Men in women's bathrooms

[Silhouette]

Person A is a born male transitioning to female, dresses as a woman (clothing, hair, makeup).

Person B is a born male not transitioning to female, dresses as a women (clothing, hair, makeup).

If you allow person A full access to women's bathrooms/dressing rooms/showers you must also allow person B the same access.

You cannot allow one male who says they "identify" as female into such places and then discriminate against another male who claims same. Or is there some litmus test happening prior to this person going into the bathroom? If so, please share.

The problem you're suffering from Zoom is that you are taking any of the transgender stuff even remotely seriously to begin with. That's their art...push hard on insane concepts until people give a little...then push more...then push more...until insane becomes accepted.

The solution is to flatly reject insane from its obvious manifestation from the get-go, and give no ground whatsoever on what you're common sense is telling you to reject. Just a tip for all you folks out there reading.

So just to reacquaint some of you with your original moorings: a man trying to become a woman is an insane man and will never be a woman. And, insane men don't belong within a country mile of the inside of a segregated women's hygiene retreat.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Why the comic relief on a subject like this one?

Look there is no more danger [ of men dressed as women lurking in bathrooms as predators] right now than there was a year ago when this was a non issue ...this is a "meme' introduced into public discussion by vested interest with an agenda of distraction and use of wedge issue to stoke a constituency... its all good ...take it as joke...like "Obama is invading Texas with Jade Helms"; or the ever popular "Obama is coming for your guns "....relax laugh ....

 

[Zoom-boing]

Person A is a born male transitioning to female, dresses as a woman (clothing, hair, makeup).

Person B is a born male not transitioning to female, dresses as a women (clothing, hair, makeup).

If you allow person A full access to women's bathrooms/dressing rooms/showers you must also allow person B the same access.

You cannot allow one male who says they "identify" as female into such places and then discriminate against another male who claims same. Or is there some litmus test happening prior to this person going into the bathroom? If so, please share.

The problem you're suffering from Zoom is that you are taking any of the transgender stuff even remotely seriously to begin with. That's their art...push hard on insane concepts until people give a little...then push more...then push more...until insane becomes accepted.

The solution is to flatly reject insane from its obvious manifestation from the get-go, and give no ground whatsoever on what you're common sense is telling you to reject. Just a tip for all you folks out there reading.

So just to reacquaint some of you with your original moorings: a man trying to become a woman is an insane man and will never be a woman. And, insane men don't belong within a country mile of the inside of a segregated women's hygiene retreat.

Nope, not suffering any problem. "trans" is bullshit, something is wrong with the wiring in their brains, humoring these people is wrong. Surgeons who lop off a penis or give boob jobs to men or turn a vagina into a penis should be charge with abuse .

I'm just trying to draw out the nutbars who support this shit, trying to get them to fumble around for answer to what is being presented. Of course, they never do answer. Gee, wonder why?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why the comic relief on a subject like this one?

Look there is no more danger [ of men dressed as women lurking in bathrooms as predators] right now than there was a year ago when this was a non issue

False. If a law is made that allows males (I don't give a shit what they "think" or "identify" as, they are males) into women's rooms you've just given the pervs of the world a big, wide loophole which they will absolutely take advantage of.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, we don't know yet about bathrooms and their constitutionality do we? The SCOTUS hasn't heard one of these bathroom cases. They've gone to court, just not all the way

Sure we do. Because the Supreme Court cannot create, edit, or otherwise alter the U.S. Constitution from the bench. They are the judicial branch. Only the legislative branch can create laws.

So I can tell you unequivocally that one does not have the Constitutional right to invade the facilities of the opposite sex.

 

[P@triot]

An anonymous commenter says they might be freaked out if they are in a women's restroom with a preoperative transsexual (even though women's rooms have stalls) and you want to pass laws requiring chromosome checks at bathroom doors as a result...but an actual PTSD victim and a veteran at that is actually freaked out by open carry and you wouldn't even consider waiting periods and background checks as reasonable would you?

Ah....so there has never been a rape in U.S. history simply because you didn't administrate the rape kit and take the evidence yourself? There is some "logic". The liberal war on women continues. Disregard their plight in favor of sexual deviance.

As far as the veteran - as I've stated - I have the upmost respect for the men and women who have served and believe we owe them a billion times what they get (sadly you liberals would rather provide healthcare and housing to a crack addict than a homeless veteran that severed this country honorably). But as far as their PTSD trumping my Constitutional rights - um....no. Sorry. Not even a little. The entire reason that veteran has PTSD is that because they served to protect my Constitutional rights. Surrendering them would mean I condemned him or her to a life of PTSD for absolutely no reason at all. That's a special kind of stupid that could only be proposed by a certain faction of this country.

 

[Silhouette]

Look there is no more danger [ of men dressed as women lurking in bathrooms as predators] right now than there was a year ago when this was a non issue

False. If a law is made that allows males (I don't give a shit what they "think" or "identify" as, they are males) into women's rooms you've just given the pervs of the world a big, wide loophole which they will absolutely take advantage of.

Forgive Tyrone. He'll pretend he doesn't quite know the connection you're talking about. People caught up in cults never examine things like unintended consequences or paradoxes in concepts. He'll simply insist that women's right to privacy step aside until you give his cult what it wants, 100%, non-negotiable.

Look what they accomplished last Summer... They convinced 5 Justices who professed to care about children, to strip children of either a mother or father for life as a brand new contractual term (gay marriage) and force all 50 states to allow this too. They got this done by convincing society that their lifestyle choices had more "rights" than a child did in the marriage contract to both a mother and father. WE LET THAT HAPPEN!! By our silence.

The same will be true of the men in women's bathrooms. Because these particular men belong to their cult, their brand new and frankly insane "rights" will be declared dominant to thousands of years of women enjoying privacy of segregated hygiene retreats.

In short, we, as a society, are allowing a cult to strip away the rights of our children and our women. Though New York vs Ferber allows us to overturn their advancements on marriage in favor of children. And that will happen as soon as we get a republican administration nicely ensconced. And I reject many a GOP platform, so this is how far it's gone.

 

[P@triot]

Why the comic relief on a subject like this one?

When dealing with people who lack even the most basic decency and common sense, all you can do is resort to "comic relief". One, it helps with dealing with the insanity of people that believe a 57 year old man should be able to butt-fuck a 9 year old girl in a public restroom. And two, it helps illustrate the stupidity of those people (which is funny all in itself).

 

[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?

Leftist's retardedness is hard wired in their dna.

Or something. My sister, the token liberal in my family - my mother has admitted to dropping her on her head as a child - came out with "I've used the bathroom so many times with gay and transgendered friends, and I just don't see the problem", to which I had to say, "That's you. I don't like sharing a bathroom with anyone, so why should your comfort level be forced on me and the vast majority of women who are like me?"

Excellent points as always Cecilie. And do expound on that further - the mental illness of these people is not society's problem. The 0.3% of the population has to assimilate to the 99.7% of the population. Not the other way around. That's simply how it works. And we 99.7% don't care if you like it or not. We really don't.

 

[P@triot]

Forgive Tyrone. He'll pretend he doesn't quite know the connection you're talking about. People caught up in cults never examine things like unintended consequences or paradoxes in concepts. He'll simply insist that women's right to privacy step aside until you give his cult what it wants, 100%, non-negotiable.

Look what they accomplished last Summer... They convinced 5 Justices who professed to care about children, to strip children of either a mother or father for life as a brand new contractual term (gay marriage) and force all 50 states to allow this too. They got this done by convincing society that their lifestyle choices had more "rights" than a child did in the marriage contract to both a mother and father. WE LET THAT HAPPEN!! By our silence.

The same will be true of the men in women's bathrooms. Because these particular men belong to their cult, their brand new and frankly insane "rights" will be declared dominant to thousands of years of women enjoying privacy of segregated hygiene retreats.

In short, we, as a society, are allowing a cult to strip away the rights of our children and our women. Though New York vs Ferber allows us to overturn their advancements on marriage in favor of children. And that will happen as soon as we get a republican administration nicely ensconced. And I reject many a GOP platform, so this is how far it's gone.

 

[Silhouette]

Forgive Tyrone. He'll pretend he doesn't quite know the connection you're talking about. People caught up in cults never examine things like unintended consequences or paradoxes in concepts. He'll simply insist that women's right to privacy step aside until you give his cult what it wants, 100%, non-negotiable.

Look what they accomplished last Summer... They convinced 5 Justices who professed to care about children, to strip children of either a mother or father for life as a brand new contractual term (gay marriage) and force all 50 states to allow this too. They got this done by convincing society that their lifestyle choices had more "rights" than a child did in the marriage contract to both a mother and father. WE LET THAT HAPPEN!! By our silence.

The same will be true of the men in women's bathrooms. Because these particular men belong to their cult, their brand new and frankly insane "rights" will be declared dominant to thousands of years of women enjoying privacy of segregated hygiene retreats.

In short, we, as a society, are allowing a cult to strip away the rights of our children and our women. Though New York vs Ferber allows us to overturn their advancements on marriage in favor of children. And that will happen as soon as we get a republican administration nicely ensconced. And I reject many a GOP platform, so this is how far it's gone.

You're welcome!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I got an app on my cell I point at other folks in the bathroom and it pinpoints their gender for me. I just can't pee without that peace of mind....

 

[Zoom-boing]

Excellent points as always Cecilie. And do expound on that further - the mental illness of these people is not society's problem. The 0.3% of the population has to assimilate to the 99.7% of the population. Not the other way around. That's simply how it works. And we 99.7% don't care if you like it or not. We really don't.

^^ THIS! 100% THIS!

 

[P@triot]

I got an app on my cell I point at other folks in the bathroom and it pinpoints their gender for me. I just can't pee without that peace of mind....

You don't need an app. It's painfully obvious when a man puts on makeup and a dress. Painfully obvious. You know it. I know it. Wytchy knows it. And that's why you people are pushing so hard for these laws. If we couldn't tell that a man was walking into the women's room, we couldn't "harass" them. And you wouldn't want laws about it.

 

[P@triot]

Liberalism "logic" 101...

• You cannot tell a man from a woman - it's impossible
• Men have been using the women's restrooms for centuries and you people have had no idea
• We need laws to protect these people because you "bigots" keep "harassing" them as they go potty

Look - either we can't identify these people (in which case you do not need laws to protect them from something that isn't happening) or we can identify these people (in which case, it proves they have no business being in there as it will be disturbing to children and victims of rape). You can't have it both ways liberals. This is like you're laughable and humiliating "Global Warming" where you claimed that greenhouse gasses were being trapped in the atmosphere causing the planet to heat up. After record colds around the world for several years, you then tried to claim that those same greenhouse gasses being trapped in the atmosphere causing the world to heat up were also causing the world to cool down. And embarrassed by the liberal stupidity of it, you immediately changed the name to "Climate Change". Again...you can't have it both ways. Either trapped greenhouses gasses are causing the planet to heat up or they are not. It cannot do both at the same time. It's as dumb as saying the transmission in my automobile drives me both forward and backwards simultaneously at the same moment. It's physiologically impossible.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, we don't know yet about bathrooms and their constitutionality do we? The SCOTUS hasn't heard one of these bathroom cases. They've gone to court, just not all the way

Sure we do. Because the Supreme Court cannot create, edit, or otherwise alter the U.S. Constitution from the bench. They are the judicial branch. Only the legislative branch can create laws.

So I can tell you unequivocally that one does not have the Constitutional right to invade the facilities of the opposite sex.

The SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws. All NC, TN, MS, etc are doing is ensuring that bathrooms go all the way to the SCOTUS.

You care to make a bet on it?

How have rulings been working out for your freak out so far?

In landmark ruling, federal appeals court upholds protection for transgender student

 

[Seawytch]

Why the comic relief on a subject like this one?

Look there is no more danger [ of men dressed as women lurking in bathrooms as predators] right now than there was a year ago when this was a non issue

False. If a law is made that allows males (I don't give a shit what they "think" or "identify" as, they are males) into women's rooms you've just given the pervs of the world a big, wide loophole which they will absolutely take advantage of.

Such laws are "on the books" in 17 states and over 200 cities. Show us all the "pervs" doing what you claim.

 

[Boss]

Such laws are "on the books" in 17 states and over 200 cities. Show us all the "pervs" doing what you claim.

All you ever do is come here and LIE through your shit-stained teeth. There is NOT "laws on the books in 17 states and over 200 cities" regarding men in women's restrooms. If you honestly believe that, you're an idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

The SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws. All NC, TN, MS, etc are doing is ensuring that bathrooms go all the way to the SCOTUS.

You care to make a bet on it?

How have rulings been working out for your freak out so far?

Yes, you've owned SCOTUS and they made a horrible blunder to accommodate you last Summer. That's going to change. That's why the GOP refuses to hear any appointees your boy Obama throws out there. We've had our fill with your hand-picked Justices, advertising before the case how they were going to cast their approval.

Ginsburg and Kagan are impeachable because of Obergefell. So Obergefell itself is impeachable. Good luck shoehorning men's "rights" to invade the private and segregated personal hygiene areas of women. Get your ducks in a row on "the clinical proof for a man being a woman trapped in a man's body" because this time, the scientific proof will be called up to the table. Not just going to rely on your APA bleeding heart briefs this time..

 

[Seawytch]

Such laws are "on the books" in 17 states and over 200 cities. Show us all the "pervs" doing what you claim.

All you ever do is come here and LIE through your shit-stained teeth. There is NOT "laws on the books in 17 states and over 200 cities" regarding men in women's restrooms. If you honestly believe that, you're an idiot.

Have you looked? Do you know how stupid it is to call someone a liar if you can't prove they have lied?

Public Accommodations

Many states and localities also explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in public accommodations. The following 17 states have explicit protections: California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State, as well as the District of Columbia. More than 200 cities and counties also explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination even if their state does not.[...]

What About Public Restrooms?

People sometimes think that “public accommodations” refers to public restrooms. Actually, “public accommodations” are categories of businesses that serve the general public. If a business is covered by a public accommodations law, access to all facilities that are open to the public is covered by that law as well. (Similarly, if a business is covered by an employment law, then an employee’s access to the restrooms is covered by that law.)