Despite having a girlfriend, boy is allowed to use girls' facilities

Some, yes. But it was still perfectly acceptable for people to openly mock his religion, even though Tebow wasn't doing anything wrong. He was about as well behaved an NFL player as anyone could want. But that darn religion made him a bad guy....lets not forget how many other players crossed themselves, pointed to the sky or clasped their hands after a TD, but were never ridiculed=) They were a different color though, so "you dow wanna go der".

 

Um, no, they're not.

First, a pedophile is an adult that is sexually attracted to children. I don't see anything like that in the OP.

Secondly, not everyone sees this as imposing. And even if it is, it still has nothing to do with child molestation, because it would have to involve an adult.

I'm divided on the transgender bathroom issue, as I really don't know what the correct course of action is. However, what we don't need is people labelling others with false terms that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It would help if you didn't constantly jump to conclusions about everyone you disagree with.

 

This is no surprise. The minute they started pushing for this, I said that sexual predators were going to take advantage, and this guy is doing so.

Surprise, liberals!

The safety of women is more important than the hurt feelings of militant homosexual activists - always, and without question.

Now go get a Kleenex.

 

The course of action is to keep the safety of women the most important issue where it should be. Hurt feelings should NEVER guide policy. Ever.

Transsexuals are a minute portion of the population and most of them are born one gender with a mental issue that drives them to pretend they're another. Few of them are actually born with sex organs of both genders.

- - - Updated - - -

I got a picture last season of about a dozen members of the Oakland Raiders going into the end zone pre-game and "Tebowing" in prayer. The media aren't going to attack those guys because they were black players. They'll go after a popular white boy to attack instead.

 

A pedophile is one that breaks down boundaries and taboos designed to keep children safe. A pedophile is one who is inordinately obsessed with children particularly in the area of sexual privacy. A pedophile is one that imposes boys on girls in a very intimate and private setting such as a restroom where a girl's gender is supposed to be protected from the other gender. And finally a pedophile is one who conceals his sick obsessions and predatory lust through the cover of abstract rationalizations and obfuscation.

So yes, I stand by my argument. It's well founded.

 

But here's the thing. I'm not sexually attracted to children. By that very definition, I'm not a pedophile, I have no predatory lust, and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I actually agree that this can be harmful to the girls in the bathroom, but I and others in this thread are trying to find a middle of the road approach where the girls feel comfortable as well as the gender confused boy.

I know the wingnut approach is to link people you disagree with to pedophiles, but some of us are actually trying to have a discussion instead of flinging insults that have no truth behind them.

 

I didn't say anything specifically about you. To say that out loud would be a violation of the rules.

 

But you're implying it, though. You're labeling a wide swath of people who you disagree with on this issue as the same or equal to disgusting pedophiles.

 

I'm the father of a daughter. My opinion of anyone who wants to put boys in the restroom she goes to in school couldn't possibly be any lower. "Pedophile" is one of the gentler characterizations I have for them.

 

Perhaps my position will change if I ever become a father. However, people who have sympathy for this confused kid aren't out to sexually harass girls or anything close to that. They're just trying to find a solution in which the kid is comfortable.

And most likely this kid won't even hassle anybody, just like most transgender people don't. They just want to use the bathroom and then move on with their day.

 

This is easy. The TINY fraction of transgendered people will just have to deal with using the bathroom they are supposed to. If they have a dick, it's the men's room. If it's a vagina, it's the women's room. You don't sacrifice the safety and feelings of a LARGE group for a tiny fraction of confused individuals.

 

Neverrrrrrrrrrr!

 

It sounds highly overregulated IMO. I would not call disaster relief workers as more caring. While voluteers and religious groups would qualify. To most it is just a way to earn a good paycheck. In the initial stages of a disaster most govt. regs are suspended. They come back in force after the emergency stage usually 30 days or so. I would not use the females port-a-potty if a female was present or likely to be during me using it. Given the choice between a little used one and one that is full to almost the seat. Not much of a choice IMO. Since in my job I decide what the drivers will be paid for removing debris. Which also determines what their boss is paid as well. I am likely the most hated man during the clean up process if I do my job the proper way. I have to balance being killed by truck drivers and being arrested by homeland security. So some woman being mad at me for using her private potty was never something I would lose sleep over. I excel and have job security when a disaster strikes by doing what others do not want to do. I can get along with FEMA observers, my mostly minority co-workers, but most importantly I can stand up to the drivers and other contractors. I do not scare easy being a dumb redneck has it's advantages.

 

Christ Almighty folks, it's REAL SIMPLE.

If you are born with a penis...you are a MALE and must use the MALE facilities.

If you are born with a vagina, you are a FEMALE and must use the FEMALE facilities.

If you are born with both, pick a side and stick with it.

 

This is so close. Let's modify it a little bit...

If you are born with a penis, use the male facilities
If you are borh with a vagina, use the female facilities
If you're born with both, you LOOK male, use the male facilities

The subtle difference here is, if you are born with a vagina (for example) you are not necessarily female. Ask the Russian weight lifters! So the point here is, use the facilities appropriate to your anatomy, not your gender.

 

No. My position is that it is and always has been complicated and anyone who refuses to accept that complexity is a fool or a liar. I don't pretend to have a magic solution to this issue.

 

Bathrooms remain segregated mainly do to females desire it remains that way. They evidently do not feel comfortable being in restrooms with men. So a feminist would be the best person to explain that. We have the largest "minority" in conflict with one of the smaller minorities.

While I imagine we will eventually have gender neutral restrooms that will be a long way off in some areas.. Until that happens public facilities will have to try and balance the legal concerns for those involved.

 

I don't agree that it's just women who are uncomfortable with sharing bathrooms with the opposite sex. Many men would feel that way too. As a truck driver, I've been in many public restrooms all across the country and many, if not most, don't even have a sheet metal divider between urinals. That means you drain the lizard in front of everyone and a lot of men wouldn't feel comfortable doing that in front of a woman.

But my question through this whole discussion is simple. What we do works. And it has worked for decades. Why are we even considering changing it?

 

My problem is that with all of the politics involved in this crap, it's hard to really know what's real and what's not. Who the hell really knows if gender dysphoria is a real thing? There's no way we're ever going to get an accurate and impartial study on it because there's too much pressure from special interest groups. Science isn't even allowed to be science anymore. It has to be politically correct. Which completely defeats the purpose of science in the first place - to explore and to learn. Some people get all butt hurt about other people's skepticism of things like climate change and evolution. But can you blame them? When the scientific community is in bed with liberal special interest groups, it's not exactly a pure source anymore. And thus anything it gives us should be treated as bull(*)(*)(*)(*) until proven otherwise.

 

Straight men. I have had lady friends of mine change in front of me. I normally ask, if they want me to leave, and give them some privacy. But they normally say that it's okay. They aren't worried about me.

I find it strange.

Meh, I don't really feel we need a crotch inspector in every public toilet. So if you look like a lady, use the ladies room. Just be sure to sit down.

 

So, since its a complicated situation, then further complication as showcased in this article should be supported and allowed?

 

Well the child in question here has at least some intimate interest in biological females. So not sure that will leave the girls feeling he is not a threat. While I am aware many women feel safer around some "gay" men if they thought you had a sexual interest in them they would not be as comfortable. Or maybe they just want to see if their bodies interest you. Playing hard to get is usually effective many people want what they can not have. Many straight men want to turn lesbians back on the right track maybe straight women have the same fetish. TG's are more complicated than just gay vs straight and that is fairly complicated in its own right.


I imagine TG's use the restrooms they feel best describes them everyday. If nobody knows it is not really a issue IMO. With adults I can be more supportive of them having a right to body modification and a legal change of gender, even if it is not accurate based on biology. Children have no right to decide that and neither do parents and/or doctors. Till they reach the age of consent they are not mentally prepared to make that kind of decsion. To encourage a child to do that is improper and to further force that on other children adds to the abuse.

If we are only talking about adults then I believe they can take care of themselves for the most part. My libertarian philosophy will overrule any personal issues I have with it. Not so much when children are involved.

 

You know, the English language has the largest lexicon of any language man has invented, and, as such, is potentially the most expressive of the tongues.

So, in the interests of accuracy, might one suggest that allowing a boy into the girls' toilet facilities (which I would consider to be an unwise decision for a number of reasons,) is very far from 'violating' pubescent girls. The term 'violate' in the sexual context (which is the implication of your usage,) means to rape, or sexually attack. There is no likelihood, given that this boy thinks he is a girl, that he will be motivated to sexually interfere with any of the girls.

Where I might agree with you is in the area of psychological comfort. I do not see why these girls should be made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a pubescent boy. As I indicated, there is little that is intrinsically harmful in this boy's use of the female facilities, but we are all products of our environment and moulded by society's mores. So I can easily understand why the girls might object.

Particularly, when the simple alternative of offering this one boy the use of staff facilities exists.

As to accusing those people who see no real harm in the boy using the girls' facilities of being pædophiles, might I remind you that pædophilia is a psychiatric disorder wherein is a person sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. It is a word of Greek origin, and a compound of παῖς (paîs), "child", and φιλία (philía), "friendly love" or "friendship".

It is in no way logically applicable to someone who shows tolerance of a situation where a boy is allowed to use the girls' toilet facilities (much as you or I might disagree with the wisdom of that situation). To use it in that context is to unfairly vilify and effectively defame those persons concerned.

 

Perhaps he/she is a transgender with lesbian leanings. I've always wondered when this scenario would come up. Actually it doesn't bother me. Because any gay rights or transgender activist who would deny him rights to the girls locker room and bathroom would be a hypocrite. If he/she is transgender, its possible for the new her to be lesbian, so she can't be discriminated against.

 

I rather agree. Let them mature first. Then make decisions.