Transgender Bathroom/Locker Room Question

[GMDino]

(04-30-2016, 09:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're arguing that this man pictured below needs to use the women's room because he was born a woman.

But don't you know that that is stupid?!?!

(04-24-2016, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is perhaps the dumbest meme to date. Answer these to questions and see if you can figure out why:

Do you think all transwomen look feminine and all transmales look masculine? 

Why did NC feel the need to pass the law?

Anyway these were on my Facebook feed this morning when I woke up.  

This is from someone I worked with and know very well:






This one is a  friend of a friend...so I hid her identity.



Both of the original posters are Christians...one a little bit more vocal about it (guess which one).

I like them both but strongly disagree with one (guess which one).

That is in PA where we don't have such laws.

But clearly the NC bill was about protecting the women and children...not about dividing us over something stupid. 

(Note: I tried to remove locations and store names to protect the people who posted.)

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2016, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote:

(04-30-2016, 09:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're arguing that this man pictured below needs to use the women's room because he was born a woman.

You can read my post to Dino doing the exact same thing for one reply. For another this would be the exact same thing as me posting a naked picture of a butch Transwoman and saying "With your laws you are saying it is legal for me to shower with your daughter".

However, I understand that there are infinite situations and therefore, I am not in favor of any blanket law that states you can use whichever facility you feel like

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2016, 10:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: But don't you know that that is stupid?!?!

Nobody ever said you had a monopoly on it. 

[GMDino]

(04-30-2016, 10:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: But don't you know that that is stupid?!?!

(04-30-2016, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody ever said you had a monopoly on it.

Clearly.

(04-30-2016, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You can read my post to Dino doing the exact same thing for one reply. For another this would be the exact same thing as me posting a naked picture of a butch Transwoman and saying "With your laws you are saying it is legal for me to shower with your daughter".

However, I understand that there are infinite situations and therefore, I am not in favor of any blanket law that states you can use whichever facility you feel like

You are okay with women in men's rooms not men in women's rooms...because "uncomfortable" and "safety".
You don't there should be a law allowing it you just "don't care" if it is illegal.
You don't think the examples of women who look like men are good because not EVERYONE looks likes that but you understand there are many situations (an "infinite" amount even) that they can and would happen.

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2016, 11:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Clearly.






You are okay with women in men's rooms not men in women's rooms...because "uncomfortable" and "safety".
You don't there should be a law allowing it you just "don't care" if it is illegal.
You don't think the examples of women who look like men are good because not EVERYONE looks likes that but you understand there are many situations (an "infinite" amount even) that they can and would happen.

I was/am Ok with the social norm of males using the men's room and female's using the women's room. Apparently many are not, so they make a law that states you can use whichever facility you want; the state reacts and says no you cannot.

As far as "feeling comfortable" which population do you think is greater: A portion of the 0.3% that feel they need a law allowing them to go where they please or the percentage of people that would be uncomfortable because a dude is in the ladies' room?

As to the "safety"  issue. Fred has already shown that transgenders are in bigger danger using the facility opposite their sex or as he said the "right" one (so the "stop it before it starts logic is blown  away".). Making it legal will not reduce these assaults and most likely will increase them, but using a facility that matches your sex and charging anyone who violates another in a facility with a hate crime and more severe punishment likely will

But somehow, my logic makes no sense. 

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2016, 12:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the "safety"  issue. Fred has already shown that transgenders are in bigger danger using the facility opposite their sex or as he said the "right" one (so the "stop it before it starts logic is blown  away".). 

No I have not.

This a complete lie.

[BmorePat87]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/22/krauthammer_do_we_really_have_an_epidemic_of_transgenders_being_evil_in_bathrooms.html

Quote:It didn't start with the media. It started with the special session of the North Carolina legislature run by Republicans.

To me, what's puzzling here, I really don't understand. This is a solution in search of an issue. Do we really have an epidemic of transgenders being evil in bathrooms across the country? I haven't heard of a single case.

Obviously, if there is going to be this dilemma, I think people ought to work it out on their own. If you have that legislation, then you need to have a lot of liberation about this. We are talking about, as if transgenders are like a fifth of the population. This is a very small problem at the edges of other problems having to do with gender identity that's become national precisely because Republicans in North Carolina decided it was a problem. It is not a major national problem and it should have been left that way.

Charles F**king Krauthammer sums it up perfectly. People are seeking a solution to a problem that does not exist.

[GMDino]

(04-30-2016, 12:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was/am Ok with the social norm of males using the men's room and female's using the women's room. Apparently many are not, so they make a law that states you can use whichever facility you want; the state reacts and says no you cannot.

(04-29-2016, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Am I "fine" with males using women's facilities? No

Do I personally care if a female pisses beside me? No

Do I think I should be able to tell a female not to worry about me pissing next to her? No

Do I think junk should be checked at the door? No

Do I think there should be a law making it legal for males to use women's facilities? No

Do I think "bible bashing backwoods baptist" should do as Romans when in Rome? Yes.

Although I don't know how many backwoods baptist actually bash the bible; that's a weird one.

Note: I just bolded the parts where you contradict the other parts.

You don't care if women use men's room...you are NOT ok with men using ladies room. No reason given if it is not safety.

So why are you not "fine" is man pisses next to a woman in the ladies room but if she is in the men's room you "don't care"?

(04-30-2016, 12:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But somehow, my logic makes no sense.

Well, we agree on something. (<-- smiley added to show I am amused)

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2016, 01:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I have not.

This a complete lie.

Sure you did. Do you want me to give you the post number?

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2016, 02:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: So why are you not "fine" is man pisses next to a woman in the ladies room but if she is in the men's room you "don't care"?

I'm not fine with dudes pissing in women's room because it is not my place to be fine with it as I do not use ladies rooms. I would need a female's view on that matter. I don't care if a female pissing in the men's room because that is the one I use. 

Also the vast majority of people that commit sexual crimes are those with outies, 

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2016, 01:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/22/krauthammer_do_we_really_have_an_epidemic_of_transgenders_being_evil_in_bathrooms.html


Charles F**king Krauthammer sums it up perfectly. People are seeking a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Except he missed the part of who was the first to pass a law on something that "doesn't really matter". If we understand who shot the first round then I agree with his thoughts. But if he says you should not react to a law that means nothing by passing another law, then I will say he is logically challenged. 

Every liberal in this Nation wishes NC acted first, but they didn't; one of their cities did

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2016, 07:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure you did. Do you want me to give you the post number?

Yes.

That will make it easy for me to prove that you have no clue what a logical proof is.

[BmorePat87]

(04-30-2016, 07:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Except he missed the part of who was the first to pass a law on something that "doesn't really matter". If we understand who shot the first round then I agree with his thoughts. But if he says you should not react to a law that means nothing by passing another law, then I will say he is logically challenged. 

Every liberal in this Nation wishes NC acted first, but they didn't; one of their cities did

He's saying that there exists no problem concerning threats from trans people in bathrooms not that there was no law that protected their right to go to the bathroom for the gender they identify with.

Whether or not they're legally allowed to is irrelevant in discussing whether or not there is a threat because of it.

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2016, 08:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

That will make it easy for me to prove that you have no clue what a logical proof is.

Let's go with post #212 when you feebly tried to provide "proof" of the epidemic of trans getting attacked in the facility that matches their sex; yet most (all) your links were of trans getting attacked/threaten in facilities that do not match their sex.

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2016, 09:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He's saying that there exists no problem concerning threats from trans people in bathrooms not that there was no law that protected their right to go to the bathroom for the gender they identify with.

Whether or not they're legally allowed to is irrelevant in discussing whether or not there is a threat because of it.

If you interpret it as him saying there was no need for any law; then I agree with it. If you are saying he is saying there is no need to counter a law that "means nothing" then I disagree with his logic

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2016, 09:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's go with post #212 when you feebly tried to provide "proof" of the epidemic of trans getting attacked in the facility that matches their sex; yet most (all) your links were of trans getting attacked/threaten in facilities that do not match their sex.

And your logic fails completely.


Since most transgender people risk criminal prosecution to use the correct bathroom they avoid getting attacked.

[*bfine32*]

(05-01-2016, 12:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And your logic fails completely.


Since most transgender people risk criminal prosecution to use the correct bathroom they avoid getting attacked.

So  to make sure I understand Fred-Logic:  Because a transwoman avoids going into the facility opposite her sex because she might be criminally prosecuted; that explains why most attacks happen in facilities where a transwoman enters a facility opposite their sex?

So to translate. They get attacked more in the women's room because they go in there less?

[fredtoast]

(05-01-2016, 10:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So  to make sure I understand Fred-Logic:  Because a transwoman avoids going into the facility opposite her sex because she might be criminally prosecuted; that explains why most attacks happen in facilities where a transwoman enters a facility opposite their sex?

So to translate. They get attacked more in the women's room because they go in there less?

I can not follow your logic.  Try explaining it like this.  A "transwomen" is genetic man who identifiers as a woman, and the womens restroom would be the "correct" restroom.  Even if you do not agree with these labels please use them so I can understand what you are trying to say.

[*bfine32*]

(05-01-2016, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I can not follow your logic.  Try explaining it like this.  A "transwomen" is genetic man who identifiers as a woman, and the womens restroom would be the "correct" restroom.  Even if you do not agree with these labels please use them so I can understand what you are trying to say.

I've worked hard to be consistent and companionate with my terms:

Male: One with a pee pee

Female: One with a VeeJayJay

Woman: Femine

Male: Masculine

Transwoman: Male that feels like a woman

Transman: Woman that feels like a man

Your constant use of the term "correct" facility only applies if your logic determines that mental state trumps physical state.

As to the translation of your thoughts: Are you saying transwomen get attacked in women's facilities more, because they go in thier less out of fear of criminal prosection? Because if that is the case then that logic ranks right up their with your "proof" that they get attacked more by going into the (as you call it ) "wrong" facility, but posting examples of them getting attacked in the "right" facility.

This is amusing.

[GMDino]

(04-30-2016, 07:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not fine with dudes pissing in women's room because it is not my place to be fine with it as I do not use ladies rooms. I would need a female's view on that matter. I don't care if a female pissing in the men's room because that is the one I use. 

Also the vast majority of people that commit sexual crimes are those with outies, 

Then you should acre about women in the men's room.

But then....logic.