Girl, 8, Choked by Man, 33, In Public Restroom

[BigPapaKain]

(05-18-2016, 04:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You ought to just put that in your signature.

Signatures don't show up on the mobile version and I'd like to make sure I'm protected from the flights of insanity some on here seem to take.

Disclaimer: this post in no way implies a threat to any living creatures by me. If you or anyone you know feels threatened by its contents, please direct your inquiries to the appropriate authoritative figure.

[BmorePat87]

(05-18-2016, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and if he said "because I identify as a woman?"

If I look at him and believe he is a man, I have no issue making my own judgment call and alerting an employee over what I perceive to be an issue over the safety of a child.

If she truly is trans, she'll be vindicated if she sues the business when they make her leave.

The reality is that this will ultimately come down to judgement calls being made to determine if people are legitimately identifying as women or men when they claim to be. The other reality is that criminals will always break the law. This is the same reason why it's dumb to try to ban guns and hope that this will stop criminals from shooting people. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-18-2016, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you've been admittedly confused since post #2. Yet, when the gist of the thread is explained to you, you want to continue to address the Red Herring that was thrown out; instead of the actual spirit of the thread

I don't like the wauy the forum is headed. Too many folks trying for a "got cha" or making each other look silly; while making themselves appear awesome.

I've addressed the actual spirit, whether here or another thread, by saying that I don't see that as a concern and until I see evidence that these sorts of incidents would increase as a result I will continue to have that position. And how is addressing the actual claim of the thread originator a red herring? The claim was made early on that the event in the OP occurred as a result of some law or policy that opened the door for this.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Almost always one or two around these parts. There will be ADA stalls in the restrooms, but they don't have a separate one for them or as a family restroom.

I always like the single seaters here on campus, some of these students are weird. I went to drop a deuce one day and there were two stalls occupied across the way (6 stalls, 2 urinals, sizable bathroom on my floor) and one guy was playing music on his phone and he and his friend in the adjacent stall were commenting on the music, and on the bodily functions of each other. Now, I was trying to be polite and let them have their conversation, but I let one rip and the one guy with the phone goes "now that was a good one!"

College students are weird.

Yes they are....     I was in Home Depot the other day and popped into the bathroom and there was a guy in the stall using the restroom talking on the phone with his gf or some woman.    I can't imagine using my phone while I am using the restroom.   I can't imagine any call being that important.    

[Vas Deferens]

(05-18-2016, 04:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: My area caters to tourism and families.   Not to mention we have one of the largest growing 55 and over communities In the country.     Families come to visit them.    So between families coming and 55 and over community .... Places of business here have that 3rd bathroom for either a single use handicapp or for family.    No matter what they name the room it's the same thing.   


But please by all means continue to tell me about my area.    

Dude.  I asked you honestly, you told me.  Calm down.  Take a break and go down to gallta barril for a churro or something.  

But by all means, continue to act like the presence of handicap restrooms in your area is reflective of the NE where buildings are older than your state and physical space is at at premium.

[Belsnickel]

(05-18-2016, 04:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes they are....     I was in Home Depot the other day and popped into the bathroom and there was a guy in the stall using the restroom talking on the phone with his gf or some woman.    I can't imagine using my phone while I am using the restroom.   I can't imagine any call being that important.    

When I encounter someone talking on the phone in a bathroom I like to rip a loud fart, just so the person they are on the phone with understands where they are.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2016, 04:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If I look at him and believe he is a man, I have no issue making my own judgment call and alerting an employee over what I perceive to be an issue over the safety of a child.

If she truly is trans, she'll be vindicated if she sues the business when they make her leave.

The reality is that this will ultimately come down to judgement calls being made to determine if people are legitimately identifying as women or men when they claim to be. The other reality is that criminals will always break the law. This is the same reason why it's dumb to try to ban guns and hope that this will stop criminals from shooting people. 

No one will want to question anyone for fear of being sued.   Which makes us all less safe.    

Just like what happened to the lady who called out the math teacher for potential terrorism.   She was blasted by people for being racist, bigot, isLamaphobe, you name it ...     

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2016, 04:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When I encounter someone talking on the phone in a bathroom I like to rip a loud fart, just so the person they are on the phone with understands where they are.

Haha oh she knew.   He was farting and doing his business.   I have to say I was shocked.    It's just crazy what people do nowadays.  

[Griever]

(05-18-2016, 04:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No one will want to question anyone for fear of being sued.   Which makes us all less safe.    

Just like what happened to the lady who called out the math teacher for potential terrorism.   She was blasted by people for being racist, bigot, isLamaphobe, you name it ...     

i saw her being attacked for being a stupid ***** who couldnt see it was a math problem

anything else she was called was deserved due to her stupidity

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2016, 04:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Dude.  I asked you honestly, you told me.  Calm down.  Take a break and go down to gallta barril for a churro or something.  

But by all means, continue to act like the presence of handicap restrooms in your area is reflective of the NE where buildings are older than your state and physical space is at at premium.

Well they could always use the restroom assigned to them by their gentitals.    After all it's no big deal they are just going to be In and out.  

[StLucieBengal]

(05-18-2016, 04:57 PM)Griever Wrote: i saw her being attacked for being a stupid ***** who couldnt see it was a math problem

anything else she was called was deserved due to her stupidity

Yeah someone is stupid because they reported a percieved security issue.   That's what they tell people to do.... Let someone know if they see anything off.   Whether she was right or not was irrelevant.    She did her job.... To be vigilant.   

Now letting these people sue for not going to the bathroom is just going to lessen vigilance for fear of litigation.  That's wrong.    The business should be able to make that call without fear of being sued.    Plus let's add the fact you can change gender on whim now.   

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2016, 04:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And how is addressing the actual claim of the thread originator a red herring?

Because you were replying to me and I made no such claim; but you, as well as the others, most likely knew that.

Obviously anyone that says this attack occured because someone tried to impersonate a trans is introducing a red herring and those that continue to address it are no better.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-18-2016, 05:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well they could always use the restroom assigned to them by their gentitals.    After all it's no big deal they are just going to be In and out.  

Or you could only patronize establishments that have a family restroom to keep you safe.  Afterall, that is the best way to ensure you and your families safety.

I would love nothing more than establishments to label themselves as bigot friendly so that I can avoid those places and keep bigots from my general surroundings where there is no way in hell a 3rd bathroom is feasible.

...  waits claim that bigots make up more than 1% of the population...

[Vas Deferens]

(05-18-2016, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because you were replying to me and I made no such claim; but you, as well as the others, most likely knew that. 

Obviously anyone that says this attack occured because someone tried to impersonate a trans is introducing a red herring and those that continue to address it are no better.

But you made a claim that something had changed, specifically 'transgender laws'.  Still waiting on that law you and your brethren keep referencing.  Crickets thus far.  

(05-18-2016, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I may have missed something but I haven't seen anyone stating the man was claiming to be transgender. I think to point was the man was allowed to freely enter the women's facility due to transgender laws.

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2016, 05:19 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: ...  waits claim that bigots make up more than 1% of the population...

(05-18-2016, 03:30 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Takes one to know one.

[BigPapaKain]

And thus bfine finally admitted to his bigoted ways, even if for no other reason than to put me on blast. Well done.

Disclaimer: this post in no way implies a threat to any living creatures by me. If you or anyone you know own feels threatened by its contents, please direct your inquiries to the appropriate authoritative figure.

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2016, 03:30 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Takes one to know one.

(05-18-2016, 05:24 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: But you made a claim that something had changed, specifically 'transgender laws'.  Still waiting on that law you and your brethren keep referencing.  Crickets thus far.  

Yes, yes you got me. I can quote no specific law change in IL; simply that the issue is a hot topc across the United States. I thought when I said Transgender laws; folks might understand that I was refering to the bigger picture. How much did you hear about transgender restroom use one or two years ago?

You asked whay changed and I have told you. Look and see if you can find any other mistakes. I do think I made a post that said the laws "have changed/will change". You might want to quote or you can just continue the pointless direction you are headed.

[Belsnickel]

(05-18-2016, 05:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because you were replying to me and I made no such claim; but you, as well as the others, most likely knew that.

Obviously anyone that says this attack occured because someone tried to impersonate a trans is introducing a red herring and those that continue to address it are no better.

I said nothing about the man claiming to be trans, didn't claim that Brad or anyone did, either. There were other example brought forth that talked about that, but not the OP. The OP still claimed that there was a law or policy in effect that allowed this to happen. You said that the restaurant having such a policy was irrelevant, but to the topic of the thread it is entirely relevant. My problem is that there are so many little back and forth arguments going on in here with people jumping in and out, myself included, it is hard to follow who is talking about what.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-18-2016, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, yes you got me. I can quote no specific law change in IL; simply that the issue is a hot topc across the United States. 

Just making sure you didn't lump my original inquiry into your red herring group, as I didn't know what you're talking about.  At least you're capable of owning up to it, which is why you command more respect than others around here.

Quote:How much did you hear about transgender restroom use one or two years ago?

And everything was fine...  There were no outbreaks of transgendered people assaulting people in the restroom. They went about their business quietly as most decent humans do in public restroom facilities.

Quote:You asked whay changed and I have told you. Look and see if you can find any other mistakes. I do think I made a post that said the laws "have changed/will change". You might want to quote or you can just continue the pointless direction you are headed.

The only thing that has changed is the GOP stirring the pot and using the transgender bathroom issue as a trojan horse for local economic policy issues, specifically minimum wage laws.  Sex/gender issues are above many americans intellectual pay grade, why not use it to consolidate power.

[*bfine32*]

(05-18-2016, 04:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If I look at him and believe he is a man, I have no issue making my own judgment call and alerting an employee over what I perceive to be an issue over the safety of a child.

If she truly is trans, she'll be vindicated if she sues the business when they make her leave.

The reality is that this will ultimately come down to judgement calls being made to determine if people are legitimately identifying as women or men when they claim to be. The other reality is that criminals will always break the law. This is the same reason why it's dumb to try to ban guns and hope that this will stop criminals from shooting people. 

Fair point and that is why it is my opinionthere should be no blanket law of who uses what. The whole thing started because NC responded to a blanket law in Charolette.