Transgender vets now have a VA clinic

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2015, 07:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Oh, hey, we're just going to spam multiple threads about one topic...








So those who opposed this anti-discrimination bill are ok with their daughters seeing this in their bathroom? Because according to "anatomy", he has to use the women's room.


Also, I'm still waiting on someone to post an incident of one of these laws leading to an attack. I don't think I have to explain how posting about a guy who got high in a store, took a life-size barbie's dress, and went into a bathroom in a town without one of these laws isn't an example... but I might have to.

Is it now time for me to post all the pictures of the trans that do not look like the gender they identify with.

Bells employed this exact same tactic then rallied about how we shouldn't judge people by appearances.

[BFritz21]

(11-06-2015, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Except other don't have see anything.  A man going into a ladies room would use a stall.  A woman going into a men's room would use a stall.

But imagine the horror at seeing what you THINK is a man walking into the ladies room because of the way they are dressed.

If anything this makes it LESS uncomfortable for the non trans people.  Mainly because they will never know what the plumbing looks like at all.

But it will be a snowball effect.

Starts off as restrooms and then turns into people demanding that it be the same for locker rooms at public clubs and everything where a little girl has to watch a grown man getting naked and getting changed right out in the middle of everyone.  

That could happen in the bathroom as larger people might be too big ti change in the stall.  Old men with super-saggy balls that used to put one foot on a bench and then use a towel to dry their nuts made me and my friends uncomfortable even as little boys, so I can't even imagine what it would do to girls.

It could be a huge snowball effect.

Also, in high school locker rooms, what's to stop a completely normal male from walking into the girl's locker rooms to get changed with them for gym class and shower afterwards just to get a look at naked girls?  And if the school tried calling him out on it, they'd most likely be sued for millions of dollars.

[BmorePat87]

(11-06-2015, 07:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it now time for me to post all the pictures of the trans that do not look like the gender they identify with.

Bells employed this exact same tactic then rallied about how we shouldn't judge people by appearances.

That's fine. My argument has nothing to do with appearance. Just let people pee based on the gender they identify as.

However, as soon as someone argues they want to protect their daughter from seeing things they don't understand that will cause them psychological problems, I am going to post photos of Michael Hughes. I don't think anyone can argue that a young girl seeing Michael in the women's room would require less explanation or would cause less issues than a trans woman who looks very masculine. 

Though I know someone who will try and use the word "hog" and a scenario that makes no sense considering there are no urinals in the women's room. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2015, 07:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's fine. My argument has nothing to do with appearance. Just let people pee based on the gender they identify as.

However, as soon as someone argues they want to protect their daughter from seeing things they don't understand that will cause them psychological problems, I am going to post photos of Michael Hughes. I don't think anyone can argue that a young girl seeing Michael in the women's room would require less explanation or would cause less issues than a trans woman who looks very masculine. 

Though I know someone who will try and use the word "hog" and a scenario that makes no sense considering there are no urinals in the women's room. 

Sounds fair. As long as you don't mind when folks post photos such as this to illustrate their point:

[BmorePat87]

(11-06-2015, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds fair. As long as you don't mind when folks post photos such as this to illustrate their point:

What point does this demonstrate? I don't know many people who wear lingerie in public.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2015, 08:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What point does this demonstrate? I don't know many people who wear lingerie in public.

Do you know of anyone that changes in a locker room or bathroom?

The point it demonstrates is that you and Matt are being disingenuous by simply posting pictures of those that look like the gender they associate with. The truth of the matter is there are those that look absolutely nothing like the gender they associate with, but posting those photos wouldn't support the "Let them go where they want" stance.

[BmorePat87]

I always want to verify that you're saying that it would be weird for someone's daughter to see Roxanne Yeatman in the women's room



But ok to see Michael Hughes?

Just making sure this is the argument the side that opposes the anti-discrimination bill is using.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2015, 08:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you know of anyone that changes in a locker room or bathroom?

The point it demonstrates is that you and Matt are being disingenuous by simply posting pictures of those that look like the gender they associate with. The truth of the matter is there are those that look absolutely nothing like the gender they associate with, but posting those photos wouldn't support the "Let them go where they want" stance.

And it is disingenuous to ignore them as well. I understand you don't want to bother with what I actually said, so I won't bother repeating my points. But don't pretend it isn't disingenuous to ignore those that would more likely cause an issue in the restroom to go with their anatomy rather than their gender.

[BmorePat87]

(11-06-2015, 08:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you know of anyone that changes in a locker room or bathroom?

The point it demonstrates is that you and Matt are being disingenuous by simply posting pictures of those that look like the gender they associate with. The truth of the matter is there are those that look absolutely nothing like the gender they associate with, but posting those photos wouldn't support the "Let them go where they want" stance.

I honestly don't know anyone who has gone into a bathroom and changed outside of a stall. I also don't think "disingenuous" is the word you want to use to describe the two people who are asking for evidence of these laws leading to attacks. Maybe the people suggesting it will despite there being no cases. 

[StLucieBengal]

mike m referenced a story from Canada.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-06-2015, 08:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I honestly don't know anyone who has gone into a bathroom and changed outside of a stall. I also don't think "disingenuous" is the word you want to use to describe the two people who are asking for evidence of these laws leading to attacks. Maybe the people suggesting it will despite there being no cases. 

The planet fitness case is this exact scenario. They have an open locker room. Private shower areas but open locker room.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-06-2015, 08:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I always want to verify that you're saying that it would be weird for someone's daughter to see Roxanne Yeatman in the women's room



But ok to see Michael Hughes?

Just making sure this is the argument the side that opposes the anti-discrimination bill is using.

Where does "Michael" go when she/he is on his period?  There is nothing to help that in a men's room.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-06-2015, 08:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where does "Michael" go when she/he is on his period?  There is nothing to help that in a men's room.

Holy crap!  Where does your "wife" go when she is on her period?  Or do you advocate solitary confinement?

[*Nately120*]

4 pages in and I'm not sure if we're afraid of rapists, ugly people, ugly trans-gendered people, penises, or what.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2015, 08:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I honestly don't know anyone who has gone into a bathroom and changed outside of a stall. I also don't think "disingenuous" is the word you want to use to describe the two people who are asking for evidence of these laws leading to attacks. Maybe the people suggesting it will despite there being no cases. 

Believe it or not; just because you honestly don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist. I changed numerous time in an Airport bathroom and didn't do it in the stall. Frankly, that would be kind of silly.

I think disingenuous is the exact word I want to use when someone tries to make something appear more simple than it is. What word would you use?

I'm not talking about attacks, so I have no idea why you are going there unless you cannot discuss this on its own merit.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2015, 08:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Holy crap!  Where does your "wife" go when she is on her period? 

Ladies Room?

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2015, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ladies Room?

Meet meat you in the ladies room?

[GMDino]

(11-06-2015, 08:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The planet fitness case is this exact scenario.   They have an open locker room.   Private shower areas but open locker room.  

And she never got changed in there.  Just hung up her coat and purse.

Next.

[GMDino]

Have a blast kids.

http://menwholooklikeoldlesbians.blogspot.com/

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2015, 08:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And it is disingenuous to ignore them as well. I understand you don't want to bother with what I actually said, so I won't bother repeating my points. But don't pretend it isn't disingenuous to ignore those that would more likely cause an issue in the restroom to go with their anatomy rather than their gender.

And those that do not look like the gender they identify would equally be more likely to cause an issue by going into the facility that fits their mind more so than their body.

You were simply disingenuous by only posting pictures of people that supported your stance; while knowing there are those that do not.

So it's not as cut and dry as you would want others to believe.