Search forums

Forums

Export thread

xHamster blocks all porn in North Carolina.

Apr 11, 2016#1

Dave

So you want to make laws discriminating against the LGBT community? Okay. NO PORN FOR YOU!!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...orth-carolina-users-because-of-anti-lgbt-law/

Apr 11, 2016#2

GasBandit

NO PORN?!

Apr 11, 2016#3

PatrThom

Oh, it's ON, now.
PayPal, Apple, Facebook, Disney, even The Boss all up in arms due to HB2.
And now this.

Now I have to wonder how much transgender porn (that is, porn featuring obviously transgender/intersex/crossdressing/whatever individual(s)) is consumed in NC. I also wonder whether or not this data will somehow become public knowledge very soon...possibly with IP address blocks that trace back to the State Capitol, etc., etc.

--Patrick

Apr 11, 2016#4

blotsfan

From what I've seen on reddit, it is definitely possible to enjoy transgender porn while still being incredibly transphobic.

Apr 11, 2016#5

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
possibly with IP address blocks that trace back to the State Capitol, etc., etc.

--Patrick

Good luck with that...

Apr 11, 2016#6

Terrik

/yawn. Call me when it's pornhub.

Apr 11, 2016#7

GasBandit

Or at least redtube.

Apr 11, 2016#8

bhamv3

I use a porn aggregator site. But sometimes I just go to xvideos because for some reason it seems to work the best for me.

Apr 11, 2016#9

strawman

Sounds like a double win for supporters of the bill. They'd probably be ecstatic if the rest of the online porn industry did the same thing.

Apr 11, 2016#10

Tress

stienman said:
Sounds like a double win for supporters of the bill. They'd probably be ecstatic if the rest of the online porn industry did the same thing.

I had the same thought. I can't imagine the supporters of that new law are going to shed a tear over porn being unavailable.

Apr 11, 2016#11

blotsfan

Man, you guys really underestimate the hypocrisy of the religious right.

Apr 11, 2016#12

GasBandit

This issue just exhausts my give-a-shit really. I have a hard time really shedding a tear for people who are upset that they can't pee where they want, or go hunting from bakery to bakery until they find someone who won't bake them a wedding cake. But on the other hand, the only reason we really consider it bad/wrong to pee in the presence of the other gender is because we were told it was bad/wrong when we were 2, and it's just arbitrary programming that has been reinforced all along. The whole thing exasperates me to no end. I'll pee with any of you, any time. Right next to you. Right ON you even. Whatever.

Apr 11, 2016#13

PatrThom

Tress said:
I can't imagine the supporters of that new law are going to shed a tear over porn being unavailable.

Oh, they won't get off that easy.

--Patrick

Apr 11, 2016#14

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
This issue just exhausts my give-a-shit really. I have a hard time really shedding a tear for people who are upset that they can't pee where they want, or go hunting from bakery to bakery until they find someone who won't bake them a wedding cake. But on the other hand, the only reason we really consider it bad/wrong to pee in the presence of the other gender is because we were told it was bad/wrong when we were 2, and it's just arbitrary programming that has been reinforced all along. The whole thing exasperates me to no end. I'll pee with any of you, any time. Right next to you. Right ON you even. Whatever.

Apr 12, 2016#15

Bubble181

I really wonder what some of these people do in some of the countries around the world where gender-based bathrooms are considered weird and useless.

Apr 12, 2016#16

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
This issue just exhausts my give-a-shit really. I have a hard time really shedding a tear for people who are upset that they can't pee where they want, or go hunting from bakery to bakery until they find someone who won't bake them a wedding cake. But on the other hand, the only reason we really consider it bad/wrong to pee in the presence of the other gender is because we were told it was bad/wrong when we were 2, and it's just arbitrary programming that has been reinforced all along. The whole thing exasperates me to no end. I'll pee with any of you, any time. Right next to you. Right ON you even. Whatever.

cis privilege is pretty nice, ain't it?

Apr 12, 2016#17

Hailey Knight

The transgender agenda is taking over America. At this rate, we'll have unisex bathrooms within our own homes![DOUBLEPOST=1460457209,1460457170][/DOUBLEPOST]

PatrThom said:
Oh, they won't get off that easy.

--Patrick

/thread

Apr 12, 2016#18

Charlie Don't Surf

Bubble181 said:
I really wonder what some of these people do in some of the countries around the world where gender-based bathrooms are considered weird and useless.

Well, they don't have to worry about getting beat to death because the wrong person saw them in the wrong bathroom for one

Apr 12, 2016#19

strawman

It's a complicated situation. If we increase access to one group, we necessarily increase access for another group, and it's not always a good thing.

http://socawlege.com/the-case-against-fully-shifting-to-gender-neutral-bathrooms/

Apr 12, 2016#20

blotsfan

I don't know that I want gender neutral bathrooms, but letting trams people use the gender they want to is an easy solution. I'm not gonna sit and worry about the hypothetical "man in drag uses transgender laws to rape women" that never actually happens as an excuse to make trans peoples' lives worse with these bathroom laws (which is clearly happening already).

Apr 12, 2016#21

Denbrought

stienman said:
It's a complicated situation. If we increase access to one group, we necessarily increase access for another group, and it's not always a good thing.

http://socawlege.com/the-case-against-fully-shifting-to-gender-neutral-bathrooms/

As a simple example, ask yourself, if a female student passes out at 3 a.m. in a bathroom stall, would you prefer another female find her, or have it be a coin flip whether the next person coming through that door is a male or female? Personally, I would prefer another female student find her, as opposed to a potentially intoxicated male.
Herein lies the biggest danger with gender neutral bathrooms – a potential for more sexual assault, and certainly more sexual harassment.

I don't feel like this is a given. Does this author have some kind of uncited statistics about trans rapists on college campuses that I don't have? I would much rather the intoxicated student be found by someone that won't take advantage to them--which, in my heavily anecdotal experience, means I'd rather ban cis lesbians from female bathrooms, instead of trans women.

Apr 12, 2016#22

Terrik

Denbrought said:
I don't feel like this is a given. Does this author have some kind of uncited statistics about trans rapists on college campuses that I don't have? I would much rather the intoxicated student be found by someone that won't take advantage to them--which, in my heavily anecdotal experience, means I'd rather ban cis lesbians from female bathrooms, instead of trans women.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm not exactly sure that the article is speaking of "trans rapists". When a lot of people bring this point up, it's usually under the assumption that there's literally nothing preventing anyone from using whatever bathroom that they want. What would define someone as trans? Do they need to register? Have an ID? If I wanted to walk into a bathroom and say, "Hey it's cool, I identify as a woman", would anyone stop me? I don't have a concrete opinion one way or another, but I'm pretty sure when people talk about the 'dangers', they aren't talking about trans people in particular, but the idea that either restroom can be opened up to whoever wants to get in, since the big push now isn't about which bathroom someone who's already post-op wants to go to, but which bathroom someone wants to go to that simply 'identifies' themselves as being of that gender.

Apr 12, 2016#23

Bubble181

Denbrought said:
I don't feel like this is a given. Does this author have some kind of uncited statistics about trans rapists on college campuses that I don't have? I would much rather the intoxicated student be found by someone that won't take advantage to them--which, in my heavily anecdotal experience, means I'd rather ban cis lesbians from female bathrooms, instead of trans women.

I agree, but if we separate bathrooms by which gender you're attracted to, where do we put the bi's? Won't someone think of the bi's?!

Slightly more seriously, there's always a risk of rape - it's not like it's impossible to enter the other gender's bathroom in a situation where you think someone's there to be taken advantage of. "Oh no, we have to give women separate bathrooms so they won't get raped" is the exact same reasoning of "we have to have women accompanied by an adult male of their family at all times", "we have to cover their bodies in a burka", "we should keep women in the house", and so on. Besides, while woefully under-reported, there's female-on-female rape, too.

Making sure women aren't raped in a bathroom is a matter of teaching people not to rape, not of putting punishing restrictions of otherwise innocent people, be it the average trans, woman, or man.

Apr 12, 2016#24

Terrik

Bubble181 said:
I agree, but if we separate bathrooms by which gender you're attracted to, where do we put the bi's? Won't someone think of the bi's?!

Slightly more seriously, there's always a risk of rape - it's not like it's impossible to enter the other gender's bathroom in a situation where you think someone's there to be taken advantage of. "Oh no, we have to give women separate bathrooms so they won't get raped" is the exact same reasoning of "we have to have women accompanied by an adult male of their family at all times", "we have to cover their bodies in a burka", "we should keep women in the house", and so on. Besides, while woefully under-reported, there's female-on-female rape, too.

Making sure women aren't raped in a bathroom is a matter of teaching people not to rape, not of putting punishing restrictions of otherwise innocent people, be it the average trans, woman, or man.

Out of curiosity, have any European countries implemented something similar to great success? Is this an example of the US coming 'late to the party', so to speak?

Apr 12, 2016#25

Dei

One of the more stressful things to me used to be when my son needed to use the bathroom when we were out and my husband wasn't with me. It wasn't acceptable to bring my 10 year old son into the women's room, and he wouldn't do it anyways because the door quite clearly said "women", but he would get distracted and vaguely stare into space in the men's bathroom to the point where I had to say fuck it and go in after him more than once.

The same also applies to dads who bring their young daughters places.

And what about single room public restrooms that are labeled by gender for no real reason?

Just separate all the toilets/urinals into stalls and who gives a fuck. Seriously.

Apr 12, 2016#26

Bubble181

Terrik said:
Out of curiosity, have any European countries implemented something similar to great success? Is this an example of the US coming 'late to the party', so to speak?

Yes and no. In some countries - IIRC mostly Scandinavian - there's a huge push to just general bathrooms for everyone. Here in Belgium, too, I've started seeing more and more restaurants/shops where the bathrooms aren't split by gender but have just urinals on one side and just stalls on the other (iow men who want to take a shit have to go into what would've been considered the women's bathroom before).
I won't say it's a very widespread trend anywhere around where I've been, so far, but I've seen it around, at least.

Apr 12, 2016#27

Denbrought

Terrik said:
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm not exactly sure that the article is speaking of "trans rapists". When a lot of people bring this point up, it's usually under the assumption that there's literally nothing preventing anyone from using whatever bathroom that they want. What would define someone as trans? Do they need to register? Have an ID? If I wanted to walk into a bathroom and say, "Hey it's cool, I identify as a woman", would anyone stop me? I don't have a concrete opinion one way or another, but I'm pretty sure when people talk about the 'dangers', they aren't talking about trans people in particular, but the idea that either restroom can be opened up to whoever wants to get in, since the big push now isn't about which bathroom someone who's already post-op wants to go to, but which bathroom someone wants to go to that simply 'identifies' themselves as being of that gender.

That's a much more charitable interpretation, thanks for pointing it out.

Bubble181 said:
I agree, but if we separate bathrooms by which gender you're attracted to, where do we put the bi's? Won't someone think of the bi's?!

We usually just go in our trusty frying pans, so we can fling the excreta at people to exploit the inherent Improved Invisibility.

Apr 12, 2016#28

Dei

Also, the rapist thing is just a fallacy to begin with in that example, because it already assumes a guy who is a rapist won't go in the women's bathroom in the middle of the night just because there's a gender sign.

It's also a fallacy because it assumes that if a guy finds a passed out girl first, he will clearly have to rape her.

Apr 12, 2016#29

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
cis privilege is pretty nice, ain't it?

In other news, half of every high school football team now identifies as female and there's nothing anybody gets to say about it, so open up the girls' showers, cause here they come.

Apr 12, 2016#30

Denbrought

Dei said:
It's also a fallacy because it assumes that if a guy finds a passed out girl first, he will clearly have to rape her.

I think the logic chain there is that stranger rape is committed by penis-havers more often that not, so increasing the amount of encounters between penis-havers and impaired adults necessarily increases the risk of rape.

The above can (I think?) be wholly addressed by your point above about rapists not caring about bathroom signs when prowling, and my request for hitherto-unknown-to-me statistics on the incidence of opportunity/stranger/first-time-offender/anything-please rape by transwomen in college.[DOUBLEPOST=1460471804,1460471325][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
In other news, half of every high school football team now identifies as female and there's nothing anybody gets to say about it, so open up the girls' showers, cause here they come.

High school football team members are allowed to question their gender identity. I hope they are not ridiculed and bullied due to this.

In other poorly-drawn-analogy news, desegregation leads to more black-on-white rape, but arguing for apartheid still makes you racist.

Edit: poorly-drawn because rapists gonna rape, and what's being argued re: bathrooms is that the incidences would increase, not merely change victims.

Apr 12, 2016#31

strawman

The article I posted was discussing removing gender signage from all restrooms and allowing all students to use all restrooms regardless of their gender, biological or expressed. In other words, no more men's and women's restrooms, simply "restrooms". This is being pushed by some student groups on some college campuses as a possible resolution to the transgender restroom issue.

In the example, a female passing out in the restroom has a 50/50 chance of being found by a male. The suggestion is that while a determined rapist won't care about signage, there are opportunist rapists who may take advantage of a situation that wouldn't otherwise be available since they generally conform to signage rules.

I don't know how likely this is. The article simply suggests that a drunk guy stumbling into a bathroom and finding a drunk girl might increase the odds of rape more than exist currently.

Are those odds greater than the odds of a transgender woman being beaten to death? They probably are, simply because the rape rate on campus is as high as 1 in five, while the transgender rate on campus isn't that high. But if the rape rate is already that high, is going to gender-less bathrooms going to increase it substantially? It might simply be noise compared to the already significant rate of campus rape.

This, however, is just a small portion of the gendered bathrooms in the US. Campus bathrooms might require different attitudes.

Personally, if a bathroom is intended of only one occupant (sink, toilet, no stalls), there's no need for any signage. If a bathroom has secure stalls (door that can be securely locked on each toilet/urinal/etc - not just the simple latches most bathrooms have) and the only open area would contain sinks, then it really doesn't matter there either. Most shared bathrooms have simple latches that are easily opened from the outside, and men's urinals have, at most, small privacy dividers. I wouldn't suggest merely changing the signage, the bathrooms need to change if we're going down this path.

And that doesn't even start to address the "safe space" and judgement issues. Some people often use the bathroom to retreat from others of the opposite gender, it's a small, almost always available way to protect themselves from others, or their anxiety of others.

Changing rooms and showers are a different situation altogether and I wouldn't lump them in with bathrooms when changing these laws.

Apr 12, 2016#32

blotsfan

GasBandit said:

"Fuck you. Got mine."

That's the libertarian way.

Apr 12, 2016#33

Charlie Don't Surf

if you're extrapolating bathrooms to showers, you're a huge fucking idiot, sorry!

Apr 12, 2016#34

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
"Fuck you. Got mine."

That's the libertarian way.

"Fuck you, gimme yours." That's the democrat way.

But it's not that. It's that it's turned into a sitcom where somebody got sick and they gave him a bell to ring whenever he needs something, and now he's driving everybody else nuts by ringing it every 10 seconds for everything, with the requests getting progressively more inane. "What bathroom you identify with" is the firstiest of first world problems and it is unreasonable to feel entitled to having a system put in place which would be subject to rampant exploitation just because a percentage-of-a-percentage minority doesn't feel their chromosomes.

As much as I'd like to say the answer is just to take the signs off all the doors and make everything unisex, there'd be a rather difficult transition period of a generation or two. Maybe that's a growing pain we'll just have to deal with, but let's not pretend that there aren't reasonable objections to potentially creating a problem hundreds of times more numerous than what it is supposed to solve.[DOUBLEPOST=1460474954,1460474790][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
if you're extrapolating bathrooms to showers, you're a huge fucking idiot, sorry!

Why? How is that not the next logical step in this chain of reasoning? What magic barrier says that peeing in comfort and safety is 100% different than showering/changing/etc in safety and comfort?

Also, you're ad homineming wrong.

Apr 12, 2016#35

Tress

Since you're already complaining about ad hominem, I'm pretty sure "Today it's bathrooms, tomorrow it's showers" falls under the "slippery slope" category of fallacies, Mr. Debate Rules.

Apr 12, 2016#36

Bubble181

Tress said:
Since you're already complaining about ad hominem, I'm pretty sure "Today it's bathrooms, tomorrow it's showers" falls under the "slippery slope" category of fallacies, Mr. Debate Rules.

Slippery something in those showers, anyway.

Apr 12, 2016#37

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
if you're extrapolating bathrooms to showers, you're a huge fucking idiot, sorry!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...banning-trans-student-from-girls-locker-room/

Transgender women students are already demanding they have access to changing and showering rooms for women, and some court cases are finding in their favor. Why are you calling them idiots?

Apr 12, 2016#38

Denbrought

Tress said:
Since you're already complaining about ad hominem, I'm pretty sure "Today it's bathrooms, tomorrow it's showers" falls under the "slippery slope" category of fallacies, Mr. Debate Rules.

Since you're correcting people on logic, please note that "slippery slope" is an argument, with both valid and fallacious uses. By saying that a slippery slope argument is necessarily a slipper slope fallacy, you are either begging the question or using a false equivalence (take your pick?).

I, for one, agree that desegregated bathrooms eventually leading to desegregated showers seems logical.

Apr 12, 2016#39

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
"Fuck you, gimme yours." That's the democrat way.

But this isn't even about money. It's about being treated equally. I'm cis so I don't think about it much but I'd imagine if I actually was trans, my gender identity would be on my mind a lot more, and having the government tell you "I don't care that you completely feel like a man/woman. You're wrong" would be a big slap in the face.

I guess I'd rather err on the side of treating people with respect.

Apr 12, 2016#40

Tinwhistler

Charlie Don't Surf said:
if you're extrapolating bathrooms to showers, you're a huge fucking idiot, sorry!

Of all the movies over the last 20 years, I would never have pegged Starship Troopers as being the culturally sensitive one

Apr 12, 2016#41

Charlie Don't Surf

Starship Troopers is a masterpiece

Apr 12, 2016#42

Tinwhistler

oh..and almost forgot Ally McBeal..also about 20 years ago

[DOUBLEPOST=1460476434,1460476224][/DOUBLEPOST]In all honesty, I think this whole bathroom thing is a minor issue compared to the other stuff in the NC law, and loss of protections based on sexual orientation and identity. But it's the one that people are talking the loudest about.

I've used the women's restroom many times in my life. I've seen women in the men's restroom. IDGAF. It's not a big deal. Being able to be denied service because you're gay, or being able to be fired because of it, is much bigger bullshit.

Apr 12, 2016#43

Denbrought

Tinwhistler said:
Of all the movies over the last 20 years, I would never have pegged Starship Troopers as being the culturally sensitive one

I love the little square on... Rico's? butt.

Apr 12, 2016#44

GasBandit

Tress said:
Since you're already complaining about ad hominem, I'm pretty sure "Today it's bathrooms, tomorrow it's showers" falls under the "slippery slope" category of fallacies, Mr. Debate Rules.

Actually, for it to be a slippery slope, there has to be no connection. Furthermore, there has been an observable trend/pattern in the social justice cause that shows that the goal of the struggle IS the continuation of the struggle itself.

Also, humorously enough, here, the guys use the women's room all the time just because it's a few steps closer.[DOUBLEPOST=1460477257,1460477098][/DOUBLEPOST]

blotsfan said:
But this isn't even about money. It's about being treated equally. I'm cis so I don't think about it much but I'd imagine if I actually was trans, my gender identity would be on my mind a lot more, and having the government tell you "I don't care that you completely feel like a man/woman. You're wrong" would be a big slap in the face.

I guess I'd rather err on the side of treating people with respect.

Sometimes a slap in the face is warranted. Why do the rights of the Trans community - again, a fraction of a fraction minority - trump the rights of the Cis?

Apr 12, 2016#45

Bubble181

Commence backtracking 3...2....1..... ;-)

Very personally, while I do believe there absolutely are people whose bodies and minds don't match up and are trans, I also question authorizing such big things as hormonal therapy and such for teens. About everyone has at one time or another felt uncomfortable with their own body during puberty. It's a time of experimentation. It's also a time where people are extremely sensitive to outside influences like being told what a "man" or "woman" should be like. On one hand, parents aren't allowing their children to get their ears pierced or to get a tattoo 'till they're adults, on the other there're parents allowing their children to permanently change their body. Again, like homosexuality, I do not think it's "merely a phase" for a lot of people. I do think it's "merely a phase" for some people - the amount of people who've had one or two homosexual experiments in high school/early college is quite a bit higher than the amount of homosexuals. I'd honestly and seriously say these transitions are probably better off put off 'till after they've gone through puberty. On the other hand, of course, I assume transitioning "works" a lot better when you start hormone treatments during the formative period of the body. I dunno. It's a matter I'm confused about, I'll freely admit. Boys being told often enough they're "not real men" for liking pink toys or wanting to do ballet, may find themselves doubting their own sexuality and be confused about themselves. Does that mean they're "feminine" or "actually a woman"? I don't think so.
I dunno, gender identity politics in high school seem to me to be just another way to make sure people are bullied and pestered for being slightly different. I have no clue how to deal with it properly.

That said, unisex bathrooms aren't exactly new or weird - quite the contrary, separate bathrooms are a fairly new invention. I'm sure we can manage.

Apr 12, 2016#46

General Specific

Not getting into the debate, it just reminded me of this:

Apr 12, 2016#47

bhamv3

Holy shit, Ally Mcbeal's nearly 20 years old?

That's it, it's official, I'm elderly now.

Apr 12, 2016#48

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
Sometimes a slap in the face is warranted. Why do the rights of the Trans community - again, a fraction of a fraction minority - trump the rights of the Cis?

Trans people want the existing cis right to use the bathroom that matches one's gender identity extended to them.

To me, this is akin to arguing that consensual white-black miscegenation should've remained illegal because those wishing to marry across racial lines were a very small minority, and their right to marry shouldn't trump the racially pure's rights to a society without mixed marriages.

Or, for extra fun, that bathrooms should've remained segregated because a black woman's right to use a desegregated toilet shouldn't trump a white woman's right to a non-negro-smelling bathroom (bless sci-hub):

Excerpt from “You Wouldn’t Want One of ‘Em Dancing With Your Wife”: Racialized Bodies on the Job in World War II by Eileen Boris

Concepts of purity that distinguished white women from African Americans lay behind discriminatory acts. 81 White workers based moral judgments on physical appearance; as one woman admitted, “I always thought colored people were not clean and smelled bad and weren’t as good as white people.” Manuals for managers attempted to counter notions fanned by racist southern politicians “that Negroes have a peculiar body odor; that it is unpleasant to remain in close proximity to them” and “that there is an extraordinarily high incidence of social disease among Negroes.” Syphilis rates were high among whites as well as blacks in areas of “low economic status.” Still some employers acted as if high black rates of syphilis were “a well-known scientific fact.” A hospital in Oakland, California, for example, refused to hire “experienced Negro girls” as dieticians because “Negroes couldn’t pass Wassermann tests.” A New York State handbook reminded managers that “the possibility of acquiring a venereal disease by contact with a toilet is exceeding remote.” Such manuals also pointed out that black women and men not only cleaned public and private toilets but care for children, prepare food, and “handle much of the linen and make up the beds of many white Americans.” A domestic’s touch could be ignored in ways that bodily closeness at the job apparently could not; private service work reinforced racialized gender hierarchies in ways that public intimacy undermined them. 82
Despite the attempt by some managers to alleviate fears, “the cleanliness taboo” generated resistance to using the same toilet, shower, and locker room facilities, especially on the part of white women. 83Sometimes these resisters merely threatened to leave work to see if they could push management to remove black women, but “had no intention of really going through with their threat because they knew it might jeopardize their own jobs,” as happened at a Buffalo, New York aircraft factory. 84 Other times they shut down production. Fifteen hundred United Automobile Union members walked out in the spring of 1944 when Chevrolet Motors refused “to rehire seven woman workers who had balked at working alongside four Negro women,” who presumably would use the same toilets. When more than half the labor force of the U.S. Rubber Company in Detroit struck a few months before, they demanded that black women machinists “be transferred” or the company provide separate toilets for them. In contrast, lack of racial friction at Pullman’s railroad operations may have derived from company adherence to segregated toilets and related facilities. 85 [End Page 94]
The hearing before the WLB over the December 1943 strike at the Baltimore Western Electric plant illuminates the racialized gendered subtext behind contests over employment discrimination. Toilet integration was central to this job action. Though only 200 out of 6,000 eligible employees participated in the strike vote, the presence of picket lines dropped attendance to about 30 percent of the workforce, with almost all black workers crossing the lines. The U.S. army took over this plant deemed vital to the war effort. 86

Apr 12, 2016#49

Charlie Don't Surf

bhamv3 said:
Holy shit, Ally Mcbeal's nearly 20 years old?

That's it, it's official, I'm elderly now.

Part of the disbelief for me is how good she looks on Supergirl, but again, modern medicine and science, etc

Apr 12, 2016#50

GasBandit

Denbrought said:
Trans people want the existing cis right to use the bathroom that matches one's gender identity extended to them.

To me, this is akin to arguing that consensual white-black miscegenation should've remained illegal because those wishing to marry across racial lines were a very small minority, and their right to marry shouldn't trump the racially pure's rights to a society without mixed marriages.

Or, for extra fun, that bathrooms should've remained segregated because a black woman's right to use a desegregated toilet shouldn't trump a white woman's right to a non-negro-smelling bathroom (bless sci-hub):

But those aren't equivalent things. It's not talking about "desegregating" the genders of bathrooms, it's talking about putting one who is demonstrably, physically NOT into the other because they feel it suits them better. It would be more akin to saying that a "negro" should be allowed to use a whites-only bathroom because they feel they are white, but leave the segregationist system intact.

Which is a different, asinine argument.

Apr 12, 2016#51

sixpackshaker

She's 51 not 75.

Apr 12, 2016#52

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
But those aren't equivalent things. It's not talking about "desegregating" the genders of bathrooms, it's talking about putting one who is demonstrably, physically NOT into the other because they feel it suits them better. It would be more akin to saying that a "negro" should be allowed to use a whites-only bathroom because they feel they are white, but leave the segregationist system intact.

Which is a different, asinine argument.

You're right, the situation is worse, because trans people don't even get their own bathrooms

Apr 12, 2016#53

GasBandit

Denbrought said:
You're right, the situation is even worse, because trans people don't even get their own bathrooms

Sure they do. And furthermore, unisex bathrooms are even a thing in some places.

I'm personally all for making every bathroom unisex and being done with it, but I know there are others who don't share my views and I'm not arrogant enough to say that my solution is the only one and vilify my opposition. Not that anybody in this argument does that, no sir.

Apr 12, 2016#54

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
Sure they do.

Then the situation is equivalent. [GROUP1] people want to use [GROUP2]-male and [GROUP2]-female bathrooms instead of their own separate but equal (taking you at face value here) facilities.

Bathroom desegregation wasn't about making males and females use the same bathroom, though the fear of black male rape was used to power a slippery slope argument, funnily enough. Google for sources.

E.g.

Apr 12, 2016#55

GasBandit

Denbrought said:
Then the situation is equivalent.

I think you misunderstand. I said "sure they do," not because there are separate trans bathrooms, but because bathrooms are already available for both genders - including the genders trans people actually are.

Apr 12, 2016#56

Dei

Like was said earlier, we only segregate by gender because we are raised to do so.

My mom got mad because my daughter said her dad told her about periods for fucks sake. Because "dads shouldn't be talking about that kind of thing with their daughters." The fuck are you smoking woman?!

(I believe she asked her dad why I was complaining about something while in the bathroom, so he just told her)

Apr 12, 2016#57

GasBandit

Dei said:
Like was said earlier, we only segregate by gender because we are raised to do so.

I said that

My mom got mad because my daughter said he told her about periods for fucks sake. Because "dads shouldn't be talking about that kind of thing with their daughters." The fuck are you smoking woman?!

I forget who said it, but there's a famous quote that says "Nobody actually changes their minds, the people who believe old ideas die, and new generations grow up already believing the new ideas to be the norm."

Apr 12, 2016#58

Denbrought

(Didn't mean to partially quote you, I was going off of your post as it was when I clicked Reply.)

Unisex bathrooms are far from universal, and thus an unreliable solution. The vast majority of bathroom sets I've encountered in my travel through the U.S. have been male/female (though I've been pleased by how many male GA bathrooms have baby-changing stations).

Yeah, I'm quite glad at how civil this is all being. You're a good sport about having your opinion compared and contrasted to segregation-era ones.

GasBandit said:
I think you misunderstand. I said "sure they do," not because there are separate trans bathrooms, but because bathrooms are already available for both genders - including the genders trans people actually are.

Ah.

Apr 12, 2016#59

GasBandit

Denbrought said:
(Didn't mean to partially quote you, I was going off of your post as it was when I clicked Reply.)

Unisex bathrooms are far from universal, and thus an unreliable solution. The vast majority of bathroom sets I've encountered in my travel through the U.S. have been male/female (though I've been pleased by how many male GA bathrooms have baby-changing stations).

Every single public restroom I stopped in in every airport on my recent trip had a baby changing station in the men's room, too. Two in Texas and one in Colorado.

Yeah, I'm quite glad at how civil this is all being. You're a good sport about having your opinion compared and contrasted to segregation-era ones.

Well, and one wildly-flung "fucking idiot" accusation and some other veiled implications, but otherwise, yeah.

Apr 12, 2016#60

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
Well, and one wildly-flung "fucking idiot" accusation and some other veiled implications, but otherwise, yeah.

"average halforumite insults everyone 10 times a day" factoid actualy (sic) just statistical error. average halforumite insults everyone 0 times a day. Insults Charl, who lives in cave & posts over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.

Apr 12, 2016#61

Sara_2814

This ban may have more impact than you think. Does Watching Porn Make People Less Religious?

If you had to guess, you’d probably say that people who watch a lot of pornography are less likely to be religious. And you’d be right — to a point. But according to this study, which looked at the connection between porn viewing and later religiosity, there actually appeared to be a more complicated relationship between porn and religious sentiments. More specifically, people who watched no porn were likely to be religious, and religious levels declined with more frequent porn use up to “once a week.” But as viewing got more frequent — up to “once a day or more” — religiosity actually went back up. This just might be the best use of our “Holy correlation, Batman!” blog post category to date!

Apr 12, 2016#62

Gruebeard

Well crap. I'm gonna have to cut back my masturbation schedule. That sucks. I'm gonna have to raise my prostitute budget. But it's worth it, I guess, so I don't catch religion.[DOUBLEPOST=1460497614,1460497034][/DOUBLEPOST]Here's my poetry homework Ms @Emrys

Surfing xHamster was a sure way to make me cum
Everyday. Twice even! Sometimes thrice! Such fun!
Then I found God
And oh my Lord!
Now I can't stopping jacking off to pictures of nuns.

(I'm so sorry, @stienman)

(and Dirona)

(and everyone else)

Apr 12, 2016#63

GasBandit

Apr 12, 2016#64

ThatNickGuy

GasBandit said:
I have a hard time really shedding a tear for people who are upset that they can't pee where they want

What about people who are beaten or even killed just for wanting to empty their bladder? I was told a story of a student who was not only severely beaten within an inch of their life, but also urinated on by their attackers.

Apr 12, 2016#65

GasBandit

ThatNickGuy said:
What about people who are beaten or even killed just for wanting to empty their bladder? I was told a story of a student who was not only severely beaten within an inch of their life, but also urinated on by their attackers.

As callous as it sounds, I need to ask for citations on this one.

As for the other side of the coin...

Man Strips In Women’s locker room, Says New Transgender Rules Make It Legal

Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter

California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom

These are not transgender people, these are predators who would abuse the loophole that is created when you let anyone decide what bathroom they get to use with only themselves as judge.[DOUBLEPOST=1460506366,1460505832][/DOUBLEPOST]

"I'm a trans-ginger. I looked it up. It means I can use the girls' shitter."

Apr 12, 2016#66

ThatNickGuy

GasBandit said:
As callous as it sounds, I need to ask for citations on this one.

As for the other side of the coin...

Man Strips In Women’s locker room, Says New Transgender Rules Make It Legal

Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter

California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom

These are not transgender people, these are predators who would abuse the loophole that is created when you let anyone decide what bathroom they get to use with only themselves as judge.

I don't have a citation for it, unfortunately. It was a story my sister relayed to me through a friend of hers. Her friend is a transgender professor at a university who also runs a support group. And they had to drive a badly beaten student to the hospital.

And really, those predators would have found a way to do their thing regardless. That's a separate issue from letting transgenders use a washroom.[DOUBLEPOST=1460506524,1460506407][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
As callous as it sounds, I need to ask for citations on this one.

As for the other side of the coin...

Man Strips In Women’s locker room, Says New Transgender Rules Make It Legal

Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter

California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom

These are not transgender people, these are predators who would abuse the loophole that is created when you let anyone decide what bathroom they get to use with only themselves as judge.[DOUBLEPOST=1460506366,1460505832][/DOUBLEPOST]

"I'm a trans-ginger. I looked it up. It means I can use the girls' shitter."

*sigh* And I'm out if you're going to use images like that to mock the issue that my transgender friends are terrified over.

Apr 12, 2016#67

blotsfan

Well, those seem to be outliers. Certainly not as prevalent as say, deaths from firearms.

And holy shit Gas, you completely missed the point of that South Park episode.

Apr 12, 2016#68

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Well, those seem to be outliers. Certainly not as prevalent as say, deaths from firearms.

And holy shit Gas, you completely missed the point of that South Park episode.

The thing is, that episode wraps everything up nicely in 22 minutes and everybody's happy.

In real life, the Cartmans win.

ThatNickGuy said:
And really, those predators would have found a way to do their thing regardless. That's a separate issue from letting transgenders use a washroom.

The difference is now, like that guy in Seattle, they have legal protection to do so. I shouldn't have to point out how much that changes things.

I don't have a citation for it, unfortunately. It was a story my sister relayed to me through a friend of hers. Her friend is a transgender professor at a university who also runs a support group. And they had to drive a badly beaten student to the hospital.

*sigh* And I'm out if you're going to use images like that to mock the issue that my transgender friends are terrified over.

I'm not trying to mock the issue, and I'm not trying to belittle your point. But do you understand where I'm coming from when, in a discussion of this nature, I'm to debate a story you heard from your sister who heard it from her friend? How am I even supposed to address that?

Apr 12, 2016#69

ThatNickGuy

GasBandit said:
I'm not trying to mock the issue, and I'm not trying to belittle your point. But do you understand where I'm coming from when, in a discussion of this nature, I'm to debate a story you heard from your sister who heard it from her friend? How am I even supposed to address that?

I don't know. I don't know why I bothered posting in here. I'm not a good debater and I'm not equipped to deal with it. Just forget I said anything.

Apr 12, 2016#70

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
Here's my poetry homework Ms @Emrys

Something something picking up bad habits.

--Patrick

Apr 13, 2016#71

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
Something something picking up bad habits.

--Patrick

Pick up her clothes? I'll have nun of that.

Apr 14, 2016#72

Emrys

Gruebeard said:
Well crap. I'm gonna have to cut back my masturbation schedule. That sucks. I'm gonna have to raise my prostitute budget. But it's worth it, I guess, so I don't catch religion.[DOUBLEPOST=1460497614,1460497034][/DOUBLEPOST]Here's my poetry homework Ms @Emrys

Surfing xHamster was a sure way to make me cum
Everyday. Twice even! Sometimes thrice! Such fun!
Then I found God
And oh my Lord!
Now I can't stopping jacking off to pictures of nuns.

(I'm so sorry, @stienman)

(and Dirona)

(and everyone else)

Hon, we need to talk.

Apr 14, 2016#73

Frank

GasBandit said:
As callous as it sounds, I need to ask for citations on this one.

As for the other side of the coin...

Man Strips In Women’s locker room, Says New Transgender Rules Make It Legal

Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter

California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom

These are not transgender people, these are predators who would abuse the loophole that is created when you let anyone decide what bathroom they get to use with only themselves as judge.[DOUBLEPOST=1460506366,1460505832][/DOUBLEPOST]

"I'm a trans-ginger. I looked it up. It means I can use the girls' shitter."

Straight sexual predators commit crime, let's punish transgender people who didn't.

Apr 14, 2016#74

Bubble181

Frank said:
Straight sexual predators commit crime, let's punish transgender people who didn't.

Look, if there's some way someone can abuse an otherwise good law, it's clear the only way of recourse is to abolish the law, not to try and close the loopholes or crack down on those abusing it.

I'm being sarcastic for those who would fail to tell.

Apr 14, 2016#75

strawman

Bubble181 said:
an otherwise good law

Which is the entire question. There are a number of people with different perspectives, and no one law is going to satisfy all their needs, so we have to figure out the best balance.

What you see as a "good law" might be viewed as a bad law by someone else with different priorities and life experiences.

Bubble181 said:
close the loopholes

For information on successful attempts to close loopholes, see corporations and the government regulation, or just read the IRS tax code.

Bubble181 said:
crack down on those abusing it.

See also every politician ever.

Apr 14, 2016#76

Dei

Quite frankly, I think making laws pertaining to bathrooms in general is also ridiculous, but since a small percentage of people turn into assholes the second they aren't having their hand held, we can't have nice things.

Apr 14, 2016#77

strawman

Dei said:
Quite frankly, I think making laws pertaining to bathrooms in general is also ridiculous, but since a small percentage of people turn into assholes the second they aren't having their hand held, we can't have nice things.

The origin of the laws around gendered bathrooms seems to be one of equality, actually. Workplaces often had bathrooms for their largely male workforce, and the women had to find other facilities as they entered traditionally male dominated work areas. So legislation was designed that required 50/50 split of male/female restroom facilities, and the capacity of the facilities based on the total workforce, not based on the actual gender split of the workforce. According to slate, that is.

Apr 14, 2016#78

Dei

Which is my point.[emoji14]

Apr 14, 2016#79

GasBandit

Frank said:
Straight sexual predators commit crime, let's punish transgender people who didn't.

This is a highly suspect definition of "punish." Again, not peeing in the room you want to is the firstiest of first world problems.

But as I said, I'm all for making all bathrooms unisex and having done with it. I just don't think it'd go over well. But maintaining "This is the women's room only for women and this is the men's room only for men but you can use whichever one feels right to you" is asinine, and yes, it has already demonstrably enabled "straight sexual predators" (which vastly outnumber the transgendered) to be acting within the law.

If reality offends your sensibilities, so be it. Seems to be more and more of that going around.

Apr 14, 2016#80

Tinwhistler

A trend I've noticed is places (such as restaurants) having 2 gendered restrooms for mass use (multiple stalls, urinals, etc), and then a single-use "family" restroom that's gender neutral that anyone can use.

Seems like a fairly practical solution to a number of problems: taking your little boy/girl into the restroom of the opposite gender, for instance. Or having a safe single-person restroom to use no matter how you self-identify. Or, as in my case, being pee shy

Apr 14, 2016#81

Dei

Well, my son will only use stalls and not urinals. You don't need a family restroom for that.

I have seen mothers give people who use the family restroom solo dirty looks.

Apr 14, 2016#82

Fun Size

Sure, but as a wise man once said, "Fuck em."

Apr 14, 2016#83

PatrThom

It seems like this could be easily solved in 20-50 years (as was suggested earlier).
1) Amend the legislation @stienman alludes to so that it mandates a minimum number of unisex rest rooms (with a minimum of 1).
2) As the years go by, increase the unisex minimum to 50%, and then higher.
3) Eventually, unisex rest rooms become the norm, and it'll be the weirdo "gender-rigid" (mostly old) people who have to have accommodations made for their special needs.

--Patrick

Apr 14, 2016#84

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
It seems like this could be easily solved in 20-50 years (as was suggested earlier).
1) Amend the legislation @stienman alludes to so that it mandates a minimum number of unisex rest rooms (with a minimum of 1).
2) As the years go by, increase the unisex minimum to 50%, and then higher.
3) Eventually, unisex rest rooms become the norm, and it'll be the weirdo "gender-rigid" (mostly old) people who have to have accommodations made for their special needs.

--Patrick

Well, the construction/renovation industry would sure thank you a lot.

Apr 14, 2016#85

strawman

PatrThom said:
It seems like this could be easily solved in 20-50 years (as was suggested earlier).
1) Amend the legislation @stienman alludes to so that it mandates a minimum number of unisex rest rooms (with a minimum of 1).
2) As the years go by, increase the unisex minimum to 50%, and then higher.
3) Eventually, unisex rest rooms become the norm, and it'll be the weirdo "gender-rigid" (mostly old) people who have to have accommodations made for their special needs.

--Patrick

So you've chosen to assume that unisex restrooms are the correct universal answer, and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong, and needs to be marginalized?

Apr 14, 2016#86

blotsfan

Well the correct solution is to let people use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, but we gotta cater to bigots' sensitivities.

Apr 14, 2016#87

Dave

stienman said:
So you've chosen to assume that unisex restrooms are the correct universal answer, and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong, and needs to be marginalized?

I would think that's about right. But make sure that the stall doors are all sturdy and have locks like real doors, not like the pieces of crap that we have now. And while you think they are marginalized, disagreeing with a question of equality is something that I can get behind marginalizing. What I mean by that is, anti-gay marriage people feel marginalized but since it's a matter of equality I don't give a shit.

Apr 14, 2016#88

sixpackshaker

Without gender specific restrooms, where will women go to gossip about their dates?

Apr 14, 2016#89

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Well the correct solution is to let people use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, but we gotta cater to bigots' sensitivities.

Explain to the class how the guardian of three preteen girls objecting to a straight, cisgendered man claiming trans status so that he has the legal right to be in the bathroom with them (because there's no acceptable "auditing" process for transgenderism) is "bigotry" against the transgendered. Or anyone else for that matter.

Apr 14, 2016#90

Dei

And... We're back to bathrooms needing to be regulated by laws again. I'm still waiting for the woman who use men's restrooms to dodge lines to get arrested.

Apr 14, 2016#91

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Well, the construction/renovation industry would sure thank you a lot.

All you really gotta do is change the signs on the doors of existing construction.

stienman said:
So you've chosen to assume that unisex restrooms are the correct universal answer, and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong, and needs to be marginalized?

Yes, I believe that people should not be allowed to urinate nor defecate in unisex kitchens, unisex bedrooms, unisex hot tubs, or unisex patios, only in unisex bathrooms.

--Patrick

Apr 14, 2016#92

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
All you really gotta do is change the signs on the doors of existing construction.

A lot of places don't have the third "family" restroom, and beyond that, changing two large and one small room to two small and one large room definitely would require some wall-knocking.

Yes, I believe that people should not be allowed to urinate nor defecate in unisex kitchens,

Well don't tell Ashburner that.

Apr 14, 2016#93

PatrThom

What really puts the lie to "We need a law!" is the fact that this is not a thing we do in our own homes. My wife and I do not have separate restrooms. "Oh but you are married and that's different," I might hear you say. Well, this is the same bathroom we allow to be used by other family members (kids, in-laws), their guests, or even strangers off the street (when the building was still a business). Clearly what I am hearing in this argument is not that we need bathrooms segregated by gender, we need our bathrooms to be separated into "Us" and "Them," where we and ours get to use the "Us" bathroom, and everyone else is forced to use the "Them" bathroom so We don't have to look at Them.

--Patrick

Apr 14, 2016#94

Denbrought

PatrThom said:
What really puts the lie to "We need a law!" is the fact that this is not a thing we do in our own homes. My wife and I do not have separate restrooms. "Oh but you are married and that's different," I might hear you say. Well, this is the same bathroom we allow to be used by other family members (kids, in-laws), their guests, or even strangers off the street (when the building was still a business). Clearly what I am hearing in this argument is not that we need bathrooms segregated by gender, we need our bathrooms to be separated into "Us" and "Them," where we and ours get to use the "Us" bathroom, and everyone else is forced to use the "Them" bathroom so We don't have to look at Them.

--Patrick

To be fair, home bathrooms tend to be single-occupancy, which does make gender separation kind of moot. When multiple people can use the bathroom at once is when people want segregated options, most often.

Apr 14, 2016#95

Dave

You also don't have multiple people using the bathroom at the same time, so it doesn't quite equate.[DOUBLEPOST=1460664285,1460664271][/DOUBLEPOST]NINJA!!!

Apr 14, 2016#96

PatrThom

Dave said:
You also don't have multiple people using the bathroom at the same time, so it doesn't quite equate.

...I thought you said you were married and have kids?
Now you say a thing that makes me question this.

--Patrick

Apr 14, 2016#97

Dave

PatrThom said:
...I thought you said you were married and have kids?
Now you say a thing that makes me question this.

--Patrick

My kids are 22 & 25. Maybe when they were little this was a thing, but when they were that age they'd go into whichever PUBLIC restroom we took them into as well.

Apr 14, 2016#98

Ravenpoe

So, since some of these articles claim that unisex bathrooms will only lead to women being raped, because a man in a bathroom with a woman is going to undoubtedly rape her, then wouldn't that mean forcing a transgender woman to use the mens room is sending her in to be raped?

Apr 14, 2016#99

Gruebeard

Ravenpoe said:
then wouldn't that mean forcing a transgender woman to use the mens room is sending her in to be raped?

Only by a gay* man, since this transgendered woman would have to be male to make it past the screening process to enter the mens room.

*or at least bi-curious[DOUBLEPOST=1460668443,1460668334][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh wait. Chuck's not in this thread. Please ignore my lame trolling.

Apr 14, 2016#100

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Explain to the class how the guardian of three preteen girls objecting to a straight, cisgendered man claiming trans status so that he has the legal right to be in the bathroom with them (because there's no acceptable "auditing" process for transgenderism) is "bigotry" against the transgendered. Or anyone else for that matter.

Because you know goddamn well that the people who are passing these laws couldn't care less about that. They're the same people who were opposed to integration when that was socially acceptable. Then they moved on to gay people. Now that thats going out of vogue, they've moved on to trans people. You don't think its a coincidence that this has become a hot-button topic pretty shortly after gay marriage was legalized? As I posted earlier, the number of times what you're describing has happened in the states that have already passed laws allowing trans people to choose their bathroom is negligible. But by all means keep on touting that line.

Apr 14, 2016#101

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Because you know goddamn well that the people who are passing these laws couldn't care less about that. They're the same people who were opposed to integration when that was socially acceptable. Then they moved on to gay people. Now that thats going out of vogue, they've moved on to trans people. You don't think its a coincidence that this has become a hot-button topic pretty shortly after gay marriage was legalized? As I posted earlier, the number of times what you're describing has happened in the states that have already passed laws allowing trans people to choose their bathroom is negligible. But by all means keep on touting that line.

That sure is a whole lot of unsubstantiated non sequitur in one paragraph. And I posted news articles, you posted mediamatters propaganda that did not source its assertions.

By all means, keep on demonizing anybody who disagrees with you. Smiley Face Fascism 2016.

Apr 14, 2016#102

strawman

blotsfan said:
They're the same people who were opposed to integration

You mean the democrats?[DOUBLEPOST=1460683469,1460683399][/DOUBLEPOST]That's flippant and not worth replying to, of course, but you're strongly showing evidence that you are more interested in dismissing other people's experience and choices than you are in engaging and embracing their differences.

Apr 14, 2016#103

ScytheRexx

All I have to add to this is if public bathrooms go unisex using the same structure we have now (aka just removing the signs) I will never be able to poop in a public restroom again. I have a weird tick were I have trouble letting loose when another person is able to hear it, and this urge quadruple when a female is nearby. Not saying my tick is more important than Transgender equality, but that if we do go through with it we need a total revamp of how bathrooms are designed (I like the fully closed private stale idea) otherwise the whole system will cause more harm then good.

Apr 14, 2016#104

Dei

My dad will never poop in a public restroom. Ever.

Apr 14, 2016#105

GasBandit

I have a friend like that, too. He'd rather hold it until his colon ruptures than poop in a public restroom.

Apr 14, 2016#106

Dave

Apr 14, 2016#107

ScytheRexx

Sometimes you don't have a choice about where you poop though. You are fifty miles from home and have to go now, damn it!

Strangely I am usually okay if the restroom is packed to the brim with people, like the airport, because all the sound of people coming and going sort of drowns out anything else and no one really pays attention to eachother. It's the times you are in the restroom and only one or two other people are in there, it just makes me uncomfortable. There was one time a duo of guys walked into a restroom to talk just as I sat down to go. I sat there for 15 minutes while they talked, holding it the whole time, before they finally left. Like I said, this feels worst around women, which is why I can't go at all if I know a woman is nearby or can hear me, even my wife.

Apr 14, 2016#108

Dei

ScytheRexx said:
Sometimes you don't have a choice about where you poop though. You are fifty miles from home and have to go now, damn it!

Strangely I am usually okay if the restroom is packed to the brim with people, like the airport, because all the sound of people coming and going sort of drowns out anything else and no one really pays attention to eachother. It's the times you are in the restroom and only one or two other people are in there, it just makes me uncomfortable. There was one time a duo of guys walked into a restroom to talk just as I sat down to go. I sat there for 15 minutes while they talked, holding it the whole time, before they finally left. Like I said, this feels worst around women, which is why I can't go at all if I know a woman is nearby or can hear me, even my wife.

You say that, but my dad has quite literally left us sitting at a restaurant to drive home to poop, saying he'll pick us up when he's done. I'm sure he's had no choice and done otherwise before, but it was probably at such a dire time that there was no time to even consider still being able to hold it.

Apr 14, 2016#109

blotsfan

stienman said:
That's flippant and not worth replying to, of course, but you're strongly showing evidence that you are more interested in dismissing other people's experience and choices than you are in engaging and embracing their differences.

Forgive me for not being interested in "embracing differences" when that difference is whether or not all people deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it deserves to be treated like its valid.

Whatever though. I guess I'm done here. When you guys decide that equal rights matter more than imaginary boogeymen, let me know.

Apr 14, 2016#110

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Forgive me for not being interested in "embracing differences" when that difference is whether or not all people deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it deserves to be treated like its valid.

Whatever though. I guess I'm done here. When you guys decide that equal rights matter more than imaginary boogeymen, let me know.

That's a blatant oversimplification and a false dichotomy. You're unwilling to entertain even the idea that there can be any position other than "Agree with blotsfan" and "oppression." You're not even willing to address points. You're only interested in shouting down and demonizing.

Maybe it would be best for you to be "done" with these discussions, it sounds like it might be bad for your blood pressure.

Apr 14, 2016#111

Hailey Knight

I forgot about this thread and what the fuck.

I'll have to play catch-up in the morning; this thing exploded.

Apr 15, 2016#112

bhamv3

I prefer pooping in public toilets to pooping at home.

My reasoning is entirely selfish. We need to scrub our own toilets at home.

Apr 15, 2016#113

Hailey Knight

Well, the topic seems to have moved on from the emotionally-charged serious discussion, so I won't dredge it up further.

Apr 15, 2016#114

Charlie Don't Surf

I didn't think there were that many real people like "Shitbrick" from American Pie. (that movie's almost 20 years old fuck)

Apr 15, 2016#115

Tinwhistler

I can poop anywhere...but I hate peeing in urinals. I fully recognize that the problems stems from growing up in a little hick town where people were apt to fuck with you in the restroom in high school while you were vulnerable. And I fully recognize that those days are long past. But my dick, he don't care. heh

Apr 15, 2016#116

PatrThom

ScytheRexx said:
Sometimes you don't have a choice about where you poop though. You are fifty miles from home and have to go now, damn it!

I keep a roll of toilet paper in my car for whoever might need it, 'cuz you really never know, but when you know, you know NOW. And there's no guarantee there's gonna be toilet paper there.

--Patrick

Apr 15, 2016#117

Dave

I can and have pooped anywhere. I'm like my dog. I'll even make eye contact.

Apr 15, 2016#118

strawman

Dave said:
I can and have pooped anywhere. I'm like my dog. I'll even make eye contact.

I'm guessing that, like eating and so many other things, in the military you don't know when you next might be able to perform a necessary task, so you learn quickly to do it when you can, whether you feel like you need to or not.

Apr 15, 2016#119

Dave

stienman said:
I'm guessing that, like eating and so many other things, in the military you don't know when you next might be able to perform a necessary task, so you learn quickly to do it when you can, whether you feel like you need to or not.

Yup. There are two or three things you never pass up the chance to do - poop, eat, and sleep. Not necessarily in that order. Or at the same time.

Apr 15, 2016#120

GasBandit

I was never in the military, but all four of my parents were. I don't know if that has any bearing on my lack of bathroom shyness.

Apr 15, 2016#121

Covar

blotsfan said:
You don't think its a coincidence that this has become a hot-button topic pretty shortly after gay marriage was legalized?

Not at all, but not in the way you might think. This law was passed as a direct response to a law that was put in place by the Charlotte city council.

Apr 15, 2016#122

PatrThom

Dave said:
I can and have pooped anywhere. I'm like my dog. I'll even make eye contact.

I want a shaky version of your avatar now, with POOPING INTENSIFIES written across the bottom.

--Patrick

Apr 15, 2016#123

GasBandit

Apr 15, 2016#124

strawman

Makes me wonder what the outcome of female only or male only services will be, given the legal "equality" charges being dropped against those that prefer gender bathrooms, businesses, and services:

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/articl...nd-man-babies-are-angry-about-it?cid=trending

You can bet that if a cake shop started selling cakes to only women they'd get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit lickety split.

So at what point do you discern a difference between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination? And if we can't have gender based bathrooms, why should we ever let clubs, businesses, and other organizations have gender discrimination? Do we now force all battered women's shelters to become battered people's shelters with co-ed dormitories?

We could go that route, but then how do we address the women and men that don't feel comfortable using a male Uber late at night, for instance? Why can't the business provide a desired but discriminatory service?

We've already seen lawsuits and bad outcomes regarding the placement of transgender individuals into men's and women's prisons. I wonder if the unisex bathroom people have any arguments for unisex bathrooms that don't equally apply to prisons, or if they're hoping to combine the sexes in all aspects of society.

Apr 15, 2016#125

Denbrought

PatrThom said:
I want a shaky version of your avatar now, with POOPING INTENSIFIES written across the bottom.

--Patrick

zug zug

Apr 15, 2016#126

GasBandit

Apr 15, 2016#127

Denbrought

GasBandit said:

Apr 15, 2016#128

strawman

Denbrought said:

/stolen from someone funnier than me

It must be nice to have the liberty and freedom to refuse service to groups of people you disagree with.

Apr 15, 2016#129

GasBandit

This thread in a nutshell

Apr 15, 2016#130

PatrThom

Denbrought said:

Well, when NC finally figures out the way to make the legislature reflect the actual will of their people, maybe they can communicate their success with the other 49.

--Patrick

Apr 15, 2016#131

Hailey Knight

Which public restroom should he use?

Apr 15, 2016#132

Denbrought

Zero Esc said:
Which public restroom should he use?

He can use my private one instead, if he spends the night :unibrow:

Apr 15, 2016#133

Gruebeard

Zero Esc said:
Which public restroom should he use?

One nowhere near me so I stand a chance with @Denbrought

Apr 20, 2016#134

Zappit

Dave said:
I can and have pooped anywhere. I'm like my dog. I'll even make eye contact.

And that's why Dave hasn't been invited to a dinner party in over a decade.

Apr 20, 2016#135

Dave

Zappit said:
And that's why Dave hasn't been invited to a dinner party in over a decade.

Actually it's because I eat like this:

And yes, I wear the outfit.

May 11, 2016#136

Tinwhistler

Zero Esc said:
Which public restroom should he use?

This fella's crossed my radar again recently..

Breast reduction scars are a lot more obvious in this pic, but out in public, I'd never give either a second look. They look very much like the gender they've transitioned to.

May 11, 2016#137

strawman

I'm pretty sure that those two wouldn't be questioned or stopped going into the men's and women's restrooms.

I'd also expect most people who agree with the North Carolina law would also agree that people who've gone through complete gender reassignment surgery and changed their gender on federal documents should go in the bathroom they physically and legally represent.

so I don't think those individuals provide a good rebuttal to the law, particularly since they would likely not be stopped in the first place.

May 11, 2016#138

GasBandit

The objection raised by those who support North Carolina's position isn't that it would let Andreja in the women's room, it's that it would let ME in the women's room, because if I say I'm a transwoman, there is absolutely no way to verify my assertion without it being a hate crime. Looking as I am, dressing as I am, beard and all.

May 11, 2016#139

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
The objection raised by those who support North Carolina's position isn't that it would let Andreja in the women's room, it's that it would let ME in the women's room, because if I say I'm a transwoman, there is absolutely no way to verify my assertion without it being a hate crime. Looking as I am, dressing as I am, beard and all.

They can shove you to the ground and strip you naked, so they can feel safe.

May 11, 2016#140

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
They can shove you to the ground and strip you naked, so they can feel safe.

You say that like it's a bad thing. :unibrow:

HELLO LADIES, I HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO BE HERE, WANT TO CHECK?

May 11, 2016#141

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
The objection raised by those who support North Carolina's position isn't that it would let Andreja in the women's room, it's that it would let ME in the women's room, because if I say I'm a transwoman, there is absolutely no way to verify my assertion without it being a hate crime. Looking as I am, dressing as I am, beard and all.

Whats stopping me from insisting I'm a FTM transgender person and I'm just trying to follow the law by using the bathroom that matches how I was born?

May 11, 2016#142

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Whats stopping me from insisting I'm a FTM transgender person and I'm just trying to follow the law by using the bathroom that matches how I was born?

Your birth certificate, according to the NC law.

May 11, 2016#143

blotsfan

Which I don't carry on me when I use the bathroom.

May 11, 2016#144

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Which I don't carry on me when I use the bathroom.

So basically, it will boil down to if someone else thinks you belong where you are or not, and if a fuss is thrown, that part comes out when you produce your birth certificate before a judge. Otherwise, if you are Aydian or Andreja you simply chuckle to yourself because the cisnormies are none the wiser.

It's almost as if the law isn't intended to persecute them, isn't it?

May 11, 2016#145

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
It's almost as if the law isn't intended to persecute them, isn't it?

Thats so delightfully naive. Do you feel the same about the "religious freedom" bills that allow people to discriminate against gay and lesbian people?

So basically, a trans person who cant afford the paperwork and hassle to legally change all of the documentation can't live the life how they please. Or what about someone who is in the middle of transitioning and might not fully "pass" yet? Should they just be forced to live like the gender they're doing a lot to not have to?

People have just been using the bathroom of their choice forever and there haven't been issues. This law is purely because the bigoted right lost gay marriage and now is using trans people as the new boogeyman. Unless you think the timing is a big coincidence.

May 11, 2016#146

Reverent-one

blotsfan said:
Thats so delightfully naive. Do you feel the same about the "religious freedom" bills that allow people to discriminate against gay and lesbian people?

No, they don't. Can you cite a single case in which someone successfully used a religious freedom bill (either the federal one or a state version) to allow discrimination? There have been a few attempts, but they've all been denied because the law does not work that way.

May 11, 2016#147

blotsfan

And hopefully this law gets destroyed for the same reasons. That doesn't change the reason those laws were passed though.

May 11, 2016#148

Dei

Because it's only wrong if a pedophile molests a child in the bathroom, if it's happening in the bathroom of the opposite gender.

May 11, 2016#149

Reverent-one

The various religious freedom bills aren't destroyed just because a few people attempted to use them in ways they aren't meant to be used and failed. While some of those advocating for them misunderstand how they work as much as those against them do, they do provide a useful standard to protect religious rights without overreaching.

May 11, 2016#150

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
So basically, a trans person who cant afford the paperwork and hassle to legally change all of the documentation can't live the life how they please. Or what about someone who is in the middle of transitioning and might not fully "pass" yet? Should they just be forced to live like the gender they're doing a lot to not have to?

If they're transitioning, I dare say the "paperwork and hassle" of changing their documentation is a drop in their bucket compared to that of getting the gender reassignment surgery required to change the gender on the birth certificate.

People have just been using the bathroom of their choice forever and there haven't been issues. This law is purely because the bigoted right lost gay marriage and now is using trans people as the new boogeyman. Unless you think the timing is a big coincidence.

Actually, there HAVE been issues, directly brought about by the government getting involved in the first place, which have been linked earlier in this thread. The North Carolina state law was a reaction to a city law specifically codifying "anyone can use any bathrom they say they feel they identify with." It didn't just come out of the blue by way of the governor of NC said "Ok, NOW is the time to oppress some trannies, muahaha!" And BOTH laws only pertained to government facilities. THEN the federal government got involved and handed down the legal opinion that anyone can use any bathroom they say they feel they identify with in both public AND privately owned properties.

As usual, this is yet another case of there not being a problem until governments got involved and made everything worse. If the Charlotte City Council had just kept its SJWeenis in its pants and not made a bathroom bill in the first place, there wouldn't have been an issue at all.

May 11, 2016#151

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
If they're transitioning, I dare say the "paperwork and hassle" of changing their documentation is a drop in their bucket compared to that of getting the gender reassignment surgery required to change the gender on the birth certificate.

Not all trans people get the surgery.

GasBandit said:
As usual, this is yet another case of there not being a problem until governments got involved and made everything worse. If the Charlotte City Council had just kept its SJWeenis in its pants and not made a bathroom bill in the first place, there wouldn't have been an issue at all.

You were right about the timing of it, I just find it hard to look at the government passing a law to prevent discrimination as a bad thing just because it brings out the bigotry in people.

May 11, 2016#152

Hailey Knight

I have a feeling the first person stopped by this law isn't going to be a trans woman, but a cisgender woman whose features or clothing don't conform to expectations of femininity.

May 11, 2016#153

Dei

It's already happened. I've read about a few examples.

May 11, 2016#154

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Not all trans people get the surgery.

But that's what is required in most states to change the gender on your birth certificate. And it's an imperfect standard, yes. But there is literally no good place to draw a line and say "this, this right here is how you prove you're transgender."

You were right about the timing of it, I just find it hard to look at the government passing a law to prevent discrimination as a bad thing just because it brings out the bigotry in people.

It's a bad thing when it's a bad law that can be abused by bad people to unintended effect. You know what paves the road to hell.

May 11, 2016#155

Hailey Knight

Dei said:
It's already happened. I've read about a few examples.

May 11, 2016#156

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
But that's what is required in most states to change the gender on your birth certificate. And it's an imperfect standard, yes. But there is literally no good place to draw a line and say "this, this right here is how you prove you're transgender."

Which is why I don't think you should have to prove it. Just use the bathroom you're comfortable with.

GasBandit said:
It's a bad thing when it's a bad law that can be abused by bad people to unintended effect. You know what paves the road to hell.

But the intended effect is to force people to use the bathroom they don't want to, aren't comfortable with, and are likely to take abuse for using. Its solving a problem that barely exists and replacing it with one thats depressingly common.

May 12, 2016#157

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Which is why I don't think you should have to prove it. Just use the bathroom you're comfortable with.

The problem here is that this flies in the face of the entire reason bathrooms were segregated in the first place - because, by and large, arbitrary cultural programming though it may be, a large number of people are not comfortable going to the bathroom/changing in the locker room in the presence of the opposite gender. And since there is no way to reasonably require "proof" of transgenderism, it means that this happens, in accordance with and protected by law.

But the intended effect is to force people to use the bathroom they don't want to, aren't comfortable with, and are likely to take abuse for using. Its solving a problem that barely exists and replacing it with one thats depressingly common.

As I said, if the first law hadn't overstepped the government's role in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess. THAT law attempted to address an uncommon problem (by your own words, everybody was "just fine" before all the law shenanigans) by creating a new, easily more potentially numerous abuses. Remember, transgendered people number less than a tenth of a percent of the population.

Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, I somehow doubt this does anything to positively impact the so-often-used as a fallacious argumentum ad passiones example of bathroom violence against the transgendered. It's a well-intentioned blunder that's just made everything worse, and in the long run, probably won't be particularly effective. It'd have been much simpler and more effective to simply make all the public restrooms unisex, and really get started deprogramming the culture from thinking we need to hide from each other to pee. Some places in Europe don't have this problem because they don't stigmatize coed nudity.

So, in my opinion, the easiest solution is, instead of having a men's room and a women's room, have a regular (unisex) restroom and a "family" restroom for people with kids, with facilities appropriate for parents with small children (larger stalls, shorter toilets, changing tables, etc). That way, if you're an adult, you still can get the more faster, efficient room, and people who are paranoid about strangers oogling their kids still have their own place to go.

And you don't have to stomp anyone's toes by "letting men in the women's room" by way of refusing to have a physical definition of what constitutes either one - because this way it no longer is important in a practical sense. It also requires a lot less renovation than converting buildings built around a 2 bathroom paradigm to 3 bathrooms.

May 12, 2016#158

Hailey Knight

My point with posting the photo on the last page was that you don't have to have had gender reassignment surgery for a trans man to look like that. So under following NC law, he'd be going into the women's restroom.

I agree with Gas that it'd have made sense to just do things the simple way, but haha America.

May 12, 2016#159

Dave

And the rumors are now (from a book written by a biographer) that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is regretting his/her choice and wants to go back to being a man. Talk about giving the wrong people ammo.

May 12, 2016#160

Sara_2814

GasBandit said:
Some places in Europe don't have this problem because they don't stigmatize coed nudity.

My best friend is German. The spa she and her husband go to has a co-ed changing room (including families with children) and clothing is optional in the sauna. And somehow, the German men manage not to rape everyone in the room.

May 12, 2016#161

Bubble181

Every public spa I've ever been to - and that's dozens - has had co-ed changing rooms and showers and clothing either forbidden or restricted to a specific area.

May 12, 2016#162

GasBandit

Yep. The first American settlers were the guys who thought all pleasure was sin and that included any bared flesh other than hands and face, wound so tightly that nobody else in Europe wanted to put up with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans#New_England_Puritans

We still haven't shaken that off completely, to this day.

May 12, 2016#163

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Yep. The first American settlers were the guys who thought all pleasure was sin and that included any bared flesh other than hands and face, wound so tightly that nobody else in Europe wanted to put up with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans#New_England_Puritans

We still haven't shaken that off completely, to this day.

Yep. The country was founded on the idea that people should have the right to oppress people even MORE in the name of religion.

May 12, 2016#164

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
Yep. The country was founded on the idea that people should have the right to oppress people even MORE in the name of religion.

NEVER FORGET

--Patrick

May 12, 2016#165

strawman

Dave said:
And the rumors are now (from a book written by a biographer) that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is regretting his/her choice and wants to go back to being a man. Talk about giving the wrong people ammo.

Caitlyn's rep has responded calling the rumors false.

Still, sex change regret is a real issue in the transgender community, and unfortunately the LGBT community attacks anyone who tries to go public regarding their de-transitioning or convince others that sex change surgery isn't the panacea so many claim. You can do a google search for "sex change regret" and find sites, articles, etc, and Caitlyn wouldn't be the first high profile person to be under this microscope.

May 12, 2016#166

GasBandit

stienman said:
Caitlyn's rep has responded calling the rumors false.

Still, sex change regret is a real issue in the transgender community, and unfortunately the LGBT community attacks anyone who tries to go public regarding their de-transitioning or convince others that sex change surgery isn't the panacea so many claim. You can do a google search for "sex change regret" and find sites, articles, etc, and Caitlyn wouldn't be the first high profile person to be under this microscope.

As I so often say - a lot of people care more about championing the cause than the actual happiness and well being of those they purport to champion. Consider also how women who decide to be stay at home moms are told they're "wasting their potential" or "setting women back 50 years."

May 12, 2016#167

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
Caitlyn's rep has responded calling the rumors false.

Still, sex change regret is a real issue in the transgender community, and unfortunately the LGBT community attacks anyone who tries to go public regarding their de-transitioning or convince others that sex change surgery isn't the panacea so many claim. You can do a google search for "sex change regret" and find sites, articles, etc, and Caitlyn wouldn't be the first high profile person to be under this microscope.

Which is why very first step when someone experiences gender dysphoria MUST be counseling/therapy. Not to convince them to transition or not to transition, but to figure out what's going on.

GasBandit said:
As I so often say - a lot of people care more about championing the cause than the actual happiness and well being of those they purport to champion.

I forget what it pertained to, but I was in the comments section for a Dumbing of Age comic, and two trans people were talking about how they couldn't keep track of all the acronyms and weird terms that those people who were supposedly on their side kept creating and enforcing with harshness.

I was 15 when I first met a trans person online, so this was back in 2000. She created a web site with photos of her going through her transition and more importantly a HUGE question/answer page that was very informative. She wanted people to understand what all this was and what it meant to her.

I've interacted with several trans people since then and none of them have had the disgusting attitude that I see from the pretend-ally community on Tumblr. It's very obvious they have zero regard for the safety or well-being of the trans people they pretend to support; it's all about themselves, because as is the SJW mantra, "we're not here to educate."

May 13, 2016#168

Terrik

Public Schools May Lose Federal Aid if They Don't Comply With Bathroom Directives

May 13, 2016#169

strawman

Fortunately Title IX isn't a law, it's just a funding mechanism. If you don't follow the federal rules, you don't get the federal dollars. So states are still free to decide, though of course they could still face discrimination lawsuits, and they will lose some funding, but this is a "carrot" situation rather than a "stick" situation.

We will have to wait and watch the lawsuits currently in process to see whether the executive branch's decision to expand title ix to orientation and gender identity is valid without new legislation. I feel it would be better for congress to write the laws explicitly rather than people expanding their meaning without oversight, but the supreme court has started to expand other similar laws in similar ways, so it may not matter.

Constantly expanding government, removing rights from states and local governmental units. Not a good plan in the long run, but it sure makes some people happy to see their views and beliefs forced on others via governmental decree.

May 13, 2016#170

sixpackshaker

Governmental decrees taking away rights, and forcing beliefs on others, is what got the Feds involved in the first place.

May 13, 2016#171

Cog

It looks to me that anything your goverment do about something will be seen as forcing belief on others.

May 13, 2016#172

strawman

Cog said:
It looks to me that anything your goverment do about something will be seen as forcing belief on others.

Which is why a lot of people prefer limited government, and allowing the people to govern and compromise themselves, rather than having the government come in and mandate a winner and a loser.

Others prefer to be told what they can and can't do, and so want rulers to decree and dictate.

We already know how that sort of system works out, and if we continue going down that path with the government controlling and taxing more of society then even those who are happy now to have their beliefs promoted will be unhappy as they find the natural course of this path turns against them as well.

May 13, 2016#173

Cog

What does it mean to you "govern themselves"? It makes no difference to me if your rules come from the state government or from the federal government. Still those rules are forcing something on someone.

May 13, 2016#174

PatrThom

Cog said:
What does it mean to you "govern themselves"? It makes no difference to me if your rules come from the state government or from the federal government. Still those rules are forcing something on someone.

Yes, but what's most important is that the minority be forced to confirm with the majority. By force of law, if necessary.

--Patrick

May 13, 2016#175

blotsfan

So it's not about discriminating. It's about states rights.

May 13, 2016#176

Tress

blotsfan said:
So it's not about discriminating. It's about states rights.

Gee, where have I heard this complete bullshit lie before... hmmmmm...

May 13, 2016#177

Sara_2814

Cog said:
What does it mean to you "govern themselves"? It makes no difference to me if your rules come from the state government or from the federal government. Still those rules are forcing something on someone.

The idea is that local governments know best how to manage their particular area. What works for Maine won't necessarily work for California, or even what works for Ontonagon County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (a whole lot of forest) won't work for Wayne County (Detroit) in the Lower Peninsula. Which works well for infrastructure (fire departments, road maintenance, resource management, water systems, etc.) to customize legislation to the needs of a particular area and population.

Applying this to things like civil rights is the problem, because then you end up with a patchwork of areas in a country that are unfriendly/unsafe by law for certain citizens, and those people will need to carry a guidebook of "Will I Get Arrested or Attacked? Road Trip USA" to travel in their own country. Which may sound like hyperbole, but that guidebook actually existed for black people traveling in the US pre-Civil Rights era and LGBT people have their own versions today.

May 13, 2016#178

strawman

Cog said:
What does it mean to you "govern themselves"? It makes no difference to me if your rules come from the state government or from the federal government. Still those rules are forcing something on someone.

Unless there are fewer rules, and neither government is exerting control in some situations, allowing individuals to choose for themselves how they will act, and others to choose how they will react.

Don't like what a business is doing? Vote with your wallet and patronize a business that meets your needs - don't go crying to the courts and have them force the business to comply with your request.

May 13, 2016#179

blotsfan

stienman said:
Don't like what a business is doing? Vote with your wallet and patronize a business that meets your needs - don't go crying to the courts and have them force the business to comply with your request.

Please tell me how wonderfully that worked in the 1950s south.

May 13, 2016#180

GasBandit

Cog said:
What does it mean to you "govern themselves"? It makes no difference to me if your rules come from the state government or from the federal government. Still those rules are forcing something on someone.

State and local government is usually more responsive to the constituency, and the constitution specifically says (in its tenth amendment) "Anything this document doesn't say the Federal government can do, it can't, and if it needs doing, that is on the states or the people themselves." We were founded on a distrust of distant rulers handing down edicts from on high. So our Federal government is supposed to be limited in power. We've kind of gotten away from that in recent decades, unfortunately.

May 13, 2016#181

sixpackshaker

stienman said:
Don't like what a business is doing? Vote with your wallet and patronize a business that meets your needs - don't go crying to the courts and have them force the business to comply with your request.

Have you ever gotten angry with the only restaurant in town?

May 13, 2016#182

strawman

blotsfan said:
Please tell me how wonderfully that worked in the 1950s south.

sixpackshaker said:
Have you ever gotten angry with the only restaurant in town?

Are you two comparing the ability to live/work/eat with the ability to use the bathroom you want to use versus the one assigned to the type of genitals you have?

Come on. If you're not interested in having a serious discussion about a difficult topic just say so.

Until now if you dressed, acted, and otherwise appeared to be female, you used the female restroom. There was no law giving you that privilege, nor any law taking it away. Further, as the LGBT movement went forward people increasingly ignored how much a person looked like a male or female when they used the restroom and just let them be.

Someone decided to codify that as a right, though, and now we can't have nice things. Partly because "don't ask, don't tell" breaks down once you remove the "don't tell" part, and partly because there are predators that will use any loophole to avoid repercussions of their crimes.

The LGBT side doesn't want compromise. The recent lawsuit with the boy who wants to use the girl's changing room after the school provided facilities for them to change in order to protect the girl's rights to privacy from viewing or being viewed by a biological male. It isn't enough to provide reasonable accommodation. Even the disabled don't get this level of attention - businesses and schools are required to provide reasonable accommodation via the ADA, but they don't have to do everything that a disabled person wants just because they feel like they want it.

So, compromise? Of course you won't settle for compromise. That biologically male teenager must be permitted into the girl's locker room, showering and changing along with the girls because he thinks he might be transgender. Meanwhile a lot of men who have fully transitioned to women and vice versa with sex change operations, hormones, etc are turning around and telling people that their life wasn't improved.

And we think it's a great idea to let teenagers - whose brains aren't even fully formed and whose hormones are full-on swinging back and forth from moment to moment - decide based on their feelings that they should be changing and showering with the girls in their school?

Why don't we wait? Why can't we compromise on this?

May 13, 2016#183

Dave

Nobody would be codifying shit if the right hadn't decided that something that wasn't a problem needed to become one. You make stupid laws and stupid laws have to be made to rescind them.

May 13, 2016#184

sixpackshaker

We have 30 years of no compromise politics from the right. And 7 years of stalemate. Since there can no longer be consensus on simple issues, the side in power will decree.

I did not take you seriously when you support Jim Crow policies.

May 13, 2016#185

tegid

stienman said:
Until now if you dressed, acted, and otherwise appeared to be female, you used the female restroom. There was no law giving you that privilege, nor any law taking it away. Further, as the LGBT movement went forward people increasingly ignored how much a person looked like a male or female when they used the restroom and just let them be.

Someone decided to codify that as a right, though, and now we can't have nice things. Partly because "don't ask, don't tell" breaks down once you remove the "don't tell" part, and partly because there are predators that will use any loophole to avoid repercussions of their crimes.

Doesn't all this controversy come from the violation of that tacit understanding in high schools? As in, teenagers who identified as one gender and visibilized themselves as such were forced to use their 'biological' bathroom?

May 13, 2016#186

Covar

Dave said:
Nobody would be codifying shit if the right hadn't decided that something that wasn't a problem needed to become one. You make stupid laws and stupid laws have to be made to rescind them.

Just a reminder again, NC HB2 is a direct response to the city of Charlotte "codifying shit".

May 13, 2016#187

Dave

Hmmm. You're right, it seems. I thought NC HB2 was first. Had they left it alone it would have been a non-issue still.

It's still hard to argue against a law aimed at inclusiveness, but my first point doesn't look to be accurate.

May 13, 2016#188

strawman

Legislation shouldn't be based on "who hit who first" anyway.

May 13, 2016#189

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
We have 30 years of no compromise politics from the right. And 7 years of stalemate. Since there can no longer be consensus on simple issues, the side in power will decree.

I did not take you seriously when you support Jim Crow policies.

Uhh, pretty much 90% of what the right has done for the last 30 years is capitulate. That's why republican voters are backing trump. They don't know what he stands for, nor do they care - they only want someone "who will fight."[DOUBLEPOST=1463161829,1463161797][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
It's still hard to argue against a law aimed at inclusiveness,

Like I said when Blots said it, what is the road to hell paved with?

May 13, 2016#190

Dave

GasBandit said:
Uhh, pretty much 90% of what the right has done for the last 30 years is capitulate. That's why republican voters are backing trump. They don't know what he stands for, nor do they care - they only want someone "who will fight."[DOUBLEPOST=1463161829,1463161797][/DOUBLEPOST]
Like I said when Blots said it, what is the road to hell paved with?

xHamster videos?

May 13, 2016#191

GasBandit

And next on the federal agenda - required providing of litterboxes for otherkin.

May 13, 2016#192

Anonymous

Transgenders actually exist.

May 13, 2016#193

Dave

Damn. Accidentally hit "Anonymous".

May 13, 2016#194

GasBandit

Anonymous said:
Transgenders actually exist.

Don't be an oppressive shitlord.

May 13, 2016#195

strawman

I am a gunosexual, so if I bring my weapons into your gun free zone, please accept my sexual identity and leave me be. Anything less would be discriminating according to the continuously expanded 14th amendment.

May 13, 2016#196

PatrThom

Dave said:
Damn. Accidentally hit "Anonymous".

Now Anonymous will want a law, or at a minimum a restraining order.

GasBandit said:
Don't be an oppressive shitlord.

I don't know if "inhabited by the spirit of a female tiger" really equates to "transgender." I think it might be more than that.

stienman said:
I am a gunosexual, so if I bring my weapons into your gun free zone, please accept my sexual identity and leave me be. Anything less would be discriminating according to the continuously expanded 14th amendment.

I can't wait to see someone pull this just to get it tested by the court, like the guy who put his Inc. papers on the passenger seat to test Corporate Personhood.

--Patrick

May 13, 2016#197

Hailey Knight

This topic is categorized as Funny and I'm suing Halforums for false advertisement.

This whole thing became a clusterfuck and at this point even the people with "I'll go with you" pins, who are willing to join transgender people into their bathroom so they feel safe, can't help on even something as simple as a person by person basis.

May 13, 2016#198

blotsfan

Well, Steinman sure loves his incredibly long posts to obfuscate his bigotry, so I'm gonna do the incredibly long rebuttal.

stienman said:
Are you two comparing the ability to live/work/eat with the ability to use the bathroom you want to use versus the one assigned to the type of genitals you have?

Come on. If you're not interested in having a serious discussion about a difficult topic just say so.

I'm concerned about the right to be treated equally. I guess I wouldn't say that being forced to use the wrong bathroom is as bad as being forced out of the restaurant but that doesn't make it ok.

stienman said:
Until now if you dressed, acted, and otherwise appeared to be female, you used the female restroom. There was no law giving you that privilege, nor any law taking it away. Further, as the LGBT movement went forward people increasingly ignored how much a person looked like a male or female when they used the restroom and just let them be.

Someone decided to codify that as a right, though, and now we can't have nice things. Partly because "don't ask, don't tell" breaks down once you remove the "don't tell" part, and partly because there are predators that will use any loophole to avoid repercussions of their crimes.

So sorry that someone in government saw a situation where it was possible for people to be discriminated against and decided to prevent it from happening before it became an issue. Should we stop trying to pass laws to improve things because we have to worry about the religious right throwing a temper tantrum at every sign of progress? The LGBT movement didn't want this to turn into an issue of how well you pass because transitioning happens in stages. You don't go from looking like a man to looking completely like a woman (or vice versa) overnight. At some point you want to start living you life like the gender you feel right as, but instead you have to be told "no, you don't count yet because you aren't good enough yet." Its cruel and unnecessary.

stienman said:
The LGBT side doesn't want compromise. The recent lawsuit with the boy who wants to use the girl's changing room after the school provided facilities for them to change in order to protect the girl's rights to privacy from viewing or being viewed by a biological male. It isn't enough to provide reasonable accommodation. Even the disabled don't get this level of attention - businesses and schools are required to provide reasonable accommodation via the ADA, but they don't have to do everything that a disabled person wants just because they feel like they want it.

Again, the reason the third bathroom is not the same is because it points out "you're not the gender you think you are. You're something different." They just want to be treated like the gender that they really are.

stienman said:
So, compromise? Of course you won't settle for compromise. That biologically male teenager must be permitted into the girl's locker room, showering and changing along with the girls because he thinks he might be transgender. Meanwhile a lot of men who have fully transitioned to women and vice versa with sex change operations, hormones, etc are turning around and telling people that their life wasn't improved.

Oh, I see. You're just worried that transgender people will regret the transition! Well, don't worry. While it does happen, the vast majority of people are happier with their transition. Unfortunately you're right in that its not 100%, but imagine how those numbers would be if people weren't actively trying to discriminate against trans people.

stienman said:
And we think it's a great idea to let teenagers - whose brains aren't even fully formed and whose hormones are full-on swinging back and forth from moment to moment - decide based on their feelings that they should be changing and showering with the girls in their school?

Why don't we wait? Why can't we compromise on this?

Your compromise seems to be "be a second class citizen, but we'll stop physically and sexually assaulting you! (last part pending)." I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be jumping at the bit to take that offer on.

May 13, 2016#199

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Well, Steinman sure loves his incredibly long posts to obfuscate his bigotry, so I'm gonna do the incredibly long rebuttal.

Just because your particular brand of fascism has a smiley face emoticon on its badge doesn't mean someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot.

May 13, 2016#200

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Just because your brand of fascism has a smiley face emoticon on its badge doesn't mean someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot.

Oh God, wanting to ensure that people aren't discriminated against. So fascist.

Didn't you use a libertarian? When did you go all Mike Huckabee?

May 13, 2016#201

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Oh God, wanting to ensure that people aren't discriminated against. So fascist.

You can't see your own bias. You are literally trying to use government power, which at its root and essence is the sanctioned use of force, to force other people to conform to how you think bathrooms should work. It's a common liberal trope. You have a desire to give more power to government to enforce what you think society should be and look like. Where everything has a law about it and an ordinance that dictates its use and permitted configuration. Where you are only allowed to do something if government explicitly gives you permission. The government is in charge of your health and well-being.

Didn't you use a libertarian? When did you go all Mike Huckabee?

The fact that you can't see that my viewpoint is the quintessential essence of (secular) libertarianism, and can only fathom that your opponents must be hate-filled zealots is indicative of your major malfunction. There didn't need to be a law about who can use which bathroom. The law made things worse, not better. That's usually the case when leftists try to over-legislate and over-regulate every aspect of human life and culture.

May 13, 2016#202

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
You can't see your own bias. You are literally trying to use government power, which at its root and essence is the sanctioned use of force, to force other people to conform to how you think bathrooms should work. It's a common liberal trope. You have a desire to give more power to government to enforce what you think society should be and look like. Where everything has a law about it and an ordinance that dictates its use and permitted configuration. Where you are only allowed to do something if government explicitly gives you permission. The government is in charge of your health and well-being.

No, I want to remove permission from people to discriminate.

I'm curious though, do you think that it is right for there to be laws discriminating based on race? If so, why is that something that the government should stop while this is different?

May 13, 2016#203

Dei

That's not even close to what he said. He said that there shouldn't be laws to regulate this shit at all.

ALSO

North Carolina School Board Lets Kids Carry Pepper Spray

(It took them about 2 days to rethink this)

May 13, 2016#204

blotsfan

Dei said:
That's not even close to what he said. He said that there shouldn't be laws to regulate this shit at all.

And I say why not? We've done it before and its been generally accepted as a good thing. Again, unless you're opposed to the anti-discrimination laws we currently have.

May 13, 2016#205

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
No, I want to remove permission from people to discriminate.

You have to be more specific than that. People discriminate every day hundreds of ways with infinite criteria without it being a crime. You want to prevent discrimination based on gender identity as it pertains to bathroom access. The problem here is there's no way to quantify gender identity other than by what someone claims. You get into a great big can of worms when you start having to say "ok, if you can pass for the gender, then you" well, who decides where the threshold is for who passes for what? This bathroom law nonsense has already led to cisgendered females being challenged because they apparently didn't pass for their own gender. So clearly, that's not a viable metric. It basically boils down to having to apply a protected status to anyone who says they belong to that protected status, and that opens ANOTHER huge can of worms. Not only does it enable a cisgendered males to have legal standing to invade the privacy of females - which also has already happened. Next, am I entitled to protection under affirmative action if I identify as a minority race? Plenty of light-skinned americans of african descent, you know. Heck, just ask Elizabeth Warren. If I self-identify as a Navy Seal, do I get TRICARE?

I'm curious though, do you think that it is right for there to be laws discriminating based on race? If so, why is that something that the government should stop while this is different?

Context Matters: A Better Libertarian Approach to Antidiscrimination Law by David E. Bernstein

In short, to concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. Libertarians, however, are often willing to make certain exceptions to their opposition to antidiscrimination laws, so long as they can identify an appropriate limiting principle. This situation, however, has no limiting principle.

May 13, 2016#206

blotsfan

Well yes, ideally everyone could just use the bathroom they feel matches their gender identity and no one would say anything. This law would place someone who was discriminated against based on that in the legal right, not just the moral one. The acceptable answer to someone being discriminated against isn't to say "well, that just sucks. Guess you have to deal with it." It is to show that we as a society do not approve of that kind of behavior and want to stop marginalizing trans problems just because they don't effect many of us.

May 13, 2016#207

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Well yes, ideally everyone could just use the bathroom they feel matches their gender identity and no one would say anything. This law would place someone who was discriminated against based on that in the legal right, not just the moral one. The acceptable answer to someone being discriminated against isn't to say "well, that just sucks. Guess you have to deal with it." It is to show that we as a society do not approve of that kind of behavior and want to stop marginalizing trans problems just because they don't effect many of us.

You don't need a law to do that, and the law that the Charlotte city council passed had far worse practical effects than beneficial. By an order of thousands to one.

Do you believe that the only way a culture, a nation, a civilization can act positively is if their government forces them to do so by law?

May 13, 2016#208

blotsfan

I mean, what civil rights issues in the history of the US went away without some kind of government intervention?

May 13, 2016#209

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
I mean, what civil rights issues in the history of the US went away without some kind of government intervention?

Actually, it's usually the other way around. If you read that story I linked you, you'll see that, historically speaking, antidiscrimination laws FOLLOW a liberalization of common thought, not precede it.

But antidiscrimination laws are unlikely to provide much protection to a minority group when the majority of the voting population is hostile to that group. America’s landmark civil rights legislation was enacted and implemented in the 1960s, when racial attitudes of whites had already liberalized substantially; in the 1930s, when white public opinion was solidly hostile to African-Americans, President Roosevelt refused to support even anti-lynching legislation.
Antidiscrimination laws, in other words, typically follow, rather than cause, the liberalization of attitudes toward minority groups. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the effect of antidiscrimination laws on public attitudes is rarely dramatic. Even the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not noticeably accelerate the pace of liberalization of whites’ racial attitudes.

Be careful about trying to use law to force people to change what they believe. Remember, Jim Crow was also law, that people then had to follow whether they agreed with it or not.

May 13, 2016#210

Sara_2814

That's an interesting article, Gas, and makes a lot of good points. I think something that the anti-discrimination side of the argument is concerned about is the point that was brought up about Jim Crow laws, and that a powerful segment of Southern whites essentially had a cartel that not only threatened black citizens, but also white people who had no problem interacting with and doing business with their black neighbors. If a gay or trans person is born into a family in a town hostile to LGBT people, what are they supposed to do while growing up, or if they can't afford to leave that town? They have powerful forces that are actively working against them obtaining "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". Other people may be afraid to support them becuase then they will also be labeled "sinners" and get blowback from the powerful members of the community. I think attitudes are changing, especially with younger people even in traditionally conservative areas, but that really doesn't help the people suffering discrimination now.

As suggested in the article, I guess if private businesses want the right to discriminate, they can be required to clearly make that known (such as a label stating who they won't serve on their entrances), then it is a much fairer environment for "voting with your dollars", because sympathetic people can also avoid such businesses. Though that seems like a step backward and is also a throwback to "Whites Only" and probably wouldn't go down very well. But, if we're going to allow private business to discriminate against any person for any reason, does that mean businesses are also going to be able to refuse to serve customers due to their religious beliefs? And should religion lose its special protected status and be treated exactly the same as other private entities (such as paying taxes)?

Also, I'd like to point out that laws dictating behavior of private citizens do not just come from the Left. War on Drugs, criminalizing sex work, obscenity laws, Prohibition (which still exists today through laws regarding interstate alcohol sales, "dry counties", and prohibiting alcohol sales on Sundays), criminalizing drinking alcohol while watching Deadpool: those are all "think of the children" type laws that are strongly supported by the Right. Both sides are very good at trying to force others to conform.

May 13, 2016#211

strawman

An man forces one girl to undress in front of a boy, that man goes to jail.

Obama forces a generation of girls to undress in front of boys and it's widely hailed as a civil rights victory.

The boy may in fact feel he is female, but denying the girls their right to feel whatever they might feel and denying them privacy they desire may not actually be a reasonable trade.

Reasonable accommodation should be considered rather than total accommodation.[DOUBLEPOST=1463188176,1463187985][/DOUBLEPOST]And lest I single out one sex, I believe boys would have a similar problem undressing in front of a girl, and it would still be considered sexual abuse if it didn't occur in our schools.

May 13, 2016#212

blotsfan

Well if you'd stop intentionally misgendering it'd make more sense.

May 13, 2016#213

Sara_2814

stienman said:
An man forces one girl to undress in front of a boy, that man goes to jail.

Obama forces a generation of girls to undress in front of boys and it's widely hailed as a civil rights victory.

The boy may in fact feel he is female, but denying the girls their right to feel whatever they might feel and denying them privacy they desire may not actually be a reasonable trade.

Reasonable accommodation should be considered rather than total accommodation.[DOUBLEPOST=1463188176,1463187985][/DOUBLEPOST]And lest I single out one sex, I believe boys would have a similar problem undressing in front of a girl, and it would still be considered sexual abuse if it didn't occur in our schools.

By that same token: what about kids who don't want to get undressed in front of anyone, no matter their gender?

Kids that age are cruel little fuckers. From my experiences as a teenaged girl, you get judged for being too fat, too skinny, boobs developing too fast/too much, boobs not developing fast enough/too small, having pubic hair, not having pubic hair, not being allowed to shave legs/underarms yet, facial acne, body acne, blemishes, birthmarks, weird toes, the list goes on and on and on. I think ALL children should have a right to privacy and control over their bodies, especially at that age when body image judgement can be quite embarrassing and traumatic. We should no longer require kids to get shoved into communal showers like they're prisoners in a POW camp. They should be able to have separate shower stalls for washing/changing (like the showers at campgrounds) so they can decide for themselves who they reveal their body to. And as a bonus, trans students would have the same privacy.

May 13, 2016#214

GasBandit

Obama has threatened the education budget of any school district that doesn't fall in line with the restroom edict.

Texas' Lt. Gov has told him to go fuck himself.

He also then pointed out that the majority of the federal money Texas gets is earmarked for the free breakfast/lunch program, so Obama is essentially taking food out of the mouths of America's poorest children.

The white house started walking back their threat shortly therafter:

This afternoon the White House clarified that the guidance is a list of 'best practices,' and the administration intended it to 'frame a very straightforward challenge.'
'Why this guidance is being issued quite clear,' Earnest said, shooting down a suggestion that the funding threat was implied.

The guidance does not mandate additional requirements and it does not require students to use shared facilities when schools make other arrangements, Earnest said.

'This is not an enforcement action,' he stressed.

May 13, 2016#215

Sara_2814

GasBandit said:
Obama has threatened the education budget of any school district that doesn't fall in line with the restroom edict.

Texas' Lt. Gov has told him to go fuck himself.

He also then pointed out that the majority of the federal money Texas gets is earmarked for the free breakfast/lunch program, so Obama is essentially taking food out of the mouths of America's poorest children.

The white house started walking back their threat shortly therafter:

But doesn't that fall under the situation mentioned in the previous article? (To be clear, I don't agree with moves like this, threatening school funding for whatever reason just harms children in the end, they pull this same bullshit with No Child Left Behind, too. It's not kids' fault adults can't get their shit together.)

Even more libertarians would endorse antidiscrimination laws applied to monopolies that were created or sustained by government edict. For example, if the government grants labor unions the exclusive power to represent workers, there is nothing “unlibertarian” about insisting that unions represent all employees without discrimination.

Public schools essentially have a monopoly on education (due to, for example, geographical and economic factors), and students are compelled by law to attend school, so public schools have to accommodate all students. If a school does not want to accommodate all students, then they could become private and not take government money anyway.

May 13, 2016#216

GasBandit

Sara_2814 said:
Public schools essentially have a monopoly on education (due to, for example, geographical and economic factors), and students are compelled by law to attend school, so public schools have to accommodate all students. If a school does not want to accommodate all students, then they could become private and not take government money anyway.

The current opinion of the Texas state government is that students are accommodated by the gendered facilities according to their biological sex, though some administrators have indicated they are willing to discuss special circumstances on a case by case basis - but object to a system-wide redefinition of who-goes-where.

And believe you me, there's no bureaucrat like a Texas bureaucrat.

May 13, 2016#217

Sara_2814

GasBandit said:
The current opinion of the texas state government is that students are accomodated by the gendered facilities according to their biological sex.

Which...completely dismisses the problems faced by trans students.

So, what is an intersex child supposed to do? Hold it until they get home?

(oops, I guess you edited while I was typing. So it's a good thing at least some Admins are willing to work with students in that environment. The change may be slow, but attitudes are changing.)

May 13, 2016#218

GasBandit

Sara_2814 said:
Which...completely dismisses the problems faced by trans students.

So, what is an intersex child supposed to do? Hold it until they get home?

I think the middle ground places are using for the time being is the "South Park" solution... IE, as often as not there's a third, single occupant disabled/special needs restroom that fits the bill. Luckily, schools are large and can redesignate facilities without as much effort and expense as, say, a restaurant or store that only has 2 restrooms.

But yeah, the thing is, the nation is more than just New York and California, and a very-non-trivial number of americans believe transgenderism is a fanciful affectation of libertine whimsy at best and a dire mental illness that is harmful to coddle at worst. A lot of those people futher feel like they're being coerced into silence by the PC thought police, and so they don't broadcast their beliefs. But they are out there, and they vote. And half of them remember what it felt like to be a 14 year old boy gripped in the throes of testosterone poisoning, and know exactly to what lengths a teen boy will go for the possibility of watching coeds shower. If Porky's had been filmed today instead, they wouldn't have even had to drill holes in the girl's locker room wall. They could have just claimed they identified as female.[DOUBLEPOST=1463193783,1463193680][/DOUBLEPOST]

Sara_2814 said:
(oops, I guess you edited while I was typing. So it's a good thing at least some Admins are willing to work with students in that environment. The change may be slow, but attitudes are changing.)

Yeah, I thought I'd better clarify that there wasn't a line drawn in the sand, and individual accomodations happen. After all, we are talking about a percentage of a percentage of the population here.

May 13, 2016#219

Dei

Once again, look at the nomination of Donald Trump. The amount of people who support him should give you a pretty good idea of the state of that segment of the population.

May 14, 2016#220

Hailey Knight

Women use the men's room all the time. This has nothing to do with the transgender stuff; just a fact I feel is being overlooked. Culturally the women's room has been seen as a place away from men, because men dominate everywhere else, but men just shrug and look the other way when women use the men's room.

If they needed to pass a law, it should've been to stop talking in the men's room. I'm here to piss, not here to dis...cuss things. :awesome:

Unfortunately this NC law encourages men to be in the women's room. I know that's opposite its intent, but it means trans men without surgery have to go in the women's room, so women are being around men that way, and it also means male security officers having to go into the women's room to enforce these laws typically because there are fewer female security officers, but probably in some cases because the officers don't care.

On schools, I think administrative accommodation (this word's spelling is bullshit BTW) is a reasonable way of handling it. Public school bathrooms can be a trap for any kid, regardless of sex and gender stuff, and I'd like to believe that those concerned about who's going into which bathrooms on this forum are also concerned for the safety of transgender kids as opposed to expecting them to twist in the wind. I know to others it feels like segregation, but the fact as said earlier--kids can be monsters. And unlike school administration, there isn't a simple way to direct them under new rules. They don't have jobs to lose. They don't adhere to policy with a mindset of the consequences like adults. Tumblr goes "sounds like cis people making trouble," but the fact remains it would then be trans kids suffering for it. I think it's great that there are kids who want to help their peers, but that isn't every kid.

In the long run, I have no idea what will be the outcome of all this. We unfortunately can't just put this extra legislation back in the bottle; the seal's been broken. So on the one hand we have the kind of crap steinman and others have been worried about, that every douchebag with a Vine account wants to put on a dress and test the limits of any bathroom in a state that doesn't have NC's laws. On the other hand, we have trans people left to wonder where the hell to go to the bathroom safely because it's really bullshit to decide who's passing more or less. There are trans women who look more feminine than many cis women. There are trans men who look more masculine than many cis men. The genitals don't answer the issue either because you're still then sharing a restroom with people who look one way or another and that may not conform to expectations.

Ideally we could ~~get rid of all Vine accounts~~ all mind our own business while we piss and shit in public, but unfortunately a good chunk of the population isn't build that way.

On an aside from the transgender stuff:

Twice I've almost walked into the women's room by accident. Both times someone saw and called to me that it was the wrong one. Neither case was there an assumption I was trying to be a pervert--I wasn't paying attention and they reacted as such. I thanked those people both times. One time no one saw me first and I walked in (it was AMC theater, so no door). Saw women at the mirror, said "oops" and immediately turned around. All three incidents were innocent accidents. Under NC law ... what happens then? Would I have been arrested? Fined? Or would me escorting myself out have been enough?

May 14, 2016#221

Sara_2814

The NC law actually affects more than trans people. My autistic son became an adult just today (OMG, how did that happen?) and he still needs supervision in restrooms (to check the cleanliness of the seat, to make sure he's not sitting there for an hour, to make sure he flushes and washes his hands), but according to NC's law, opposite-sex children are only allowed in a restroom up to age 12. If I'm on my own with him and he has to pee, one of us would get fined, so matter which restroom we choose.

There are plenty of legit reasons for a cisgender man to be in a women's restroom:
- assisting an elderly woman
- assisting a disabled woman
- accompanying a small child (if a young girl is school age, she may be pretty insistent on using the girls bathroom)
- the women's restroom may have the only diaper change table
- accompanying a female friend who drank waaaay too much at the bar on her 21st birthday and now she's puking it all back up and he's there to keep her company/make sure she doesn't pass out in the bowl. Hypothetically, of course. :whistling:

- the men's restroom may be a disaster area/public health hazard
- he may have just accidentally walked into the women's restroom

And the same for cisgender women being in men's restrooms.

The scare tactics bother me. Rape/assault/harassment/voyeurism are already covered by other laws, no matter the location, and bathroom laws are not going to stop a criminal. The way men talk about it is also disturbing, it's never "my wife/daughter will be uncomfortable" it's always "I don't want a man in the bathroom with my wife/daughter", making it all about them and their property rights rather than actually caring about women's feelings on the subject. (Side note: I have yet to see anything from a woman panicking about her husband/son sharing a bathroom with trans men). And what do they think anyone walking into a women's restroom is going to see? We go to a stall, close the door, do our business, go to the sink and wash hands/brush hair/fix make-up, and then leave. There's nothing to see! Do they think women use urinals? Do they think that upon entering a women's restroom, we all strip down and have naked pillow fights? The moral panic hysteria is pretty bizarre.

May 14, 2016#222

Gruebeard

Sara_2814 said:
There are plenty of legit reasons for a cisgender man to be in a women's restroom:
- assisting an elderly woman
- assisting a disabled woman

I've seen an elderly, disabled man balk at being wheeled into the ladies room by his elderly wife. And I had to put some effort into convincing her that it was fine for her to help him in the mens room. It seemed ridiculous to me that they hesitated at either option, since it was the sort of situation that anyone walking in on them would understand in an instant that it was a reasonable, even necessary transgression.

Just as I think would be the case with you and your son once they saw you supervising him.

(and damn right I made sure I was convincing, otherwise I might have volunteered - damn my Canadian politeness - to nurse the old man, and that's not something I want to do)

May 14, 2016#223

Dei

My son wouldn't go into a women's room even if I told him to because it's labeled women so it would be breaking rules. So as I've said before, if he takes too long because he got distracted, I go in there after him regardless.

May 15, 2016#224

DarkAudit

The Left says, "use the restroom you identify with."

The Right says, "use the restroom we tell you you identify with."

The Libertarian says, "dig your own goddamned latrine."

I'm more prone to dig and see what other more pressing issues are getting swept under the rug in NC. What's this particular moral panic really a smokescreen for? Someone in government in legal trouble? Economy in the crapper?

May 15, 2016#225

Hailey Knight

Well, those things are a problem, but I don't know if it's a smokescreen so much as they're not capable of addressing their real issues, but they figured they could pass blanket legislation with ease. Economics is hard; fucking around with bathrooms is easy.

May 15, 2016#226

GasBandit

Ask the Charlotte city council, they're the ones passing easy-to-abuse feelgood legislation instead of whatever the heck else Charlotte probably needs.

May 15, 2016#227

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Ask the Charlotte city council, they're the ones passing easy-to-abuse feelgood legislation instead of whatever the heck else Charlotte probably needs.

Wrong answer. It took the right to blow the whole thing up into a nationwide shitshow.

May 17, 2016#228

Tinwhistler

All this bathroom debate is already starting to have some pretty amazing results

http://www.newstimes.com/local/arti...gender-harassed-in-7471666.php#photo-10075104
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/coll...troom-after-mistaking-her-for-a-man/160568442
http://myfox8.com/2016/04/26/transgender-teen-fights-back-after-suspension-for-using-wrong-bathroom/
http://www.newnownext.com/aggressiv...of-womens-bathroom-for-not-having-id/04/2016/

(and by "amazing," I mean horrifying)

All sarcasm aside, a quick news search easily shows that public restrooms have always been dangerous places for vulnerable people. A google search on "bathroom assault" leads me to believe that the most dangerous group to encounter in a bathroom are straight males. Neither laws barring entry or social pressure/embarrassment have stopped anyone from entering a restroom to commit a sex crime, if they have been so inclined. Neither have the laws against rape, assault, and battery--which, you know, are already on the books.

What I don't get is that the most transphobic bathroom hysteria is in super-republican southern states. It's like these people have some kind of cognitive bias. I mean, if you're going to claim gun restriction laws won't stop gun crimes, how can you make the claim that restroom restriction laws are going to stop restroom crime?

I mean, who's really at risk here, anyway?
NPR (the media plugin wouldn't let me post a straight link. Heh)

"About 70 percent of the sample reported experiencing being denied access to restrooms, being harassed while using restrooms and even experiencing some forms of physical assault," says Herman.
Eight of the 93 respondents in her survey said they had been physically attacked in a restroom.

May 17, 2016#229

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
if you're going to claim gun restriction laws won't stop gun crimes, how can you make the claim that restroom restriction laws are going to stop restroom crime?

That's a false syllogism. A penis isn't a gun (no matter how much we might like to pretend), and it doesn't grant a tactical advantage over a group of those who don't have one, and it is logistically difficult and expensive to give functioning ones to those who don't have them.

May 17, 2016#230

Dave

This is your weapon, this is your gun...

May 17, 2016#231

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
That's a false syllogism. A penis isn't a gun (no matter how much we might like to pretend), and it doesn't grant a tactical advantage over a group of those who don't have one, and it is logistically difficult and expensive to give functioning ones to those who don't have them.

Of course a penis isn't a gun. But the argument against gun control usually goes something like this:
"criminals don't follow the law. If you restrict gun ownership to prevent gun crime, criminals will still have them."

Which, by changing a few words, sounds a lot like:
"criminals don't follow the law. If you tell men they can't go into women's restrooms to prevent sex crime, criminals will do it anyway." Because they already do.

Bathroom restriction law won't do anything to prevent the crime that already happens in restrooms, and there's no indication that bathroom inclusion law will increase crime, except perhaps an increase in assaults by homophobes on trans individuals or even those merely perceived as trans.

May 17, 2016#232

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
Of course a penis isn't a gun. But the argument against gun control usually goes something like this:
"criminals don't follow the law. If you restrict gun ownership to prevent gun crime, criminals will still have them."

Which, by changing a few words, sounds a lot like:
"criminals don't follow the law. If you tell men they can't go into women's restrooms to prevent sex crime, criminals will do it anyway." Because they already do.

Bathroom restriction law won't do anything to prevent the crime that already happens in restrooms, and there's no indication that bathroom inclusion law will increase crime, except perhaps an increase in assaults by homophobes on trans individuals or even those merely perceived as trans.

The two situations are incomparable. The gun control example starts from an assumption that both the criminal and law abiding have guns - a situation of parity and equivalence, and then the law would take them from the law abiding. The transgender bathroom example does not start from a point of situational parity - it starts from a situation where gender-based segregation is the societal norm and is expected. It's a completely incompatible comparison. It'd be more like saying you can only bring a gun into a political convention if you tell the secret service guards at the door you identify as a pacifist. Yes, the actual pacifists aren't the problem - it's the would-be assassins that now have a legal loophole.

May 17, 2016#233

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
The two situations are incomparable. The gun control example starts from an assumption that both the criminal and law abiding have guns - a situation of parity and equivalence, and then the law would take them from the law abiding. The transgender bathroom example does not start from a point of situational parity - it starts from a situation where gender-based segregation is the societal norm and is expected.

Which is weird of you to say, since Texas has never had any laws against people entering the restroom of the opposite gender to void their bladder/bowels. As I've mentioned previously, I've used the women's restroom several times in my life when the men's room was full and I really needed to go. It's never been a crime.

I remember a news story 8 or 9 years ago where a woman was arrested for disorderly conduct for using the men's room at a baseball game because the line for the women's room was really long. But the case was dismissed, since the Texas law says that it's only disorderly conduct if you enter/view a place set aside for the opposite gender for a "lewd or unlawful purpose." Which is pretty much exactly as it should be.

May 17, 2016#234

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
Which is weird of you to say, since Texas has never had any laws against people entering the restroom of the opposite gender to void their bladder/bowels. As I've mentioned previously, I've used the women's restroom several times in my life when the men's room was full and I really needed to go. It's never been a crime.

And then gubmint got involved in NC, and then MORE gubmint countermanded it and went futher, then the federal gubmint tried to put its foot down, and here we are in a big gubmint pissing contest. We'd all have been better off if no law had been made in the first place.

May 17, 2016#235

Dave

Brofist = agree.

May 17, 2016#236

strawman

GasBandit said:
We'd all have been better off if no law had been made in the first place.

Except for those transgender students who transition after they start going to school and are not satisfied with separate facilities. They are the entire basis for the current push for transgender rights in terms of bathroom/locker room access.

May 17, 2016#237

Tinwhistler

stienman said:
Except for those transgender students who transition after they start going to school and are not satisfied with separate facilities. They are the entire basis for the current push for transgender rights in terms of bathroom/locker room access.

And except for those 70% of trans folks who are regularly assaulted and sometimes beaten for using the restroom. I doubt that they've felt "better off" at any time before or during this entire mess.

But I guess that's just an acceptable price to pay.

May 17, 2016#238

Dei

Plus, places of business will find a way to not hire trans people because it's just easier to accommodate cis people. I mean, it goes beyond simple bathroom things. I feel like this is a problem that will work itself out as the younger generation ages, but that takes time.

But this is also a thing plaguing a lot of areas as far as employment goes. You aren't allowed to discriminate against a pregnant woman while hiring, but ask 20-30ish year old women how hard it is to find a job, whether they plan to have children or not.

May 17, 2016#239

strawman

Tinwhistler said:
And except for those 70% of trans folks who are regularly assaulted and sometimes beaten for using the restroom. I doubt that they've felt "better off" at any time before or during this entire mess.

But I guess that's just an acceptable price to pay.

I looked it up and intended to make a long post about the deaths and beatings of transgender people but dropped it because the only person putting that forth as an actual argument was Charlie, and I knew he wouldn't be interested at the time.

I'm not going to go through it all again, but what I found was that the majority of transgender deaths were not for using the wrong restroom. Most were people they knew, many were people they were dating or attempting to date. There were several out of the last five years where it could have been a stranger assaulting them merely for going to the bathroom, but there was no evidence that this was the cause - the bathroom was more often than not simply an out of the way place to carry out the assault away from the public eye (no cameras, attendants, guards, etc). "Using the wrong bathroom" could be the single cause for some deaths, but if so it's a very small percentage of deaths, and the bathroom looked more like opportunity than a cause.

Take what I've said with a very large grain of salt, this was in the early days of this thread and enough time has passed that if you're really going to argue it either way you should probably look into it further. This was some 70 deaths over 5 years, IIRC, out of a 700,000 transgender adult population in the US (estimated - its hard to get numbers on this), so that's a 1 in 50,000 chance of death just for presenting as a transgender person per year, and that's ignoring/including all the possible but not verifiable external factors such as drug use and other risky behavior.

At any rate, any deaths of transgender people, just like any deaths of homosexual and other marginalized groups, are unacceptable. But the evidence as I interpreted it (surely in a biased manner) doesn't suggest that bathroom laws are going to change that, or could possibly change that.

At best the bathroom laws are a vehicle to raise public awareness - which, as we've seen, has both positive and negative effects.

May 17, 2016#240

GasBandit

It seems to me there's a simple precedent for addressing the issue, which I've mentioned piece by piece previously.

There is an analogue to the 60s civil rights movement here - making "special accommodations" for trans students separate from the cis students starts to sound a little too close to "separate but equal," which the Supreme Court has ruled by definition to not be equal. So, even the current "best fit" solution is constitutionally problematic.

But when you think about it, in the 60s, did they address the problem of separate race bathrooms by saying "black people can use white restrooms if they identify as/can pass for white?" No, they did not. What they did was they said "separate bathrooms for races is no longer a thing."

So, as I've said before, the best long-term solution here (which will probably be met with equal acrimony by some sectors) is to simply make bathrooms unisex. No men's room, no women's room. Just bathrooms. As has been previously corroborated by halforumites, there are areas of Europe that already do this and they don't have the issue.

As a consideration to those with young children, we have a "family" bathroom in addition to the standard unisex bathroom, to placate those who fear who may be around their kids in sensitive situations.

The only real reason why we think men go in the men's room and women go in the women's room is that somebody indoctrinated us to that standard when we were in kindergarten, if not earlier. If you don't stigmatize the natural human form, if you don't create a taboo about the form opposite yours, a lot of problems seem to vanish as if by miracle.

This ties in to what I and others have said, also, in that it will be a generational change. The fact of the matter is that people don't change their minds. You won't convince a 40 year old today who doesn't think transgenderism is valid, and that men and women should segregate for bathrooms and locker rooms, to really, fundamentally change his point of view. At best, you can only get him to tolerate a situation with which he does not agree. But if we stop teaching our kids from the ground up to have taboos and stigmas about the differences in human bodies, they will grow up free of the desire to break and fetishize those taboos. And the whole thing becomes a non-issue.

I expect resistance on the right, because it does away with 200+ years of American puritan cultural tradition.
I expect resistance on the left, because it removes a vehicle by which a leftist sacred cow is used as a spearhead to attack traditionalism - IE, for some people it's not really about equal accommodation, it's about forcing a conservative to "admit" that a trans-woman is a woman in fact, and demonstrating that admission by granting them access to the women's room.

May 17, 2016#241

Shakey

I'm all for the unisex bathroom. Mainly because I would no longer have to fear the dreaded "trough".

May 17, 2016#242

GasBandit

Shakey said:
I'm all for the unisex bathroom. Mainly because I would no longer have to fear the dreaded "trough".

As a Texan, I learned to love the efficiency of the trough.

Really, though, fearing the trough is kind of counter to my whole "no body taboos" assertion about unisex bathrooms

unless you're objecting to it on cleanliness/smell issues.

May 17, 2016#243

Frank

GasBandit said:
As a Texan, I learned to love the efficiency of the trough.

Really, though, fearing the trough is kind of counter to my whole "no body taboos" assertion about unisex bathrooms unless you're objecting to it on cleanliness/smell issues.

Not really, unisex bathrooms would probably be Euro style stalls where there aren't spaces large enough in the doors where you can stare someone in the eye from across the room.

May 17, 2016#244

GasBandit

Frank said:
Not really, unisex bathrooms would probably be Euro style stalls where there aren't spaces large enough in the doors where you can stare someone in the eye from across the room.

Yes, that was what I envisioned, too. What you quoted was tongue-in-cheek.

May 17, 2016#245

Bubble181

Frank said:
Euro style

I assure you, I've seen plenty of troughs around here too, even in unisex bathrooms (though the combination is fairly rare). It's a bit weird to be standing there looking at the women doing their make up.

May 17, 2016#246

Frank

Bubble181 said:
I assure you, I've seen plenty of troughs around here too, even in unisex bathrooms (though the combination is fairly rare). It's a bit weird to be standing there looking at the women doing their make up.

I call them Euro style because none of our stalls here are like those I've seen in Europe.

May 17, 2016#247

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
I assure you, I've seen plenty of troughs around here too, even in unisex bathrooms (though the combination is fairly rare). It's a bit weird to be standing there looking at the women doing their make up.

MAINTAIN EYE CONTACT
FINISH LIKE A BOSS

May 17, 2016#248

Shakey

Bubble181 said:
I assure you, I've seen plenty of troughs around here too, even in unisex bathrooms (though the combination is fairly rare). It's a bit weird to be standing there looking at the women doing their make up.

I can't even pee when my wife is in the bathroom trying to get ready. There is no way I'd be able to perform under that pressure.

May 17, 2016#249

strawman

The gendered bathrooms was actually created to address sex inequality in workplaces. As women entered the workforce in he early 1900's they found they often had only one restroom for the work area, and most would refuse to use it. They pushed for the government to act, and that's why even in workplaces with 99% men there are still an equal number of women's facilities and stalls.

Going to a unisex bathroom would probably upset some transgender advocates as well. Bathrooms are one area of society where we still have and accept segregation. Once all the differences are gone - and they are falling faster than many realize - then there won't be any real difference. Men and women, cis or trans, wouldn't be distinguished except through secondary sexual characteristics, and some would mute them, emphasize them, or simulate them whether regardless of their gender or gender identity.

Right now the fact that they want to use the segregated facility belies the acceptance of and knowledge that men and women are distinctly different and deserving of separate spaces and treatment. Presenting as the gender opposite your biological sex only has meaning while society has cues and differences that are widely adhered to.

Take that away and being transgender loses significant meaning - at least it will for some.

There are transgender people who do not want to change to a unisex society, and will fight such changes as much as social conservatives.

May 17, 2016#250

GasBandit

stienman said:
The gendered bathrooms was actually created to address sex inequality in workplaces. As women entered the workforce in he early 1900's they found they often had only one restroom for the work area, and most would refuse to use it. They pushed for the government to act, and that's why even in workplaces with 99% men there are still an equal number of women's facilities and stalls.

Going to a unisex bathroom would probably upset some transgender advocates as well. Bathrooms are one area of society where we still have and accept segregation. Once all the differences are gone - and they are falling faster than many realize - then there won't be any real difference. Men and women, cis or trans, wouldn't be distinguished except through secondary sexual characteristics, and some would mute them, emphasize them, or simulate them whether regardless of their gender or gender identity.

Right now the fact that they want to use the segregated facility belies the acceptance of and knowledge that men and women are distinctly different and deserving of separate spaces and treatment. Presenting as the gender opposite your biological sex only has meaning while society has cues and differences that are widely adhered to.

Take that away and being transgender loses significant meaning - at least it will for some.

There are transgender people who do not want to change to a unisex society, and will fight such changes as much as social conservatives.

You have a point there, and it does go along nicely with the final sentence of my previous missive - for some, any compromise that doesn't involve social conservatives validating the gender identification of the transgendered will not be an acceptable compromise.

Thing is, that's just not going to fly. You can tell a good compromise - it's when all parties leave the table equally displeased.

May 17, 2016#251

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
You have a point there, and it does go along nicely with the final sentence of my previous missive - for some, any compromise that doesn't involve social conservatives validating the gender identification of the transgendered will not be an acceptable compromise.

Thing is, that's just not going to fly. You can tell a good compromise - it's when all parties leave the table equally displeased.

Why should there be a compromise? Ones side is "being transgender is a sin, so you shouldn't have the right to live how you want." Just because there are two points doesn't mean both sides have merit.

May 17, 2016#252

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Why should there be a compromise? Ones side is "being transgender is a sin, so you shouldn't have the right to live how you want." Just because there are two points doesn't mean both sides have merit.

Because being an absolutist just means that when the pendulum swings the other way, your opposition will feel all the more righteous in cramming you back in your box where "you belong." I mean, unless you just plan to enforce your will forever, no matter what, regardless of the cost, at gunpoint if necessary.

But I bet your uniforms will look really snappy.[DOUBLEPOST=1463529739,1463529203][/DOUBLEPOST]Let me put it another way...

Without a 3/5ths compromise, the United States would not have come to exist. And that compromise was later "corrected."

May 17, 2016#253

blotsfan

Ok well, I would like to be better than they were back then.

May 17, 2016#254

Dei

But you can't brute force all of your problems away.

May 17, 2016#255

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Ok well, I would like to be better than they were back then.

You're missing the point. The point was the people you would classify as "good" or "right" back then were forced to compromise for the sake of the Union. If they took the Rorschach approach, as you are keen to do so, the United States would have been over before it even started, the CSA would have risen in the 18th century instead of the 19th century when it was much weaker comparatively speaking, and slavery would probably have persisted as an institution much longer than it did - assuming, of course, that some European power didn't come and reconquer the colonies after they fractured. When you're working for change, sometimes you have to take whatever progress you can get, and then continue to work. If you flip the proverbial table when you don't get everything you want instantly, often all you're doing is damaging your own cause in the long term. Cultural change is like anal sex. You gotta go maddeningly slow and use way more lube than seems should be required. Because if you just ram what you want in there with a casual disregard, things will not work out for the best, to put it lightly.

The fact of the matter is there are still way more people on the other side of the issue than you think, and recently we're starting to get a taste of what happens in politics when people start feeling like their views are not being respected by their government. It only goes downhill from there. It doesn't matter how wrong you think they are.[DOUBLEPOST=1463531239,1463531195][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dei said:
But you can't brute force all of your problems away.

Oh look at you being all succinct and shit.

May 17, 2016#256

Dei

GasBandit said:
Oh look at you being all succinct and shit.

I'm trying to sneak onto my phone during a middle school concert.

May 17, 2016#257

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Ask the Charlotte city council, they're the ones passing easy-to-abuse feelgood legislation instead of whatever the heck else Charlotte probably needs.

--Patrick

May 17, 2016#258

jwhouk

Sometimes, I get the feeling Texas comes up with weird-ass laws because the politicos in Austin feel like they have to do something to justify their continued existence.

May 17, 2016#259

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
View attachment 21119

--Patrick

Where's the "People who don't want others to see other others naked"?

May 18, 2016#260

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
Sometimes, I get the feeling Texas comes up with weird-ass laws because the politicos in Austin feel like they have to do something to justify their continued existence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Ain't no bureaucrat like a Texas bureaucrat.

Jun 6, 2016#261

DarkAudit

We're all aware by now of Chick-fil-A's issues with homosexuality. And now that NYC mayor DeBlasio all but calling for New Yorkers to boycott, Anthony Bourdain has responded:

Anthony Bourdain said:
Are we looking for nice people to run our companies? We're going to be looking pretty hard. I'm not going to go eat at that restaurant or I'm not going to patronize that business because I don't like what they institutionally support—I don't like the chairman of the board, I don't like who created the company, whatever. There's a whole lot of reasons to just make a personal decision and not go eat at a business and give them your money. I come from a restaurant business where you're lucky if the guy working next to you isn't like an armed robber. I support your inalienable right to say really stupid, offensive shit and believe really stupid, offensive shit that I don't agree with. I support that, and I might even eat your chicken sandwich.

I'll just say when you've already got Fuku and Shake Shack in town, Chick-fil-A should be irrelevant.

Jun 6, 2016#262

Hailey Knight

The gay people I know spend their money at Chik-fil-A more than anyone else.

Jun 6, 2016#263

ScytheRexx

Zero Esc said:
The gay people I know spend their money at Chik-fil-A more than anyone else.

I will never understand why anyone goes to that place. Food is overpriced for what you get and it's not even that good.

Jun 6, 2016#264

PatrThom

ScytheRexx said:
I will never understand why anyone goes to that place. Food is overpriced for what you get and it's not even that good.

People kept telling me how wonderful the sauce was.
Then I got to try some. It's like someone mixed french dressing and Miracle Whip.
You want good fast food sauce, you get some of Long John Silver's Baja Sauce or Arby's Horsey Sauce, that stuff is tasty.

--Patrick

Jun 6, 2016#265

Hailey Knight

ScytheRexx said:
I will never understand why anyone goes to that place. Food is overpriced for what you get and it's not even that good.

I agree, except for their fries. I only had them once, so maybe it was a fluke, but I was surprised how good they tasted.

Jun 6, 2016#266

Terrik

Same reason anyone goes to fast food restaurants. For fat, greasy food.

Jun 6, 2016#267

sixpackshaker

Zero Esc said:
I agree, except for their fries. I only had them once, so maybe it was a fluke, but I was surprised how good they tasted.

Their waffle fries are the best thing they make. I am not a fan of their sandwiches.

Jun 6, 2016#268

GasBandit

The waffle fries are pretty good, and the chicken is better than the chicken at other fast food joints.

Seriously, the Chik-fil-a restaurants around here always have cars in the drive thru all the way around the building.

Jun 6, 2016#269

Denbrought

The chicken sandwiches (not biscuits) are pretty fantastic, I've been very fond of them since arriving states-side. The fries are good as well, better than any other fast food place around here (save Arby's).

Jun 6, 2016#270

Chad Sexington

Isn't it Chick-fil-A's policy not to support any political cause, but that their owners take a certain personal stance? I mean, yes, I realize that Chick-fil-A's money is what pays for the owners to do what they want, but they are technically different.

Anyway, I feel like Anthony Bourdain is probably right on this one. Not that I've ever eaten at a Chick-fil-A, which I don't think has any Canadian branches.

Jun 7, 2016#271

Frank

Chad Sexington said:
Isn't it Chick-fil-A's policy not to support any political cause, but that their owners take a certain personal stance? I mean, yes, I realize that Chick-fil-A's money is what pays for the owners to do what they want, but they are technically different.

Anyway, I feel like Anthony Bourdain is probably right on this one. Not that I've ever eaten at a Chick-fil-A, which I don't think has any Canadian branches.

Wouldn't be as good as Mary Browns anyway.

Jun 7, 2016#272

DarkAudit

All DeBlasio needed to do was show them this...

and Chick-fil-A should have known their efforts were futile.

Jun 7, 2016#273

Eriol

Chad Sexington said:
Anyway, I feel like Anthony Bourdain is probably right on this one. Not that I've ever eaten at a Chick-fil-A, which I don't think has any Canadian branches.

There at least used to be one (maybe still there) in the Calgary airport near the check in gates by the USA departures. But outside security, so never bothered. I'd rather get THROUGH security and then figure things out for food since then your two big delays (bag drop & security) are done and you can't really be late for your flight.

So might be there. At least it was once.

Jun 7, 2016#274

Chad Sexington

Frank said:
Wouldn't be as good as Mary Browns anyway.

Oh man have you been to Seoul Fried Chicken? It's on 79 Ave and 104 St. You've got to try it: delicious.

Jun 8, 2016#275

Hailey Knight

Chad Sexington said:
Isn't it Chick-fil-A's policy not to support any political cause, but that their owners take a certain personal stance? I mean, yes, I realize that Chick-fil-A's money is what pays for the owners to do what they want, but they are technically different.

That may be what they say, but their actual practice of it is iffy. A small amount of profits were going to anti-gay marriage lobbyists years back. I remember that this caused whoever runs the Muppets to sever a marketing deal with the restaurant chain.

I'm curious if/when some group will ask them their bathroom policy in relation to transgender people. My local one has single-person bathrooms, so this wouldn't affect it, but for all I know larger locations also have larger bathrooms.

I only get Chik-fil-A if the buses have completely fucked up my ability to get into work on time, because it's right next to the bus station. Though I suppose I could just walk two blocks and get Chipotle, but the lines there are always longer.

Forums