Bathroom Wrath
Re: Bathroom Wrath
Very interesting article from a secular perspective; we are all uncomfortable with public restrooms and the transgender business makes it much worse, and for the convenience of a tiny minority:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
IMO things were much better when it was all "in the closet". When I was young (a very long time ago) occasionally certain persons were suspected of being homosexual but they were pretty much left alone and they did not flaunt it. As for transgender, it was unheard of.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
IMO things were much better when it was all "in the closet". When I was young (a very long time ago) occasionally certain persons were suspected of being homosexual but they were pretty much left alone and they did not flaunt it. As for transgender, it was unheard of.
-
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am
Re: Bathroom Wrath
Morbo, I'm wondering how Target is able to discern the non-biological gender of its bathroom users. Whether your point can stand or not does depend on their ability to do this - right?morbo3000 wrote:My point stands that the current policies are not the equivalent to allowing the indiscriminate use of gender distinct bathrooms by any gender. Your point is that the trend line leads in that direction. You are of course allowed your opinion. But that is not the policy.
Pete
Re: Bathroom Wrath
Pete. I'm just drawing a distinction between the policy itself and the caricature that it advocates gender anarchy. It's fine for people to be concerned and wonder where it ends. But that's different from saying the intent and letter of the policy is to remove all gender distinctions and turn bathrooms into the wild west. Those are two different things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
Re: Bathroom Wrath
I encountered this on a ferry in Seattle this weekend. It is why the outcry on this subject is ridiculous. No woman or girl is subjected to this in a woman's bathroom. There is a greater threat for boys to be victimized in their gender specific bathroom than girls in a transgender friendly bathroom. Any perv can stare at any man or boy's genitals in a bathroom like this.
https://imgur.com/Cy6S1pb
https://imgur.com/Cy6S1pb
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
Re: Bathroom Wrath
What stats are available to show that a little girl will be safer than a little boy with pervs in their restroom? We have not yet seen what an open policy will produce. Knowledge of human nature is sufficient cause to justify the outcry. If the openness of a men's urinal provides opportunities for voyeurism, the privacy of a stall provides opportunities for actual molestation. I do not see how anyone can claim otherwise.
-
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am
Re: Bathroom Wrath
it is fine to point out that distinction, but I am asking about a different distinction. I am asking about the difference between the actual policy and the intentions of those that made it. it seems to be difficult or impossible to for them to implement what they desire. certaintly many have devised various policies with the best of intentions only to find the implementation was a failure. i think judging the merits of a policy by the "good" intentions of its author is not sufficient.morbo3000 wrote:Pete. I'm just drawing a distinction between the policy itself and the caricature that it advocates gender anarchy. It's fine for people to be concerned and wonder where it ends. But that's different from saying the intent and letter of the policy is to remove all gender distinctions and turn bathrooms into the wild west. Those are two different things.
Re: Bathroom Wrath
We don't need to guess as to the consequences of these policy changes. They've been in effect in many states for years. In every case, there has not been any up-tick in sexual assault cases.
Colorado
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2008. In 2008, Colorado expanded its Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class. [The Denver Post, 5/29/08]
Coalition Against Sexual Assault: Opponents Of Protections Are Creating "Unsubstantiated Fear." Alexa M. Priddy, director of training and communications at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, reported no problems as a result of her state's non-discrimination law.
Connecticut
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity or expression. [Bay Windows, 7/6/11]
State Commission On Human Rights: "Unaware Of Any Sexual Assault." In an email to Media Matters, Jim O'Neill, legislative liaison and spokesman for the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights in Opportunities, reported no problems as a result of the state's non-discrimination law
Hawaii
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2006. In 2006, Hawaii expanded its non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/12/14]
State Civil Rights Commission: Non-Discrimination Law "Has Not Resulted In Increase[d] Sexual Assault Or Rape."
Iowa
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, the Iowa Civil Rights Act was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [Iowa Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/14/14]
Des Moines Police Department: "We Have Not Seen That." In an interview with Media Matters, Des Moines Police Department spokesman Jason Halifax stated that he hadn't seen cases of sexual assault related to the state's non-discrimination ordinance:
There are more states. You can read more about the report at the link.
Source: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... hro/198533
Colorado
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2008. In 2008, Colorado expanded its Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class. [The Denver Post, 5/29/08]
Coalition Against Sexual Assault: Opponents Of Protections Are Creating "Unsubstantiated Fear." Alexa M. Priddy, director of training and communications at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, reported no problems as a result of her state's non-discrimination law.
Connecticut
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity or expression. [Bay Windows, 7/6/11]
State Commission On Human Rights: "Unaware Of Any Sexual Assault." In an email to Media Matters, Jim O'Neill, legislative liaison and spokesman for the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights in Opportunities, reported no problems as a result of the state's non-discrimination law
Hawaii
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2006. In 2006, Hawaii expanded its non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/12/14]
State Civil Rights Commission: Non-Discrimination Law "Has Not Resulted In Increase[d] Sexual Assault Or Rape."
Iowa
State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, the Iowa Civil Rights Act was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [Iowa Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/14/14]
Des Moines Police Department: "We Have Not Seen That." In an interview with Media Matters, Des Moines Police Department spokesman Jason Halifax stated that he hadn't seen cases of sexual assault related to the state's non-discrimination ordinance:
There are more states. You can read more about the report at the link.
Source: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... hro/198533
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
Re: Bathroom Wrath
I noticed the local dairy queen has restructured the men's bathroom so that it is individual (one person at a time). I don't know whether that restructuring is related to the problem or not.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Bathroom Wrath
I noticed the local dairy queen has restructured the men's bathroom so that it is individual (one person at a time). I don't know whether that restructuring is related to the problem or not.
Is there a lock on the door? Probably but just curious.
Is there a lock on the door? Probably but just curious.
Re: Bathroom Wrath
We don't need to guess as to the consequences of these policy changes. They've been in effect in many states for years. In every case, there has not been any up-tick in sexual assault cases.
It's my understanding this covers locker rooms too, so since sports teams dress and undress there how can you keep a transgender person off a girls sports team? Doesn't the law have to be consistent and if you extend this standard to it's logical end, wouldn't that jeopardize female sports teams?
It's my understanding this covers locker rooms too, so since sports teams dress and undress there how can you keep a transgender person off a girls sports team? Doesn't the law have to be consistent and if you extend this standard to it's logical end, wouldn't that jeopardize female sports teams?