I hope he has a bladder the size of an oil tanker.
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
Excellent. I'm glad you agree with what I am advocating: It should be made law that that no matter how you identify, all human beings go through the same door to use the same unisex restroom at the same time, which is built to the appropriate capacity with toilets, urinals, and baby change tables to handle the expected combined totals of all genders. Building code will be less complicated, costs will drop, there will be one damn sign that says "Restroom" with one toilet icon, and the ridiculously complex permutations of signs, rooms and gender-specific accommodations, such as the criminal no baby change tables in a men's room, will go away. I must not have correctly read your other posts because I was sure you would disagree with this admittedly progressive and enlightened solution. Good to know it's okay.
I'm tired of feeling like a rat in a maze trying to find the right room. It's like a Monty Python sketch out there.
Last edited:
I've seen plenty of men's toilets with baby changing facities (at least on this side of the pond)
Being able to handle an opposing view means not getting upset over different opinions on fiscal policy, foreign policy, or whether or not the NCC-1701's reactor(s) are in the nacelles or in the secondary hull.
It in no way means letting opinions that belittle the experiences of human beings who do no harm to others go unchallenged. Bills like HB2 are a solution looking for a problem. The real "problem" is one that they can't (couldn't) touch without losing the PR war, so they had to make one up. Until they did, no one cared about men following women into the restroom because it doesn't happen.
And until you find countervailing psychological evidence and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, you don't get to exclaim that trans women are men. Until you are the king of all sociologists, you don't get to redefine gender as biological sex. People who actually study this kind of thing all but universally disagree with you, so why do you have the hubris to say "no, they're wrong"?
Opinions can absolutely be wrong when they're counterfactual.
I read a recent article where some business was promoting itself for finally getting around to it. I'm about 14 years past needing a baby change table instead of using a bench if I was lucky, or the floor. Gee, big pat on the back for being late to the party. But that wasn't the point of my post. Don't let yourself get distracted by zeroing in on one small aspect.
Last edited:
@indycar , let me try again:
You have to weigh one against the other. You can't have both. A third restroom for trans-people isn't feasable (where should it go? Space is limited). So, what do you choose?
1. Trans-women have to use the men's room, which aside from personal discomfort is very, very likely to result in a rise of violence and abuse against them.
2. Men are allowed to go into the women's room, use the toilet, wash their hands, or just stand there, as long as they don't commit a crime (like exposing themselves to women, peeking into closed stalls, or otherwise harass or assault other people), which might cause some women discomfort, but no actual harm.
Which one of these two options do you prefer? Because this is what it comes down to. Even if men going into the women's room claiming to identify as a woman happened as often as trans-women being assaulted. You can't say no to both options, there is no way around it (because if there were, we wouldn't have this discussion).
Which one is it?
You have to weigh one against the other. You can't have both. A third restroom for trans-people isn't feasable (where should it go? Space is limited). So, what do you choose?
1. Trans-women have to use the men's room, which aside from personal discomfort is very, very likely to result in a rise of violence and abuse against them.
2. Men are allowed to go into the women's room, use the toilet, wash their hands, or just stand there, as long as they don't commit a crime (like exposing themselves to women, peeking into closed stalls, or otherwise harass or assault other people), which might cause some women discomfort, but no actual harm.
Which one of these two options do you prefer? Because this is what it comes down to. Even if men going into the women's room claiming to identify as a woman happened as often as trans-women being assaulted. You can't say no to both options, there is no way around it (because if there were, we wouldn't have this discussion).
Which one is it?
Opinions can be wrong, however the opinion I stated is not something that can be substantiated or disproved by facts or lack of. It is a statement of opinion with no malice or hate intended or implied, though I am sure it will be taken that way and I can see why.
It absolutely can be disproved:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/gender-dysphoria
It can also be wrong from an ethical stance. What is ethically best is that which does the least overall harm. Given that transgendered inviduals do no serious harm as a group and are at high risk of harm if forced to use bathrooms that don't match their gender identity, it is more ethical to let them use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender that they identify with - especially when the harm that such laws seek to prevent do not exist.
The opinion that you advance leads to policies that do significant harm to many already at risk, while preventing little harm. The opinion that I advance leads to reduced harm to that at risk population while not substantially increasing the harm to other groups.
Therefore, mine is ethically more sound and should be followed if pursuing a purely ethical course.
Yet I have my opinion and you have yours.
Doesn't make 'em equally valid.
The Republicans have a long vision. Bannon, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, said,
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...trategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747
Unfortunately, as a Democrat, I can see how the Republicans can be in power that long. They can continue doing what they have been doing - voter suppression, populist talk, effective use of symbols, etc. It does not hurt them if the Democrats continue retreating into enclaves - a small number of states and the big cities. And, it does not hurt them if the schools continue teaching students "market values", while downplaying or not teaching "democratic values".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...entury-foundation_us_582cdbcbe4b030997bbd6040
Reading the articles and comments at Breitbart and elsewhere, the right believe the left are delusional. It seems to be a guiding principle of the right. It is not amazing how quickly talk of reconciliation ended.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...trategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747
Unfortunately, as a Democrat, I can see how the Republicans can be in power that long. They can continue doing what they have been doing - voter suppression, populist talk, effective use of symbols, etc. It does not hurt them if the Democrats continue retreating into enclaves - a small number of states and the big cities. And, it does not hurt them if the schools continue teaching students "market values", while downplaying or not teaching "democratic values".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...entury-foundation_us_582cdbcbe4b030997bbd6040
Reading the articles and comments at Breitbart and elsewhere, the right believe the left are delusional. It seems to be a guiding principle of the right. It is not amazing how quickly talk of reconciliation ended.
Not all opinions are valid. Period. End of story. That's just the way the world works.
I find this statement really interesting. Trump was branded a racist for allegedly calling a latina former Ms. Universe "Ms. Housekeeping." You just did the same thing. lol
So bathrooms have become an issue again. How do the people in France cope where there are unisex toilets? How do they ever get along?
Drinking, baguettes and ennui.
Well we just had a refugee guy set fire to himself in a bank here in Australia so our govt. being right wing, I bet they will try to get some mileage out of this.
Different people have different ideas about what is "valid" though. Different priorities.
Here is the news story about the man setting fire to an Australian bank.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...rne-bank-fire-reports/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...rne-bank-fire-reports/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage
This wasn't too surprising to read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...comey-with-helping/?ncid=edlinkauhpmg00000002
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...comey-with-helping/?ncid=edlinkauhpmg00000002
- Status
Similar threads
