucking thing.

How you can sit here and act like it's curious why anyone would be opposed to little children showering with grown adults of the opposite sex is mind-boggling.

I asked what harm it did to the kids, I'm not boggled, I understand that some people are opposed because they have their sensibilities and they run counter to this means and does.

May I iinquire as to why we even have laws that require us to wear "clothing" in public places if this is not such a big deal to you?

Boom!

 

[P@triot]

Because we're a bunch of prudes in the United States for starters.

Well that's a remarkable statement. My dad used to have a great saying...he'd say "if everyone in the room is an asshole....maybe it's you". For you to decide that all of society is a "prude" and you are the one person who has it right says a lot. Maybe we're not "prudes". Maybe you're a titanic whore who is so sexual deviant, your moral compass shattered under the weight of it all.

In all seriousness - have you ever considered that? Have you ever examined your own values? Have you ever stopped for a moment and asked yourself if maybe you are really disturbed?

I'm assuming you think rape is no big deal as well?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I would think that there would be families who have no problem with nudity in their homes.

As a father and grand father I would never consider being nude in front of my daughter's.

Wasn't so long ago I read that someone on this very board was a nudist and had children.

A neighbor caught wind of it or noticed said nudity and CPS made a bee line right to the residence and they had a problem with it.

 

[P@triot]

If a little girl seeing a penis isn't (and I quote) "inherently harmful" then why is it illegal for a child to purchase a Playboy or Playgirl? Why is it illegal for a child to enter a strip club?

Because we're a bunch of prudes in the United States for starters. More seriously because all of those things have an UNDENIABLE sexual part to them. You're comparing a playboy to an anatomy text book for all intents and purposes, they aren't the same.

You do realize you not only made the most degenerate comment in world history, it was also the dumbest ever made

You're being hyperbolic, chill out.

it's ok for grown men to change and shower with little girls and that no harm is done to a little girl were any of that to occur.

What. Harm. Is. Done. Nudists are a thing, and while I haven't done extensive research I imagine if there were massive findings of Nudist female children being majorly mentally screwed up just because they saw a penis...well, I think it'd be a thing.

where do you derive the power to decide what is harmful and what is not harmful for my children?

I DIDN'T. I ACTUALLY ASKED YOU HOW IT WAS HARMFUL AT ALL. I repeat again...when you take your kids out into public they are going to see shit you might not like. Just like if you turn on the TV there is a chance theres something on you don't like.

I also love the fact that dozens and dozens of links to horrific sexual assaults is "anecdotal" in your mind.

It's called that because it's not exactly Representative of things.Kind of like how dozens and dozens of stories isn't evidence of a crime wave in a country as big as the united states.

The whole point is that a child is horribly harmed by seeing adults naked.

Based on...what research, what logical idea is this? Forcing a child, sure but just seeing it as you see a toe or a leg? Why?

hat's exactly why it is illegal for a little boy to purchase a Playboy and why it is illegal for a little girl to purchase a Playgirl.

How the hell do you keep mixing up anatomy with sex? You can use your damned finger for sex it has other damned uses, Jesus Christ.

That is perfectly ok for three grown men to triple team an 8 year old girl in a porn?!?

...Are you serious or just like trying to be flame tastic in your trolling? I realize you're deeply emotional and stuff about this but chill. the. hell. out. How are the two things even remotely similar and who the hell is fine with that? You understand that this would be like if you said it's okay for a little girl to see another woman naked...but then saying you'd totally be okay with three grown ass women to molest her?

They aren't the same fucking thing.

How you can sit here and act like it's curious why anyone would be opposed to little children showering with grown adults of the opposite sex is mind-boggling.

I asked what harm it did to the kids, I'm not boggled, I understand that some people are opposed because they have their sensibilities and they run counter to this means and does.

May I inquire as to why we even have laws that require us to wear "clothing" in public places if this is not such a big deal to you?

Her response is going to be the ever intelligent "because America is made up of a bunch of prudes".

 

[Yousaidwhat]

If a little girl seeing a penis isn't (and I quote) "inherently harmful" then why is it illegal for a child to purchase a Playboy or Playgirl? Why is it illegal for a child to enter a strip club?

Because we're a bunch of prudes in the United States for starters. More seriously because all of those things have an UNDENIABLE sexual part to them. You're comparing a playboy to an anatomy text book for all intents and purposes, they aren't the same.

You do realize you not only made the most degenerate comment in world history, it was also the dumbest ever made

You're being hyperbolic, chill out.

it's ok for grown men to change and shower with little girls and that no harm is done to a little girl were any of that to occur.

What. Harm. Is. Done. Nudists are a thing, and while I haven't done extensive research I imagine if there were massive findings of Nudist female children being majorly mentally screwed up just because they saw a penis...well, I think it'd be a thing.

where do you derive the power to decide what is harmful and what is not harmful for my children?

I DIDN'T. I ACTUALLY ASKED YOU HOW IT WAS HARMFUL AT ALL. I repeat again...when you take your kids out into public they are going to see shit you might not like. Just like if you turn on the TV there is a chance theres something on you don't like.

I also love the fact that dozens and dozens of links to horrific sexual assaults is "anecdotal" in your mind.

It's called that because it's not exactly Representative of things.Kind of like how dozens and dozens of stories isn't evidence of a crime wave in a country as big as the united states.

The whole point is that a child is horribly harmed by seeing adults naked.

Based on...what research, what logical idea is this? Forcing a child, sure but just seeing it as you see a toe or a leg? Why?

hat's exactly why it is illegal for a little boy to purchase a Playboy and why it is illegal for a little girl to purchase a Playgirl.

How the hell do you keep mixing up anatomy with sex? You can use your damned finger for sex it has other damned uses, Jesus Christ.

That is perfectly ok for three grown men to triple team an 8 year old girl in a porn?!?

...Are you serious or just like trying to be flame tastic in your trolling? I realize you're deeply emotional and stuff about this but chill. the. hell. out. How are the two things even remotely similar and who the hell is fine with that? You understand that this would be like if you said it's okay for a little girl to see another woman naked...but then saying you'd totally be okay with three grown ass women to molest her?

They aren't the same fucking thing.

How you can sit here and act like it's curious why anyone would be opposed to little children showering with grown adults of the opposite sex is mind-boggling.

I asked what harm it did to the kids, I'm not boggled, I understand that some people are opposed because they have their sensibilities and they run counter to this means and does.

May I inquire as to why we even have laws that require us to wear "clothing" in public places if this is not such a big deal to you?

Her response is going to be the ever intelligent "because America is made up of a bunch of prudes".

Her? She? It?

I would have thought male.

 

[Serioususername]

If a little girl seeing a penis isn't (and I quote) "inherently harmful" then why is it illegal for a child to purchase a Playboy or Playgirl? Why is it illegal for a child to enter a strip club?

Because we're a bunch of prudes in the United States for starters. More seriously because all of those things have an UNDENIABLE sexual part to them. You're comparing a playboy to an anatomy text book for all intents and purposes, they aren't the same.

You do realize you not only made the most degenerate comment in world history, it was also the dumbest ever made

You're being hyperbolic, chill out.

it's ok for grown men to change and shower with little girls and that no harm is done to a little girl were any of that to occur.

What. Harm. Is. Done. Nudists are a thing, and while I haven't done extensive research I imagine if there were massive findings of Nudist female children being majorly mentally screwed up just because they saw a penis...well, I think it'd be a thing.

where do you derive the power to decide what is harmful and what is not harmful for my children?

I DIDN'T. I ACTUALLY ASKED YOU HOW IT WAS HARMFUL AT ALL. I repeat again...when you take your kids out into public they are going to see shit you might not like. Just like if you turn on the TV there is a chance theres something on you don't like.

I also love the fact that dozens and dozens of links to horrific sexual assaults is "anecdotal" in your mind.

It's called that because it's not exactly Representative of things.Kind of like how dozens and dozens of stories isn't evidence of a crime wave in a country as big as the united states.

The whole point is that a child is horribly harmed by seeing adults naked.

Based on...what research, what logical idea is this? Forcing a child, sure but just seeing it as you see a toe or a leg? Why?

hat's exactly why it is illegal for a little boy to purchase a Playboy and why it is illegal for a little girl to purchase a Playgirl.

How the hell do you keep mixing up anatomy with sex? You can use your damned finger for sex it has other damned uses, Jesus Christ.

That is perfectly ok for three grown men to triple team an 8 year old girl in a porn?!?

...Are you serious or just like trying to be flame tastic in your trolling? I realize you're deeply emotional and stuff about this but chill. the. hell. out. How are the two things even remotely similar and who the hell is fine with that? You understand that this would be like if you said it's okay for a little girl to see another woman naked...but then saying you'd totally be okay with three grown ass women to molest her?

They aren't the same fucking thing.

How you can sit here and act like it's curious why anyone would be opposed to little children showering with grown adults of the opposite sex is mind-boggling.

I asked what harm it did to the kids, I'm not boggled, I understand that some people are opposed because they have their sensibilities and they run counter to this means and does.

May I inquire as to why we even have laws that require us to wear "clothing" in public places if this is not such a big deal to you?

Because...America is a nation of prudes? Simple answer is...societal norms, like I said what evidence is there that a kid seeing a naked body actually harms them?

There is no "sex" in a Playboy.

Sexualized and sex aren't one and the same. second there are articles about sex in a playboy too. You don't even have to be nude for something to be sexual...I mean...just...how do you not know these things?

For you to decide that all of society is a "prude" and you are the one person who has it right says a lot.

You're being hyperbolic again, I'm not the only person that thinks transgender people should be allowed to use the rooms they identify with. I haven't even said I did, I asked why you didn't and asked for the evidence to support your stance.

Maybe you're a titanic whore who is so sexual deviant, your moral compass shattered under the weight of it all.

Yes, because your moral compass is a guiding light for all others. What with calling people whores and all.

I'm assuming you think rape is no big deal as well?

Don't be stupid, stop equating things like that. I assume because you think transgenders shouldn't be allowed to do this...people of different races shouldn't be allowed to pee and shower together either? Or eat together, OR even breath the same air!

 

[Zoom-boing]

So, what legal basis do you use to deny all males from using women only restrooms while allowing a select few to use women only facilities.

It's called a PENIS... look between you legs for a flabby bit of flesh, generally accompanied by two testicles, also known as balls. If you have such equipment, by definition and convention, you have no business in a "womens" restroom, bathroom, shower, changing room, or anything else designated for the use of WOMEN. ....Did momma and daddy not teach you this????

Oh, I understand completely, it's the morons that think you can include trans males, and keep out all males that have explaining to do.

See, it works like this:

If the state can determine that one male with a penis can be excluded while not excluding another male with a penis, they have redefined the legal reasoning known as "simalarily situated" in such a severe way that Same Sex Marriage bans could again be legal.

It's incredible to me that the LGBT is not fully supporting the North Carolina law and joining in on the Target boycott

I've read your pov on this in many different threads, pop. I've noticed that not one person offers any counter argument to it.

What say you, trans-bathroom supporters? Someone? Anyone? Bueller?

I can't believe you just said that Zoom. Do you not realize that people like Wytch aren't smart enough to understand the issue or Pop23's post? If they were smart enough to understand it, they wouldn't have the insane position that it's ok for cross-dressers and predators to use the restroom of the opposite sex.

Oh I realize it alright. Just high-lighting the pro-trans-bathroom people's idiotic stance!

 

[Yousaidwhat]

America maybe a nation of prudes but what adults do as adults are one thing.

If a child is exposed to a naked parent then that can easily be explained.

When a grown male exposes themselves to a child it is still considered pornography and is still considered sexual assault.

Why do you feel it it beneficial for a minor child to be exposed to a strange adult male who feels it is his right to expose themselves to a minor child, especially a minor female?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What I'm trying to figure out is this: Leftists tell us that sexual orientation is genetic, hard-wired into our DNA, immutable . . . but our actual sex is fluid, a social construct, and determined by how one feels and identifies.

And they consider themselves the champions of science?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Men aren't allowed in women's bathrooms. Anyone so allowing that is opening themselves up to a lawsuit from women for violation of their privacy.

Nope. As there is no expectation of privacy outside of a stall. And they are single use.

There most certainly is (or until recently, has been) a solid expectation of privacy in that a woman could reasonably expect that within a women's restroom, locker room, dressing room, or similar facility. that there would be no men present.

 

[Boss]

Expose themselves in the same sense anyone else would who's in the same locker room or whatever. I asked what harm it did to the child, a little girl seeing a penis isn't inherently harmful you realize? You say degeneracy but what exactly does a transgendered person harm by simply carrying on about their business?

....And here we go down the slippery slope... wheeeeeeeee!!

Little girls have NO BUSINESS being exposed to adult male penises. It DOES do harm. That's exactly why pedophilia is illegal. EVERY STINKING BIT OF THIS.... is the result of the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage. You've legitimized sexual deviancy under the law and made them a protected class. You've demonstrated that our laws can be changed to accommodate sexual behaviors and preferences. You are literally a breath away from saying it is okay to fuck little kids. Pedophiles can't control "who they are" and what they "identify" as. Why should society ostracize their sexual deviancy? .....Oh the fucking TABOOS are all coming down!

You've heard the expression... Nothing is Sacred?

 

[Silhouette]

What I'm trying to figure out is this: Leftists tell us that sexual orientation is genetic, hard-wired into our DNA, immutable . . . but our actual sex is fluid, a social construct, and determined by how one feels and identifies.

And they consider themselves the champions of science?

Well see they took over the American Psychological Association in the 1970s & 80s so they could self-diagnose as "normal" and then assign any causal agent they liked to their condition, outside and in defiance often of the scientific method. In fact, the gays who gripped control away from the APA simply "disappeared' the Leona Tyler Principle of the APA. It was its guiding principle for decades. The principle simply said that any position the APA took publicly on a given condition HAD to be backed by hard science.

The gays who controlled the board at the time didn't even hold an up or down vote on disappearing that principle. You can't even find it in the APA archives to this date according to one astonished emeritus president in the interview below.



The same thing is going on with trannies. They are diagnosing it from the hip and selling that diagnosis as "hard fact" without any research whatsoever to back it up with and, in defiance of much research that says entertaining a tranny's delusions is in fact quite harmful to them. Especially if they coerce physicians (who should be thrown in prison) to amputate their healthy organs to leave them disabled and numb/incontinent for life.

For a clue at how the scientific establishment actually regards trannies: BREAKING: Johns Hopkins & American College of Pediatricians Formerly Denounce Sex-Change Procedures

Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”... Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely JHMN: Sexual Healing

 

[Zoom-boing]

What I'm trying to figure out is this: Leftists tell us that sexual orientation is genetic, hard-wired into our DNA, immutable . . . but our actual sex is fluid, a social construct, and determined by how one feels and identifies.

And they consider themselves the champions of science?

Leftist's retardedness is hard wired in their dna.

 

[Staidhup]

Face it, the trans gay...minority runs the show, the right and left just don't have the balls nor moral aptitude to stop the insanity. The moral fiber of this country is bankrupt, society is in decay, as history has demonstrated coincides with collapse.

 

[Staidhup]

What gives anyone the right, especially when they are a choice of life style minority, to infringe on my rights, freedoms, and pursuit of happiness? Why should I have to adjust my life to accommodate their pathetic excuse for existence?

 

[P@triot]

What I'm trying to figure out is this: Leftists tell us that sexual orientation is genetic, hard-wired into our DNA, immutable . . . but our actual sex is fluid, a social construct, and determined by how one feels and identifies.

And they consider themselves the champions of science?

The exact opposite of reality.... Liberalism requires the complete and total suspension of reason in favor of ideology

 

[P@triot]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What I'm trying to figure out is this: Leftists tell us that sexual orientation is genetic, hard-wired into our DNA, immutable . . . but our actual sex is fluid, a social construct, and determined by how one feels and identifies.

And they consider themselves the champions of science?

Orwell wrote about exactly this phenomenon. He called it “doublethink”.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth0148​