With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened. The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read. Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.” If transgender students request accommodations, they can only be provided “access to single-stall bathrooms; access to unisex bathrooms; or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms.” As experts pointed out when a similar provision was included in South Dakota’s bill, this would out, segregate, and ostracize transgender students who might already be vulnerable to bullying. But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.” This particular provision would open a significant liability to many of the state’s universities. Schools like the University of Kansas, Kansas State of University, Washburn University, and several community colleges have policies on the books protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Any transgender students currently depending on those protections would immediately open the school to lawsuits from their classmates.
Sounds like your dream job, Artie, you being the one who claims that she is able to spot a bona fide tranny. It looks as if we have yet another opportunity to fire up Artie's Bona Fide Transsexual Detector. When will you explain to us how that thing works, Artie?
happy jack wrote:
Do you believe it should be within the law that any man who puts on a wig and lipstick should be allowed to spend as much time as he cares to in a womens' washroom or a womens' locker room at the local health spa? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Artie60438 wrote:
Not as long as they are a bonafide Transexual.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 3/23/2016, 10:47 pm
With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened. The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read. Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.” If transgender students request accommodations, they can only be provided “access to single-stall bathrooms; access to unisex bathrooms; or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms.” As experts pointed out when a similar provision was included in South Dakota’s bill, this would out, segregate, and ostracize transgender students who might already be vulnerable to bullying. But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.” This particular provision would open a significant liability to many of the state’s universities. Schools like the University of Kansas, Kansas State of University, Washburn University, and several community colleges have policies on the books protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Any transgender students currently depending on those protections would immediately open the school to lawsuits from their classmates.
Sounds like your dream job, Artie, you being the one who claims that she is able to spot a bona fide tranny.
I'm not the one who gives 2 shits,you are
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 3/24/2016, 8:52 am
With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened. The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read. Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.” If transgender students request accommodations, they can only be provided “access to single-stall bathrooms; access to unisex bathrooms; or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms.” As experts pointed out when a similar provision was included in South Dakota’s bill, this would out, segregate, and ostracize transgender students who might already be vulnerable to bullying. But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.” This particular provision would open a significant liability to many of the state’s universities. Schools like the University of Kansas, Kansas State of University, Washburn University, and several community colleges have policies on the books protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Any transgender students currently depending on those protections would immediately open the school to lawsuits from their classmates.
Sounds like your dream job, Artie, you being the one who claims that she is able to spot a bona fide tranny.
I'm not the one who gives 2 shits,you are
Apparently, you do give 2 shits. As a matter of fact, based on the number of posts you made on this topic, it appears that you gave about 10 shits. So, when are you going to explain how your Bona Fide Transsexual Detector operates? I've been waiting a long while to hear.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 3/24/2016, 10:31 am
With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened. The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read. Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.” If transgender students request accommodations, they can only be provided “access to single-stall bathrooms; access to unisex bathrooms; or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms.” As experts pointed out when a similar provision was included in South Dakota’s bill, this would out, segregate, and ostracize transgender students who might already be vulnerable to bullying. But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.” This particular provision would open a significant liability to many of the state’s universities. Schools like the University of Kansas, Kansas State of University, Washburn University, and several community colleges have policies on the books protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Any transgender students currently depending on those protections would immediately open the school to lawsuits from their classmates.
Sounds like your dream job, Artie, you being the one who claims that she is able to spot a bona fide tranny.
I'm not the one who gives 2 shits,you are
Apparently, you do give 2 shits.
Really? Who started the topic,dumbass?
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 3/24/2016, 10:36 am
With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened. The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read. Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.” If transgender students request accommodations, they can only be provided “access to single-stall bathrooms; access to unisex bathrooms; or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms.” As experts pointed out when a similar provision was included in South Dakota’s bill, this would out, segregate, and ostracize transgender students who might already be vulnerable to bullying. But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.” This particular provision would open a significant liability to many of the state’s universities. Schools like the University of Kansas, Kansas State of University, Washburn University, and several community colleges have policies on the books protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Any transgender students currently depending on those protections would immediately open the school to lawsuits from their classmates.
Sounds like your dream job, Artie, you being the one who claims that she is able to spot a bona fide tranny.
I'm not the one who gives 2 shits,you are
Apparently, you do give 2 shits.
Really? Who started the topic,dumbass?
Who continues to respond? Dumbass.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 3/24/2016, 12:26 pm
With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened. The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read. Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.” If transgender students request accommodations, they can only be provided “access to single-stall bathrooms; access to unisex bathrooms; or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms.” As experts pointed out when a similar provision was included in South Dakota’s bill, this would out, segregate, and ostracize transgender students who might already be vulnerable to bullying. But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.” This particular provision would open a significant liability to many of the state’s universities. Schools like the University of Kansas, Kansas State of University, Washburn University, and several community colleges have policies on the books protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Any transgender students currently depending on those protections would immediately open the school to lawsuits from their classmates.
Sounds like your dream job, Artie, you being the one who claims that she is able to spot a bona fide tranny.
I'm not the one who gives 2 shits,you are
Apparently, you do give 2 shits.
Really? Who started the topic,dumbass?
Who continues to respond? Dumbass.
I try to never miss an opportunity to make an idiot out of you.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 3/24/2016, 1:47 pm
With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened. The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read. Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.” If transgender students request accommodations, they can only be provided “access to single-stall bathrooms; access to unisex bathrooms; or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms.” As experts pointed out when a similar provision was included in South Dakota’s bill, this would out, segregate, and ostracize transgender students who might already be vulnerable to bullying. But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.” This particular provision would open a significant liability to many of the state’s universities. Schools like the University of Kansas, Kansas State of University, Washburn University, and several community colleges have policies on the books protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Any transgender students currently depending on those protections would immediately open the school to lawsuits from their classmates.
Sounds like your dream job, Artie, you being the one who claims that she is able to spot a bona fide tranny.
I'm not the one who gives 2 shits,you are
Apparently, you do give 2 shits.
Really? Who started the topic,dumbass?
Who continues to respond? Dumbass.
I try to never miss an opportunity to make an idiot out of you.
You certainly missed this time. But, on the bright side, you did manage to make an idiot out of yourself, so it wasn't a total loss.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/11/2016, 2:38 pm
Ian McEwan Notes That 2 + 2 = 4 — Horrified, the LGBT Orwellians Make Him Take It Back
by BRENDAN O'NEILL April 11, 2016 4:00 AM
For a worldview that claims to be all about freedom and choice and “being oneself,” transgenderism sure is tetchy and intolerant. Consider what has just happened to the celebrated British novelist Ian McEwan. Last week, during a speech at the Royal Institution in London, McEwan took a genteel swipe at the politics of identity. He said identity politics is becoming increasingly consumerist, where we now pluck a ready-made “self” from “the shelves of a personal-identity supermarket.” The making up of one’s identity has gone so far that “some men in full possession of a penis are identifying as women and demanding entry to women-only colleges,” he said. Then came his killer line: “Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think of people with penises as men.” Can you guess what happened next? Yes, McEwan was subjected to a Twitch hunt, to that 21st-century bloodsport in which anyone who expresses an unpopular view or makes a less than PC utterance or simply misspeaks a little will be “called out” (shamed) by the bedroom-bound, Twitter-living, self-styled guardians of correct thinking. Twits went berserk over his apparently perverse linking of penises with maleness. They branded him a bigot, weird, a transphobe. Trans-rights activists put the boot in, too. Stonewall, the LGBT activist group, slammed McEwan for being “uninformed” and said his weird worldview doesn’t only “denigrate the trans experience, it denies its very existence.” Paris Lees, a trans woman and journalist, scolded McEwan, telling him his “ideas about penises are outdated.” He should apologize, the mob said.
………
Call me old-fashioned too, because I also tend to think of people with penises as men. Does anyone on this forum dispute that notion?
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/11/2016, 3:05 pm
Republican legislators in Florida, Texas, Arizona and elsewhere are trying to enact so-called “bathroom bills” and other measure designed to keep trans people from using the bathroom associated with the gender identity.
Their reasoning? Trans people are sex fiends who will try to molest you while you pee or pee.
Only there are no reported cases of trans men or women assaulting people in bathrooms.
According to Media Matters, there haven’t even been any reports of men “pretending’ to be transgender to gain access to women’s spaces and commit crimes against them.”
You know who have been arrested in public bathrooms for sexual misconduct: Republican politicians.
Without even diving too deep, we found three GOP legislators who were picked up for lavatory indiscretions. Obviously we need laws against senators using bathrooms, not trans people!
In 1981, this Mississippi congressman was arrested for engaging in oral sex in the House of Representatives bathroom with a Library of Congress clerk.
It was actually Hinson’s second offense: He had been arrested in 1976 for exposing himself to an undercover agent at the Iwo Jima memorial, but blamed it on alcoholism and managed to get reelected in 1980.
After the bathroom incident, though, Hinson resigned—and soon came out as gay. To his credit, the former politician spent the rest of his life as an LGBT activist, fighting the military’s ban on homosexuals and forming the Fairfax Lesbian and Gay Citizens Association in Fairfax, Virginia.
He died of AIDS-related illness at age 53
Larry Craig
The Idaho Republican was famously arrested in 2007 for lewd conduct in a men’s room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
An undercover officer claimed he tried to initiate a sexual liaison, but Senator Craig insisted he just had a “wide stance.”
Craig pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct in August, but tried to withdraw the plea two months later, and reversed his decision to resign from the Senate.
So,just as in the phony voter fraud cries,it turns out that you're more likely to be approached for homosexual activity by a Republican than a transgender person. Another one of the troll's fantasies goes up in smoke!
Scorpion
Posts : 2141
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/11/2016, 3:21 pm
happy jack wrote:
Call me old-fashioned too, because I also tend to think of people with penises as men. Does anyone on this forum dispute that notion?
No of course not. But there is no question that there are people who are transgender. To me, that sounds like a nightmarish existence. It's certainly no mystery why a transgender person would feel ostracized.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/11/2016, 7:07 pm
Artie60438 wrote:
So,just as in the phony voter fraud cries,it turns out that you're more likely to be approached for homosexual activity by a Republican than a transgender person. Another one of the troll's fantasies goes up in smoke!
I don't believe I've ever said a word about being approached for homosexual activity as it relates to this topic. Stop making things up, OK?
edge540
Posts : 1165
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/12/2016, 10:52 am
Fun fact: More Republican politicians have been arrested for sex crimes in mens' bathrooms than transgendered persons in the womens' bathrooms.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/20/2016, 7:26 pm
happy jack wrote:
If you have a dick, you use the mens' washroom or locker room. If you don't have a dick, you use the womens' washroom or locker room. It really is as simple as that. How much 'tolerance' is enough? What in God's name is wrong with these people?
As states and school districts grapple with laws or allowances around transgender bathroom use, one retail giant has made its stance public.
In a statement on its company website Tuesday, Target declared its commitment to "equality and equity."
Quote :
"Inclusivity is a core belief at Target," the statement said. "Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity."
The discount retailer further explained: "Given the specific questions these legislative proposals raised about how we manage our fitting rooms and restrooms, we felt it was important to state our position."
The announcement appears to be a direct response to the controversial "bathroom bill" signed into law late March by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory. The legislation's most contentious provision requires transgender people to use public restrooms based on the gender listed on their birth certificate.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/21/2016, 10:38 am
Artie60438 wrote:
Target: Customers welcome in fitting rooms, bathrooms corresponding with 'gender identity'
Well, that's good news for you if you shop at Target. Now when you squat to pee, you can do it among your own kind, whatever that may be.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/23/2016, 9:39 am
Hey, edge - which of these interviewees do you most identify with?
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/24/2016, 7:59 am
Is anyone surprised that the bigots at the FPIW have no understanding of the biological basis of sex and gender identity, and the differences between the two? The attempt to equate it to height or race was just absolutely childish, immediately calling attention to his ignorance. The video is just as useless as Ray Comfort's, but far less entertaining.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/24/2016, 9:29 am
Heretic wrote:
Is anyone surprised that the bigots at the FPIW have no understanding of the biological basis of sex and gender identity, and the differences between the two? The attempt to equate it to height or race was just absolutely childish, immediately calling attention to his ignorance. The video is just as useless as Ray Comfort's, but far less entertaining.
I have a solution:
If you have a penis, you use Bathroom A. If you have a vagina, you use Bathroom B. If you have a penis but are wearing a dress, you use Bathroom C. If you have a vagina but are wearing a plaid flannel shirt and motorcycle boots, you use Bathroom D. If you have a penis, but watch Glee, you use Bathroom E. If you have a vagina, but are handy with a ripsaw, you use Bathroom F. If you have a penis and are wearing a dress, but you enjoy Jackass more than Glee, you use Bathroom G. If you have a vagina and are wearing a plaid flannel shirt and motorcycle boots, but still call over your male upstairs neighbor to swat a spider, you use Bathroom H. If you have a penis but wish you were someone who had a vagina but wished they had a penis, you use Bathroom I. If you have a vagina but wish you were someone who had a penis but wished they had a vagina, you use Bathroom J. If you have a penis but wish you were someone who had a vagina but wished they had a penis along with a clitoris, you use Bathroom K. If you have a vagina but wish you were someone who had a penis but wished they had a vagina along with testicles, you use Bathroom L.
Para español, presione 1. (For the Spans-gendered.)
This should satisfy most of those who run with the crowd that demands everyone else believe that women have penises, men have vaginas, black is white, night is day, and up is down.
Maybe.
(Additionally, it will keep our country's plumbers gainfully employed from here to eternity.)
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/24/2016, 10:07 pm
Or maybe not obsess over the genitalia of the person next to you in the bathroom? Just sayin'...
Is anyone surprised happy still has no understanding of the existence and/or biological basis of gender dysphoria? To conservatives it can't be real, like global warming and evolution, because only God controls that shit and he never makes mistakes.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/25/2016, 8:53 am
Heretic wrote:
Or maybe not obsess over the genitalia of the person next to you in the bathroom? Just sayin'...
Yes, indeed. Why, exactly, have these dress-wearing people with penises created an issue by obsessing over the genitalia of the people next to them when they are using a men-only bathroom? Can’t they just ignore the genitalia of those around them, as you are demanding that the non-transgendered should do? When a non-transgendered person says that he wants to have a say about the genitalia of those with whom he shares his most private facilities and engages in his most private and personal functions, he is a bigot. But when a transgendered person says that he wants to have a say about the genitalia of those with whom he shares his most private facilities and engages in his most private and personal functions, he is held up to be the Rosa Parks of the Shitters and is carried around on the shoulders of the editorial board of the New York Times.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/25/2016, 9:38 am
Quote :
Why, exactly, have these dress-wearing people with penises created an issue by obsessing over the genitalia of the people next to them when they are using a men-only bathroom?
They created the issue? The only reason it is an issue is because bigots like you said "EW! Gross! Hell no!" or "OH NOES RAPE!!!" when they tried to use the bathroom they wanted, as you yourself pointed out in the first post. Nobody gave a shit until conservatives started legislating against it. You and your family have been pissing and shitting next to transgendered your entire lives but didn't know it (assuming you don't do genital checks in a bathroom) with no fanfare whatsoever. You only care now because Fox News told you to. This is just another pointless issue in a very long conservative string of manufactured controversies, and much like voter ID laws, another "remedy" for a problem that never existed in the first place and won't actually be fixed by the proposed legislation.
Or maybe I'm wrong and blacks did create the issue too, when they got all uppity about using your precious bathrooms and water fountains.
Wait... what are we talking about again? It's hard to keep your bigotry straight sometimes.
Quote :
But when a transgendered person says that he wants to have a say about the genitalia of those with whom he shares his most private facilities and engages in his most private and personal functions, he is held up to be the Rosa Parks of the Shitters and is carried around on the shoulders of the editorial board of the New York Times.
Wrong. This isn't about you. "He" just has the audacity to want to use the fucking bathroom "he's" comfortable in without being arrested, fined, fired, or harassed for doing so. And "he" would have simply done so had ignorant fucks like yourself not inserted yourselves into the situation, so desperate to be the victims yet again.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/25/2016, 11:15 am
Heretic wrote:
Quote :
But when a transgendered person says that he wants to have a say about the genitalia of those with whom he shares his most private facilities and engages in his most private and personal functions, he is held up to be the Rosa Parks of the Shitters and is carried around on the shoulders of the editorial board of the New York Times.
Wrong. This isn't about you. "He" just has the audacity to want to use the fucking bathroom "he's" comfortable in without being arrested, fined, fired, or harassed for doing so. And "he" would have simply done so had ignorant fucks like yourself not inserted yourselves into the situation, so desperate to be the victims yet again.
As has been custom for eons, a non-transgendered man who popped in to a women’s washroom or locker room stood a good chance of “being arrested, fined, fired, or harassed for doing so”. Is he to be considered a victim too, or does that apply only to the transgendered crowd? I mean, if he's comfortable, that's all that matters, right?
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/25/2016, 2:53 pm
happy wrote:
As has been custom for eons, a non-transgendered man who popped in to a women’s washroom or locker room stood a good chance of “being arrested, fined, fired, or harassed for doing so”.
Did they? I see women in the men's bathroom at concert venues every time I go. No police or security have ever intervened; no one's ever checked to see if they were women or transgender males. I'd be interested in any actual statistics you have on this, and specific citations of the violations in legal code. I'd be fucking flabbergasted if you actually have them and aren't talking completely out of your ass.
happy wrote:
Is he to be considered a victim too, or does that apply only to the transgendered crowd? I mean, if he's comfortable, that's all that matters, right?
How exactly would you know without checking for a penis and testicles? Or without him doing something that already illegal? Is that your solution? Kick out anyone from a women's bathroom that looks like a man? See why it might be an issue? They're fucking damned if they do and damned if they don't. The only solution that has any chance of solving the problem is genital checks prior to entrance. Given the arrest rates of Republican politicians in bathrooms, I'm sure there's plenty of them that would volunteer.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/26/2016, 9:04 am
Heretic wrote:
happy wrote:
As has been custom for eons, a non-transgendered man who popped in to a women’s washroom or locker room stood a good chance of “being arrested, fined, fired, or harassed for doing so”.
Did they? I see women in the men's bathroom at concert venues every time I go. No police or security have ever intervened; no one's ever checked to see if they were women or transgender males. I'd be interested in any actual statistics you have on this, and specific citations of the violations in legal code. I'd be fucking flabbergasted if you actually have them and aren't talking completely out of your ass.
Supporting that interpretation is Com. v. White, 538 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988), where the court affirmed a conviction for criminal trespass after the male defendant entered the women’s restroom of an athletic club. The court ruled that the restroom was a “separately secured or occupied portion” of the building that was reserved for women’s use.
Following a recent stunt by one non-transgender man entering a women’s locker room at a Seattle pool, the Washington State Human Rights Commission has clarified in no uncertain terms that this kind of behavior is not protected under the state’s gender identity law. “His intent was obviously to make the women and girls in the restroom upset and uncomfortable,”said a news release from the Commission on Friday. “His behavior was inexcusable and reprehensible. And it is absolutely not protected under the law.” The statement explains that the state’s gender identity law only protects those who actually identify as transgender. “Men cannot go into the women’s locker room, as this man claimed he had the right to do. Only women, including transgender women, can go into the women’s locker room. Persons who enter the wrong gender-segregated facility for nefarious purposes can be asked to leave in no uncertain terms. And they would have no recourse.”
Does this mean that both men and women would be able to use any and every public bathroom, locker room, store dressing room, and shower in the Cleveland?
No. Ordinance 1446-13 does not allow men or women to use whichever restroom they choose. What this ordinance provides is that a business owner or employer cannot discriminate or deny access to restrooms based on an individual’s gender identity or expression. This is a person’s sincerely held core identity as male or female. This ordinance does not entitle a person whose core identity is male to use a women’s restroom for any purpose or vice versa. Transgender people currently use the restroom that matches their gender identity. The social norms of using the restroom you identify with, as your personal gender identity, will not change. This ordinance is only making it possible for all Clevelanders to use the restroom that matches their gender identity safely and without fear of harassment or discrimination.
Does this mean that men will be able to dress up as women and use the women’s room?
No. This ordinance does not entitle a person to use a restroom that is different from their gender identity. Moreover, this ordinance does not change or weaken Ohio’s current criminal laws in any way. A person who uses a restroom as a place to ogle, harass, assault, or publicly expose themselves is engaging in criminal conduct, and such illegal behavior may be prosecuted as such. Ordinance 1446-13 will not change Ohio’s criminal laws.
Does this mean that both men and women would be able to use any and every public bathroom, locker room, store dressing room, and shower in the state of Maryland?
No. The Fairness For All Marylanders Act does not mean that men and women can use any restroom they please. Maryland law already explicitly provides that men and women may be required to use separate bathrooms.
………
Does this mean schools will be unable to prevent men and boys from entering female locker rooms and will mean that men and boys will play on women’s and girls’ sports teams?
No. The public accommodations provisions of the Fairness For All Marylanders Act do not apply to schools. A school is not a “place of public accommodation.” Neither is a sports team. In addition, even in places that do qualify as “places of public accommodation,” a locker room is exempt so long as functionally equivalent private space is made available. ………
Does this law mean that all public facilities will have to be open to anyone – regardless of gender or gender expression?
No. The public accommodations provisions in the Fairness For All Marylanders Act do not apply to “all public facilities”—they only apply to “places of public accommodation” which are narrowly defined as hotels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation establishments such as movie theaters and sports arenas, and retail stores. What the law requires is that a place of public accommodation may not discriminate on the basis of gender identity—which is a person’s innate, sincerely-held internal sense of self as male or female. Under the legislation, a person’s gender identity must be “sincerely held as part of the person’s core identity.” In other words, this law provides protection for transgender men and women: people who deeply and innately identify as a gender other than their gender assigned at birth.
Under the legislation, a person’s gender identity must be “sincerely held as part of the person’s core identity.”
And this is where Artie's Bona Fide Transsexual Detector will come in mighty handy.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/26/2016, 10:46 pm
happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
happy wrote:
As has been custom for eons, a non-transgendered man who popped in to a women’s washroom or locker room stood a good chance of “being arrested, fined, fired, or harassed for doing so”.
Did they? I see women in the men's bathroom at concert venues every time I go. No police or security have ever intervened; no one's ever checked to see if they were women or transgender males. I'd be interested in any actual statistics you have on this, and specific citations of the violations in legal code. I'd be fucking flabbergasted if you actually have them and aren't talking completely out of your ass.
Supporting that interpretation is Com. v. White, 538 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988), where the court affirmed a conviction for criminal trespass after the male defendant entered the women’s restroom of an athletic club. The court ruled that the restroom was a “separately secured or occupied portion” of the building that was reserved for women’s use.
Did it sail over your head that the decision was rendered in 1988,well before transgender legislation would have been in place?
Following a recent stunt by one non-transgender man entering a women’s locker room at a Seattle pool, the Washington State Human Rights Commission has clarified in no uncertain terms that this kind of behavior is not protected under the state’s gender identity law. “His intent was obviously to make the women and girls in the restroom upset and uncomfortable,”said a news release from the Commission on Friday. “His behavior was inexcusable and reprehensible. And it is absolutely not protected under the law.” The statement explains that the state’s gender identity law only protects those who actually identify as transgender. “Men cannot go into the women’s locker room, as this man claimed he had the right to do. Only women, including transgender women, can go into the women’s locker room. Persons who enter the wrong gender-segregated facility for nefarious purposes can be asked to leave in no uncertain terms. And they would have no recourse.”
Whoopee! You found an acorn!
Quote :
Under the legislation, a person’s gender identity must be “sincerely held as part of the person’s core identity.”
[b]And this is where Artie's Bona Fide Transsexual Detector will come in mighty handy.[/
Using it requires a working brain. That obviously excludes you.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Transgender bathroom use 4/27/2016, 8:36 am
Artie60438 wrote:
Did it sail over your head that the decision was rendered in 1988,well before transgender legislation would have been in place?
No, it did not sail over my head that the decision was rendered in 1988, well before transgender legislation would have been in place, mainly because what I was discussing had nothing to do with transgender laws, but rather had to do with those laws that have been applied over the years to non-transgendered men:
happy jack wrote:
As has been custom for eons, a non-transgendered man who popped in to a women’s washroom or locker room stood a good chance of “being arrested, fined, fired, or harassed for doing so”.
1. See above. 2. Begin paying attention.
Artie60438 wrote:
Blind Squirrel wrote:
Following a recent stunt by one non-transgender man entering a women’s locker room at a Seattle pool, the Washington State Human Rights Commission has clarified in no uncertain terms that this kind of behavior is not protected under the state’s gender identity law. “His intent was obviously to make the women and girls in the restroom upset and uncomfortable,”said a news release from the Commission on Friday. “His behavior was inexcusable and reprehensible. And it is absolutely not protected under the law.” The statement explains that the state’s gender identity law only protects those who actually identify as transgender. “Men cannot go into the women’s locker room, as this man claimed he had the right to do. Only women, including transgender women, can go into the women’s locker room. Persons who enter the wrong gender-segregated facility for nefarious purposes can be asked to leave in no uncertain terms. And they would have no recourse.”
Fragrant Minge wrote:
Whoopee! You found an acorn!
Yes, I did!!!! And if someday you manage to find some nuts, I’ll be as excited for you as you are for me!!!!
happy jack wrote:
And this is where Artie's Bona Fide Transsexual Detector will come in mighty handy.
Artie60438 wrote:
Using it requires a working brain. That obviously excludes you.
Why don’t you put that working brain of yours to good use and explain to us idiots how your Bona Fide Transsexual Detector actually works. I’ve been axing you for quite some time now to explain it, but you’ve come up quite short in your ability to do so.
And look!!!! This guy wasn't even required to walk through your detector!!!!
What do you think your detector would have told you about him? Is he one of those 'sincere' transgender chaps, do you think?
Home 
Publications 
