Public Bathroom Laws and Policies

[dadmonson 10]

Someone posted this on another forum thought I'd share it with yall, it was posted by a christian...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-knight...jungle-blackout

The first link is to give you background on how this movement has started with the passing of SB-777 by the Governor of California. The homosexual agenda being pushed down our childrens throats, has now spread to other cities in the U.S.

<a href="http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/MntgCoPanSx.htm" target="_blank">http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/MntgCoPanSx.htm</a>

What is this world coming to? This is pure MADNESS! This is INSANITY!

How would you like it if your daughter was using a public restroom at the local pool and some guy strolls in the womens bathroom to use it because he "feels" and "thinks" he's a woman?

This is absolutely disgusting!

Edited November 18, 2007 by dadmonson

[dadmonson 10]

The Links are Fixed...

[noumenalself 0]

This may be a bad policy, but to label it as a result of a "homosexual agenda" suggests 1) a unity of opinion among homosexuals which does not exist, and 2) a negative value judgment of homosexuals by implication, which is not warranted.

Edited November 18, 2007 by noumenalself

[-archimedes- 0]

Someone posted this on another forum thought I'd share it with yall, it was posted by a christian...

<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-knight...jungle-blackout" target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-knight...jungle-blackout</a>

The first link is to give you background on how this movement has started with the passing of SB-777 by the Governor of California. The homosexual agenda being pushed down our childrens throats, has now spread to other cities in the U.S.

<a href="http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/MntgCoPanSx.htm" target="_blank">http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/MntgCoPanSx.htm</a>

What is this world coming to? This is pure MADNESS! This is INSANITY!

How would you like it if your daughter was using a public restroom at the local pool and some guy strolls in the womens bathroom to use it because he "feels" and "thinks" he's a woman?

This is absolutely disgusting!

I would like to see a direct quote of "SB-777" (perhaps you could provide a link to the actual language of the bill(s) itself/themselves"?") before I submit any commentary on the matter so that I may be allowed to draw my own conclusions instead of being spoon fed those of another...please indulge me.

Edited November 20, 2007 by -archimedes-

[softwareNerd 700]

.. (perhaps you could provide a link ...

Here you go

[John McVey 0]

The first link is to give you background on how this movement has started with the passing of SB-777 by the Governor of California. The homosexual agenda being pushed down our childrens throats, has now spread to other cities in the U.S.

Adding to Noumenon's response, it is also:

3) confusing homosexuality with transsexuality.

The two are entirely different phenomena. While homosexuals and transsexuals share a common enemy the two groups don't always see eye to eye. I can see why - the former try to pretend nothing is wrong and want to make others believe that too (which is the said agenda), while the latter know damn fine something has gone wrong and want things fixed as best as can be had.

What is this world coming to? This is pure MADNESS! This is INSANITY!

This is foaming at the mouth.

How would you like it if your daughter was using a public restroom at the local pool and some guy strolls in the womens bathroom to use it because he "feels" and "thinks" he's a woman?

I agree that a pre-op transsexual shouldn't enter women's toilets, not out of any dislike of transsexuals but of concerns that those who are actually pedophiles and rapists will claim it as an excuse if caught in there. Once post-op then real transsexuals have every right to enter women's toilets just the same as any other woman. These bastards would deny transsexual women their due rights.

This is absolutely disgusting!

This is the sexual insecurities of the religious talking.

JJM

[Inspector 1]

I'm still waiting for someone to crack a 300 joke.

[Olufemi 0]

I agree that a pre-op transsexual shouldn't enter women's toilets, not out of any dislike of transsexuals but of concerns that those who are actually pedophiles and rapists will claim it as an excuse if caught in there. Once post-op then real transsexuals have every right to enter women's toilets just the same as any other woman. These bastards would deny transsexual women their due rights.

This also needs a correction. The standards of care for transexuals states that the person must live as a person of his/her prefered (not yet physically having the genitalia) gender for an entire year before they can be operated upon. If pre-op transexuals were not allowed in the restrooms of the sex they are living full time as, that would be much worse. You work with a female/male, you call them by that gender name, you may have no idea their past, but you're supposed to make that person go into a bathroom where they will be considered the wrong sex? Not going to happen. Just because someone brings genitalia into a room, doesn't mean they're a rapist or are there to destroy your children's minds.

[-archimedes- 0]

Here you go

Am printing it out for review and research even as I type my thank you to you...thank you!

[John McVey 0]

The standards of care for transexuals states that the person must live as a person of his/her prefered (not yet physically having the genitalia) gender for an entire year before they can be operated upon.

That may be, but it it isn't the government's place to change by force other people's expectations of who may be in toilets.

In government-run public toilets (which should not exist) the government should be, firstly, abiding by the general rights of people (admittedly a contradiction for a public toilet), and secondly not trying to change the culture through government instrumentalities even if that change would objectively be a good one in its proper context.

In privately-owned toilets it is entirely up to the owners to determine the policy for use of its property, and again not the government's place to try to change that policy by force. If an owner wants to be discriminatory, whether for pandering to the public's prejudices (eg in fast food restaurants) or because the owners are themselves prejudiced, it certainly sucks but the government shouldn't be taking action against them. It's just the same as how an employer being a racist prick in hiring or promotion etc is despicable but shouldn't be illegal.

If pre-op transexuals were not allowed in the restrooms of the sex they are living full time as, that would be much worse. You work with a female/male, you call them by that gender name, you may have no idea their past, but you're supposed to make that person go into a bathroom where they will be considered the wrong sex? Not going to happen.

You won't get any quarrel from me about treating transgendered people as the gender they ought be, and how that such respect is part of proper moral behaviour. What you will get a quarrel with me over is any advocacy of use of government to impose by law sanctions against behaviour that is immoral but not in violation of people's actual rights.

Just because someone brings genitalia into a room, doesn't mean they're a rapist or are there to destroy your children's minds.

I never said they would be, only that those who were there for rape would use it as an excuse.

I don't give a rat's arse about religious or otherwise insecure people's worries about their children's minds. In a culturally ideal world, populated predominantly by rational people, the issue would be a triviality and pre-op transgendered people could enter which ever toilet they feel more comfortable in. But it's nowhere near an ideal world, and for some people that sucks vastly more badly for them than for others. Unfortunately, transgendered people (particularly the pre-operative) are among those with no easy answers or options. People are not yet ready to accept pre-operative transgendered people in the "wrong" toilets, but governments shouldn't be trying to change that fact. I have great sympathy for you, unless you wish to point a gun at me.

JJM

[Olufemi 0]

That may be, but it it isn't the government's place to change by force other people's expectations of who may be in toilets.

I never intended the goverment in any of this. At what point did I advocate legislation?

In government-run public toilets (which should not exist) the government should be, firstly, abiding by the general rights of people (admittedly a contradiction for a public toilet), and secondly not trying to change the culture through government instrumentalities even if that change would objectively be a good one in its proper context.

Government run toilets are a non-issue (to me), those shouldn't exist.

In privately-owned toilets it is entirely up to the owners to determine the policy for use of its property, and again not the government's place to try to change that policy by force. If an owner wants to be discriminatory, whether for pandering to the public's prejudices (eg in fast food restaurants) or because the owners are themselves prejudiced, it certainly sucks but the government shouldn't be taking action against them. It's just the same as how an employer being a racist prick in hiring or promotion etc is despicable but shouldn't be illegal.

Privately owned toilets, of course the owner can do whatever they want. No argument there.

You won't get any quarrel from me about treating transgendered people as the gender they ought be, and how that such respect is part of proper moral behaviour. What you will get a quarrel with me over is any advocacy of use of government to impose by law sanctions against behaviour that is immoral but not in violation of people's actual rights.

I never said they would be, only that those who were there for rape would use it as an excuse.

Again, at no point did I try to advocate government sanctions.

I don't give a rat's arse about religious or otherwise insecure people's worries about their children's minds. In a culturally ideal world, populated predominantly by rational people, the issue would be a triviality and pre-op transgendered people could enter which ever toilet they feel more comfortable in. But it's nowhere near an ideal world, and for some people that sucks vastly more badly for them than for others. Unfortunately, transgendered people (particularly the pre-operative) are among those with no easy answers or options. People are not yet ready to accept pre-operative transgendered people in the "wrong" toilets, but governments shouldn't be trying to change that fact. I have great sympathy for you, unless you wish to point a gun at me.

JJM

The standards of care that I was talking about are a current procedure, not one that I feel should be enacted. My point is that a person who is living entirely as a gender, who legally IS that gender already (pre-op for 1 year prior to surgery, check any form of ID and it will show what they look like), who to friends, co-workers, bosses, people on the street, everyone they know might be in the dark they were born any different, then they're supposed to walk into what anyone looking on would consider the "wrong" bathroom? I mean that it is not going to happen, because you, I anyone will (usually, ignoring dares/bets/unusal circumstances) walk into the bathroom where we won't get kicked out or have the police called on us. (This event happened last time I was at a city fair, two women came into the men's bathroom, and upon leaving were picked up by security. Not sure what happened to them.)

Edited November 21, 2007 by Onivlas

[-archimedes- 0]

After a review of the bill and it's associative amendments it appears that dadmonson, as well as others here, have taken the bill's actual intent/language out of context as it's only purpose is to insure the right of access to educational services and institutions without discrimination based on "...disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained the definition of [what constitutes behavior associative of] hate crimes...", period.

As such, it would appear that John McVey has aptly defined the post in question as little more than "foaming at the mouth", largely due in part to misunderstanding the issue/misconstruing the facts/simply reading entirely too much into it I would presume, though my comments should not in anyway be construed as belittling the inane proclivity of those of sexual ambiguity/confusion for shooting themselves in the foot (e.g., boy/girl going into boy/girl's bathroom because of confusion over their own actual sexuality/sexual identity), but that remains to be seen at this point.

*BTW...Miscommunication/misunderstanding is what starts wars!

Edited November 22, 2007 by -archimedes-

[Inspector 1]

I heard about this a while back.

If pre-op transexuals were not allowed in the restrooms of the sex they are living full time as, that would be much worse. You work with a female/male, you call them by that gender name, you may have no idea their past, but you're supposed to make that person go into a bathroom where they will be considered the wrong sex? Not going to happen. Just because someone brings genitalia into a room, doesn't mean they're a rapist or are there to destroy your children's minds.

I would have thought this would have been obvious in a place like this, but...

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.

I don't care what someone's pretending to be for a while before their surgery. Reality trumps feelings - and this includes the hurt feelings of transsexuals who really, really want to believe that they are anatomically different than what they actually are. Sorry. So long as they still have a penis, it's just a game of pretend. And the rest of the world isn't obliged to play along.

[Olufemi 0]

I heard about this a while back.

I would have thought this would have been obvious in a place like this, but...

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.

I don't care what someone's pretending to be for a while before their surgery. Reality trumps feelings - and this includes the hurt feelings of transsexuals who really, really want to believe that they are anatomically different than what they actually are. Sorry. So long as they still have a penis, it's just a game of pretend. And the rest of the world isn't obliged to play along.

Do some research before speaking. It's not just a "game of pretend."

Men and women are much more different than genitalia (brain and body):

http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html

Transsexuals have female constructed brains:

http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm

1/2000 people are born without a clearly defined sex or both primary sexual characteristics:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm

Ignore medical research, and you're ignoring reality.

[Inspector 1]

I know all that. But let me re-emphasize this again:

So long as they still have a penis, it's just a game of pretend. And the rest of the world isn't obliged to play along.

[Mammon 0]

This is pure MADNESS!

[Mammon 0]

So where do hermaphrodites fit into this whole thing?

[-archimedes- 0]

Do some research before speaking. It's not just a "game of pretend."

Men and women are much more different than genitalia (brain and body):

<a href="http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html" target="_blank">http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html</a>

Transsexuals have female constructed brains:

<a href="http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm" target="_blank">http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm</a>

1/2000 people are born without a clearly defined sex or both primary sexual characteristics:

<a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm</a>

Ignore medical research, and you're ignoring reality.

Disregarding the actuality of physical, physiological and biological orientation/disposition in favor of some fanciful indulgence is what constitutes "ignoring reality".

If you look down and see a twig and berries (euphemistically speaking), then you're a boy...whether you like it or not, so conduct yourself accordingly. You'll find that this method of approach to your life will save you needless harassment, familial alienation, psychological disassociation (along with a miasma of other psychological neurosis), societal confusion, emotional duress, and the endless expenditure involved in years of psychiatric counseling, among other issues.

Alternatively, if you look down and don't see the ol' twig and berries, then you're a girl.

Conversely, should you look down and find both forms of genitalia...well...then take a trip to your local medical establishment so that they may examine you to determine which is your dominant sexual orientation, based on physical and physiological disposition, and allow them to construct you accordingly (a matter which your parents should have resolved long before you reached puberty).

Oh, and it would have been really helpful if you/your parents had avoided drug usage, the most likely cause of chromosomal cross pollination/contamination/intermingling...outside of arbitrary environmental influences, e.g., radiation exposure.

BTW, excluding the last citation in your post, it's always a good policy when endeavoring to establish the validity of one's claims of homosexual legitimacy to avoid the usage of sites specifically oriented to, authored/sponsored by, and intent on the championing of, homosexuals...i.e., of course they're going to say it's o'kay/appropriate/true, it would be antithetical to their cause for them to do otherwise.

Edited November 22, 2007 by -archimedes-

[Inspector 1]

["this is SPARTA!"]

That's better.

I'm inclined to say that if one has a functional penis, one must go in the men's room. If it's vestigial, then I suppose it would be up to them.

[Inspector 1]

Perhaps some clarity would help here:

The purpose of having a men's and women's restroom is to keep the people with penises away from unwilling womenfolk while they have their pants off.

I honestly don't care how gender-confused individuals live their lives or what they think they are - it's their life and so forth. But if you have a penis, you must stay away from the place where women take off their pants; at least until you get the thing removed. This trumps anyone's fragile little psyche.

[-archimedes- 0]

THIS...IS...SPARTA!!*

That's better.

*I've not seen this movie and do not plan to.

Edited November 22, 2007 by -archimedes-

[Tabitha 0]

The problem I have with the transgender movement - which partly crosses with the feminist movement - is that it operates on contradictory premises. Activists cry that "gender is a social construct." But if that's true, then why the need to change yourself... to fit a construct?

Take a man who has always "felt feminine." Rather than question the "construct" of femininity, which transgender activists claim to do, they would encourage the man to change himself to fit said "construct."

Wouldn't it be more "radical" to keep your body the way it is and live /act as you are, rather than change it to fit the constructs you so despise?

Edited November 22, 2007 by Tabitha

[Mammon 0]

THIS...IS...SPARTA!!*

That's better.

*I've not seen this movie and do not plan to.

Well, yeah that was the thought. But kind of predictable, I thought the picture would of been unexpected and convey the same point. Is it bad that I put this much thought into it?

[dianahsieh 23]

Newsflash, gentlemen: In ladies rooms, private parts are kept well-concealed behind closed doors. So we'll have no idea whether some transexual is pre-operative or post-operative, unless he/she is utterly incompetent in dress, makeup, and all the rest.

Frankly, a man dressed as a woman might expose himself to enormous physical risk in using a men's room. (I recall a "Dear Abby" in which a man asked whether etiquette permitted him to beat the crap out of his date when she revealed herself to be a man. Seriously. Such attitudes are not uncommon.) A well-dressed pre-operative transsexual would not likely cause any consternation in a ladies room.

For the record, I have absolutely no opinion of whether transsexuality is a real phenomenon, whether anyone should get a sex-change operation, and so on. However, I do know that it's uncivil -- to say the least -- to demand that a person risk life and limb to use a public restroom solely due to the state of his very-much-hidden genitals.

[Inspector 1]

However, I do know that it's uncivil -- to say the least -- to demand that a person risk life and limb to use a public restroom solely due to the state of his very-much-hidden genitals.

I disagree. What's uncivil is to allow people with penises into the womens' restroom - on nothing more than their say-so that they aren't interested in using them for ill.

As for getting beaten up if they go to the mens' room - that's really a separate problem.

As for the "demand" that they risk life and limb - nobody's demanding that they dress as a gender that they physically are not and then attempt to use the public restrooms of said gender. Nobody is forcing them to put themselves in that situation.