Should gay and trans people have their own bathrooms?

It's the primary criterion, yes. And
I like how you put woman in quotes.

But "should be done" by whom? By her? I'd recommend she ask management to investigate if she seriously thought the guy was up to no good because of an inappropriate stare or if her spidey senses were screaming "watch out" or something.

Now, if it were in an insane state like California or maybe Vermont which also puts the word women in quotes, as though it were a mere social construct, I wouldn't be able to do anything except escort her to another rest room with the word "ladies" on it and hope for the best.

 

Given that the word gender didn't come about until about the 1300's, but was not associated with biological sex until some time in the 15th century at it's earliest, and even then was not used as such in common language until the early 20th century, then we most certainly change gender again.

I don't know. Most of the seem pretty happy, at least when they aren't getting assaulted by homophobes.

Says the guy who doesn't understand how language works and changes. You just keep up your make believe that knowledge doesn't grow and change.

 

I'd recommend prudence before calling me names, sir. And there are differences between hormones, chromosomes, and skin color.

But let me ask you this: what problem if any would you have, in principle, with a well hung, lusty, 17 year old heterosexual male dude demanding that he be allowed to share the women's shower at a girl's high school or YWCA? What is the problem with that? I mean even if he doesn't pretend that he's a girl.

"So you're trans?"

"No."

"Then why do you want to shower in there?"

"I don't owe you any explanation. I just want to."

 

Strawman, since I didn't, but you go ahead and try again.

So you want a female, who thinks that another born with a vagina female looks too much like a man, needs to have that other female investigated? Who cares that she made the other woman uncomfortable, is that it? That only females who fit a certain criteria should not have to feel uncomfortable? How very protective of all females you are.

 

Strawman again, since I've not done that either. If you want to feel a description fits you, that's on you. I've not called you anything.

Of course there are. There are difference in hormones and chromosomes of people of the same sex as well and difference in skin color of people of supposed races. I know one family (paternal grandparents of my step daughter's sons) where the siblings range from ebony to pass a Caucasian, almost as if they were running out of toner, save that it wasn't a progression.

You're asking the wrong person. Because I don't hold to many of the taboos of the past. I find the whole segregation thing to be a problem of prudishness gone wild, especially since we can easily see in other cultures where simply seeing nudity doesn't cause any problem. So it's a created problem. There are of course certain behaviors that needs to be corrected if done, but since those actions can be done by either sex, it becomes a matter of the action and not the sex of the person.

 

You might have a point if the law segregated "trans gendered" people into separate facilities and forced them to use them and no other and if they were substandard, but that's not what's going on, and I haven't seen anyone call for it.

 

If they are made uncomfortable, sure, why not? We are supposed to care that the trans person doesn't like the men's room even at the expense of all the cis women's peace of mind?

This is a growing phenomenon in the trans movement. "We don't like it, so it's bad."

"But your exposed penis is making us uncomfortable. "

"Transphobe! Bigot!!"

And it's likely to backfire, if it isn't already doing so in the state legislatures that want to retain a status quo that isn't depriving anyone of anything.

That said, if they are not uncomfortable, I won't insist that they pretend to be. But if they are honest, they will admit that they don't like strange dudes walking around with their junk hanging out. Doesn't make them bigots.

This conversation is getting silly.

 

I notice that you keep avoiding and changing the issue I am presenting you. You keep bringing up the penis issue as I am addressing the issue of a trans man, a person born with and still retaining a vagina, whom you stated explicitly that you wanted in the women's restroom ("No, the best thing is to just go to the one that corresponds to your genitals."), and yet you also want them to not go to the women's restroom because they might make cis women uncomfortable. And then when presented with two cis women, born with and still possessing a vagina, and not calling themselves men, let's call them A and B, and A thinks that B looks like she is a man in drag, you say that B should be not allowed in because A is uncomfortable. I guess that B would be made uncomfortable means nothing, which seems to indicate, that you are not caring about the comfort of cis women unless they look like cis women to you.

If the "exposed" penis is out while the bearer is in a stall with the door closed, then the problem is not the one with the penis, but the one who is bypassing the privacy to look. Do you agree with that? Further, anyone in a bathroom situation who has their genitals out other than in a closed stall needs to taken to task. The closest to an exception is a penis at a urinal, but even then that only applies when facing the urinal. No one should be exposing their genitals with their back to the urinal they are using/used

 

I don't think we are answering the poll question:

Should gay and trans people have their own bathrooms?

That's different from "may trans people use whatever bathroom they prefer?"

 

I think I've been pretty reaponsive and consistent, but "notice" whatever you like.

What I notice is that if you have a penis, we have a nice place for you to relieve yourself. It's called the men's room.

Look, I'll live with whatever legislation the insane majority comes up with. But you haven't convinced me that normal women ("cis" is another made-up word) don't have reason and the right to not want men in their restrooms or locker rooms, no matter what gender they have proclaimed.

 

I believe that is the way it is.
It would be illegal for one who is not of the gender they are/dress/id as to go into the other sex bathroom. It certainly would draw attention and likely get law enforcement involved.
So, other that perverts or similar, no one wants to draw attention to themselves and risk getting caught in the wrong bathroom.

This is as it's always been.

 

I've thought of that. The USA, unfortunately, is filled with deviants, perverts and predators.

 

Always have been, always will be, especially since the first two are always determined on a subjective basis. Just remember that at one point in history, even the Christians were the perverted deviants.

 

When a woman that passes for a man is assaulted or murders by a dude “protecting his little girl” — will you agree that hate crime charges would be warranted?

 

Let's get super woke and discuss the intersectionality of guns and trans bathroom rights.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rns-women-blocking-bathroom-mistake-make.html

 

Humans inhabit many locations all over the Earth.
So, it's not just the USA. And your adjectives are simply subjective words.
Means nothing to anyone but you and those who may hold similar weird views.

 

They should use the bathroom according to the genitalia that they were born with. If they strap bits on or cut bits off, then they still use the same bathroom from the start, bathrooms are not interested with the problems that go through their minds

 

You didn’t answer the question but thanks for your opinion I guess.

 

What's "hateful" about it? And do you mean a trans woman who still looks like a man? He shouldn't be in a bathroom with a little girl anyway.

I do occasionally see men escorting little girls, presumably their daughters, into the men's room to go potty. I'd prefer it be the mother, but maybe she's unavailable.

None of that is to say that a citizen should use violence unless he's protecting himself or others from immediate harm.

 

No, I mean a trans man that will be forced to use the women’s restroom.
Like this individual

These trans men (biological women that have fully transitioned to male physically) are already showing where they are being threatened by men “protecting” women even though these same people demand they use the restroom of their biological sex.

So, will you support hate crime amplification when an assault or murder happens? Personally I hope each of these individuals exercise their second amendment rights and handle any threats accordingly.

 

I'll answer more fully later, but I am not a fan of hate crime designation because it's unnecessary . Just give the jury broad discretion and let them go to the top of the range if they think hate was involved, though I consider it moot. All homicides that qualify as murder involve hate. Except murder for hire, maybe, and that already has a heightened sentencing range.

Also we have already acknowledged that no one worries that the muscular trans man will be in the men's room.

Honestly I don't care about restrooms so much. It's locker rooms and shower areas in gyms that are problematic

 

That isn’t true, how you can say that when you liked @Nonnie’s post not more than three hours ago that said the opposite of what you are asserting.

 

So then you want this person:

to enter into the women's restroom, no matter how uncomfortable that makes the other women?

 

Sure, and while we're at it we can talk about the intersectionality of clergy and sexual assault.

 

And once again your bias shows through in that you have to redirect and change the question. They are talking about the same thing I have been that you have been avoiding. The person who was born female, and currently passes for a man, who goes into the women's restroom because it's demanded they use the one of their born with genitals, and in many cases the ones they still have, i.e. a vagina.