Oh Dear...

[Trik'Stari]

What about we transgress his house and allow people to visit his wife while bathing? We would explicitly deny anyone who tries to oppose us, you know why? Because it's the law, my Dear Mayor... 

 

What the hell is wrong with these people these days? What the fuck?!

 

The Mayor himself shall really look up for the word "Privacy" and decide before just blithering and throwing so called "laws" at people.

Welcome to liberalism in america, your rights, no matter what they are, don't take precedent over someone somewhere being offended by something.

 

Never mind that nowhere in any law on the books does anything say "you have the right to not be offended by something"

[SeriouslyMikey]

Yup, him and the 52+ people in the vote.

Just be aware, guys, your names are visible to all!

 

Why does it matter what side they choose? Having separate toilets for each gender does help against certain things, such as privacy and shouldn't be seen as sexist. Taking a stand, after reading further into it, on the for argument, I can still see how the system can be abused, especially by young men or women, and is something that needs to be taken into account. Would you like someone claiming that they are none gender specific or that they are transgender, just so that they are able to witness the opposite sex nude or closer to nude than possible. I for one wouldn't enjoy a woman wandering into the male toilets just for that reason alone and I am certain it is the same for women too. They wouldn't have chosen the Against vote because they are sexist, at least I hope not, they would have chosen it because there are strong reasons to do so. 

[Fred Castellum]

Well the op sure has shown his roots.

Wait this is a poll? I can't see polls on tapatalk.

My stance is neutral till I have time to thoroughly read this up.

[Yoinkerman]

Wait this is a poll? I can't see polls on tapatalk.

My stance is neutral till I have time to thoroughly read this up.

Just reading the bill it's clear the op read it completely one sided if at all, because it doesn't mention men or women at all. Then threw in some purported attacks on religious freedoms (read christians) to top it off.

[Yoinkerman]

I really don't see why laws like these have to be made, just do your business on the toilet and if you can't fucking take a shit in your gender toilet, DO IT IN THE OTHER ONE OR GO OUTSIDE.

Jesus do I hate how western societies are fucking themself up.

The real solution is to just have toilets imo.

[d3sl91]

Just reading the bill it's clear the op read it completely one sided if at all, because it doesn't mention men or women at all. Then threw in some purported attacks on religious freedoms (read christians) to top it off.

There has actually been some other things since this bill that were against some Christian churches. I'm mobile at the moment so I can't verify the facts on that.

[Fred Castellum]

Just reading the bill it's clear the op read it completely one sided if at all, because it doesn't mention men or women at all. Then threw in some purported attacks on religious freedoms (read christians) to top it off.

There has actually been some other things since this bill that were against some Christian churches. I'm mobile at the moment so I can't verify the facts on that.

On mobile ATM too will verify when home

[kingkickolas]

Welcome to liberalism in america, your rights, no matter what they are, don't take precedent over someone somewhere being offended by something.

 

Never mind that nowhere in any law on the books does anything say "you have the right to not be offended by something"

Just to be clear, Trik, this is not about people being "offended". This is about fundamental human rights issues like segregation and gender policing.

It's about equal access to public accommodations for transgender people.

 

 

Why does it matter what side they choose? Having separate toilets for each gender does help against certain things, such as privacy and shouldn't be seen as sexist. Taking a stand, after reading further into it, on the for argument, I can still see how the system can be abused, especially by young men or women, and is something that needs to be taken into account. Would you like someone claiming that they are none gender specific or that they are transgender, just so that they are able to witness the opposite sex nude or closer to nude than possible. I for one wouldn't enjoy a woman wandering into the male toilets just for that reason alone and I am certain it is the same for women too. They wouldn't have chosen the Against vote because they are sexist, at least I hope not, they would have chosen it because there are strong reasons to do so. 

I'm just saying that it's there for public record now. I know that I wouldn't want to be caught years later being the one supporting transphobic policies. People should think about these things.

Of course the system can be abused, it can be abused right now as it is. There really isn't anything to stop a person from entering the opposing (for lack of a better word) restroom and getting a peek at someone's genitals. The fear that this behavior is going to increase with new trans legislation is largely unfounded. See this article: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533, which explores supposed incidents of this kind.

[SeriouslyMikey]

Just to be clear, Trik, this is not about people being "offended". This is about fundamental human rights issues like segregation and gender policing.

It's about equal access to public accommodations for transgender people.

 

 

I'm just saying that it's there for public record now. I know that I wouldn't want to be caught years later being the one supporting transphobic policies. People should think about these things.

Of course the system can be abused, it can be abused right now as it is. There really isn't anything to stop a person from entering the opposing (for lack of a better word) restroom and getting a peek at someone's genitals. The fear that this behavior is going to increase with new trans legislation is largely unfounded. See this article: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533, which explores supposed incidents of this kind.

 

Interesting read. However, I would like to know your stand, whether it is for, against or neutral. Though, I do believe you have made is clear. 

[shiftberry]

Welcome to liberalism in america, your rights, no matter what they are, don't take precedent over someone somewhere being offended by something.

 

Never mind that nowhere in any law on the books does anything say "you have the right to not be offended by something"

However, this overpasses liberalism by breaking-through all the principles of public decency and equality.

[Trik'Stari]

Just to be clear, Trik, this is not about people being "offended". This is about fundamental human rights issues like segregation and gender policing.

It's about equal access to public accommodations for transgender people.

 

 

I'm just saying that it's there for public record now. I know that I wouldn't want to be caught years later being the one supporting transphobic policies. People should think about these things.

Of course the system can be abused, it can be abused right now as it is. There really isn't anything to stop a person from entering the opposing (for lack of a better word) restroom and getting a peek at someone's genitals. The fear that this behavior is going to increase with new trans legislation is largely unfounded. See this article: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533, which explores supposed incidents of this kind.

I'd argue the point, but then you and others might become offended, thus proving my point.

 

Also, if you're going to link media matters, you're argument is as invalid as if you had linked fox, msnbc, cnn, or abc news.

[kingkickolas]

Interesting read. However, I would like to know your stand, whether it is for, against or neutral. Though, I do believe you have made is clear. 

Well it's my pleasure really.

I guess I would say that my position is to prioritize civil rights and equal access for all people. That was the basis of the suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the marriage equality movement, and I think the transgender movement is going to have its turn next.

There may be problems with impostors, which will or would be a serious problem. But we have that problem already, and it's not worth sacrificing equality for it, especially when laws and regulations can be made to put cis and trans people's minds at ease in the restroom, should the need arise.

 

 

 

 

I'd argue the point, but then you and others might become offended, thus proving my point.

Argue away my friend! I'm not afraid of being offended. PM me if you wanna discuss it, but don't wanna do it here.

[Jack.EXE]

Before you reply, I talked to a friend of mine, who calmed me down, and I'm sorry.

 

I never meant to appear transphobic, but the issues brought up by this law are, in my opinion, worse than the issues that it would solve.

 

I am an egalitarian, have been all my life, and am all for the right to use the bathroom that is right for your gender, or gender identity.

 

I am aware people face harassment in the bathrooms for their identity or sexuality.

 

I am, however, worried about the women, or even men, who would be put in danger by this law, whether to harassment, or other more violent issues,

 

We should have stronger and more effective rules in place to stop the harassment before we create laws that will just increase the number of situations that people would be harassed.

 

This is the reason I am against. Not for any transphobic or homophobic reasons.

[Toxic Tom]

There should just be unisex bathrooms everywhere imo. Stops these kind of silly arguments.

[DarrenP]

I feel that you should be able to openly walk into the restroom that is labeled for the Gender that you identify as. End of story. 

[vigorstick]

Who the fuck are the eight people who voted FOR this. I understand how this could possibly relate to gay rights and whatnot, but it will still cause major problems.

[Jack.EXE]

also to those who thought I was trying to pull religion into this.

 

It was an error on my part, that I assumed the 4th amendment was the 1st, and the inverse true as well.

 

I have corrected the OP in an attempt to solve any issues that may create.

[SeriouslyMikey]

Well it's my pleasure really.

I guess I would say that my position is to prioritize civil rights and equal access for all people. That was the basis of the suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the marriage equality movement, and I think the transgender movement is going to have its turn next.

There may be problems with impostors, which will or would be a serious problem. But we have that problem already, and it's not worth sacrificing equality for it, especially when laws and regulations can be made to put cis and trans people's minds at ease in the restroom, should the need arise.

 

 

Equality is why I have chosen for this bill. I don't really have that much to add, as what you've said there highlights most of my points. I also don't believe I have any more points to add as I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the subject and as I myself am not a transgender and I don't see a woman entering the men's lavatory as an issue, to be brutally honest, unless it was for the wrong reasons, of course.  

[Yoinkerman]

Who the fuck are the eight people who voted FOR this. I understand how this could possibly relate to gay rights and whatnot, but it will still cause major problems.

 

I voted for.

 

Did you read the bill?  It specifically states that people who identify with the gender on the door can use the bathroom.  Not men going into the womens bathroom.  Not women going into the mens bathroom.  The greater implication being trans men/women being able to use the womens bathroom.  Or agender people using whichever the feel comfortable with.

 

A bathroom is a bathroom is a bathroom.  They have stalls.  I don't care who is in the stall next to me.  Or who uses a urinal next to me.  I wish everyone was on the same page.  They're just dangly bits.  Everyone has them.

[kingkickolas]

Who the fuck are the eight people who voted FOR this. I understand how this could possibly relate to gay rights and whatnot, but it will still cause major problems.

You can click on "view" next to where it shows the number of votes for each option. And read the thread to see people's reasons for supporting it.

[theloveablemoose]

Simple fix 

Ensure that every female restroom has readily available handsaws.

[BrandedUpontheGrave]

Picking and choosing is a pointless endeavor.

 

You and me are all allowed to say whatever we want. No problems there, it's not causing any problems.

 

The problem is bathrooms are segregated for a reason. It does not matter what gender you "identify" as, if you're a male physically then your options are the men's room or your house. That's it.

Bathrooms are segregated for an objectively frivolous reason, it causes the same problem... When you say certain things it bothers people and makes them uncomfortable creating tension and conflict, when you do certain things act in some manners/be in certain places where and when people do some specific things it bothers them creates tension and conflict.

 

The whole concept of separate bathrooms can easily be seen by one culture as worthless fluff.

[Octagoncow]

I'm against it because of the premise. I apologize if I'm not the most PC informed person but if you're gay then don't you normally still identify as a male and want to use the men's restroom. If I were gay I would take this as an insult since it pretty much says that if you're gay then you aren't completely a male anymore. 

[Yoinkerman]

I'm against it because of the premise. I apologize if I'm not the most PC informed person but if you're gay then don't you normally still identify as a male and want to use the men's restroom. If I were gay I would take this as an insult since it pretty much says that if you're gay then you aren't completely a male anymore.

It's not about gay or lesbian people. It's about trans people. Women with penis or men without. Or anything in between.

No its not about drag Queens or kings either.

[SeriouslyMikey]

I'm against it because of the premise. I apologize if I'm not the most PC informed person but if you're gay then don't you normally still identify as a male and want to use the men's restroom. If I were gay I would take this as an insult since it pretty much says that if you're gay then you aren't completely a male anymore. 

 

I'm not insulted at all by this as it isn't about the homosexual community, but for those that are transgender. Or, as best I can put it, those that live in a male/female body, however see themselves as the other gender.