Victory to LGBT+ activists as Supreme court declines hearing on transgender bathroom case

I really don’t think you all understand the concern.

How do we differentiate the transgender who genuinely wants to use the opposite sex bathroom from the straight male sexual predator who is abusing the transgender rules to find his next victim?

For instance... let’s assume Gary is a straight male sexual predator. He knows he can legally go into the females bathroom by claiming to be a female. So Gary goes into the bathroom (with no cameras) and waits. Little Susie has to go to the bathroom. She goes in there and Gary gropes her. Susie runs out of the bathroom saying this man groped her. Gary comes out and says, “I did no such thing. I’m just a woman who was in there peeing”.

Now that we allow transgenders into opposite sex facilities his argument is unassailable because it’s simply his word against hers without a witness or a camera. This would result in the child molester probably not even being charged and assuredly not convicted.

If, however, he was NOT legally allowed to enter the bathroom, his excuse of “I was just in there peeing” will not hold water because he didn’t have legal access to that bathroom. So it can be assumed legally that his intentions were nefarious. This would lead to a much more likely charge and conviction.

You’re advocating for policy that will protect pedophiles and essentially NOBODY else.

 

They shouldn’t be charged as sex offenders. Yes they should have their convictions expunged.

 

Furthermore I’m going to say this again, we do NOT segregate bathrooms based upon gender. We segregate bathrooms based upon SEX.

 

My argument is that you are not actually stopping anyone and are instead targeting innocent people.

Why shouldn’t we just try and prevent the criminals and not impact the law abiding citizens?

 

So what does this story have to do with the Ls, Gs and Bs? This is about the Ts and from what I’ve been hearing the LGBs aren’t really very fond of the Ts. So why are they cheering?

 

84% of ‘young adults’ support same sex marriage
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

Your data is from 2019 — it reversed the next year.
The 2020 report says that most people support federal protections they simply overestimate what current law is and the “discomfort” scale declined significantly.

It is fascinating how having hate and vitriol spewed from the White House impacts some polls, thankfully he was kicked out on his ass along with his cult.

 

Perhaps you don't know this about women's bathrooms, but they only have stalls. So no chance of seeing the genitals of the opposite sex.

 

Victory to LGBT+ activists as Supreme court declines hearing on transgender bathroom case

chickens

 

So you are wanting to punish law abiding citizens to prevent criminals from breaking other laws?

Strange, y’all don’t like that argument when it comes up in the gun debate

Assault will still be a crime, charge them with the crime they committed and not the one that impacts innocent people.

 

Have you noticed how many transgendered have not been arrested for using the "other" terlit?

 

If the same action results in the loss of life, liberty, or property for one, but not another, can we still claim to value equal protection under the law?

 

Banning trans people from using the facility that matches their identity can cause a loss of life and does cause a loss of liberty.

The only reasons I have seen why people are against it are

• Ewww gross
• Think of the children! (With no evidence trans people pose a higher threat to them)
• They are gonna show me their weiner!!! (With no evidence trans people are doing this)

 

Why are you avoiding my question? Why were there separate restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc?

 

Clever dodge, but the question remains unanswered. Are you okay with this group enjoying "preferred citizenship" with legal protection for the exact same act that others had their lives ruined for?

 

I responded to your comment: No. One teenager was told he would have to live the rest of his life as a registered sex offender for streaking across the football field. He ended up killing himself. If keeping ones genitals out of view of members of the opposite sex is unconstitutional, these people should have their criminal records cleared and their name removed from the sex offender list.

Perhaps you can demonstrate where I avoided your question. There wasn't a question in your comment.

 

You are right, That question was for another forum member. Since we're here, Are you okay with this group enjoying "preferred citizenship" with legal protection for the exact same act that others had their lives ruined for?

 

If you are referring to your example of a teenager streaking having to register as a sex offender then I also take issue with that law — because others have suffered injustice doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and correct that injustice going forward.

I disagree with the premise of your question as I do not support “preferred citizenship” nor do I support ruining peoples lives for innocent actions.

 

Fair enough!

 

I can't really answer the question with any seriousness if you are trying to compare a streaker to a transgender teen.

 

I made no such comparison. I am discussing equal protection under the law for those exposing their genitals. If you prefer, I will use the example where someone exposed their penis to women and children in a woman's spa.

Is the exact same act a crime for some, but not for others?

 

What I don't think you're understanding is that I see a HUGE difference between a transgender individual simply wanting to go to the bathroom (in the one appropriate for them) and a man exposing his penis to women and children in a spa. I do understand that you are opposed to transgenders using what you see is the wrong bathroom, but as I said in my previous post, women's bathrooms have stalls - so no one is seeing anything.

 

Are you arguing with positions I never took to avoid answering my simple question? I do not oppose people using the restroom they feel comfortable in; I oppose the double standard. How about you?

 

As I've pointed out a few times, I don't see it as a double standard - at least not as you've described it.

 

Okay. Should a man be allowed to view women in a locker room through a peephole or a camera? How about exposing himself to children?

 

Of course not. But I can't agree with you drawing comparisons like that. I get it - you don't believe in the idea of a person being transgender - you see them as the sex with which they were born. I don't agree. So we're at an impasse.