I remember when NC was about as progressive as it got for a Deep South state.

@Nova, you're falling for @gturner' stick -- he's making so many bad statements that are wrong in so many ways simultaneously, he's getting you to take indefensible positions in response. Note how your own position has shifted even within this thread. Don't try to answer false statements; just point out at maximum one reason why they are false, and go on to say what you have to say regardless.

Oh if only your father tossed in a sock that fateful night the world would be a better place.

I'm just arguing the simple and logical position about people we don't want going to the bathroom with our young daughters. Take, for example, the case of a six-year old girl.


He says he's a little girl. To any parent he's definitely a 52-year old man with some serious psycho-sexual mental problems.

No sane parent would be happy with a law that says he has the right to follow your little girl into the ladies room. No sane parent would be happy getting hit with a $5 million dollar civil rights suit for throwing a fit and calling the cops when he did just that.

So the sane approach is not have such a crazy law, despite the whining of the social justice warriors who are just virtue signalling instead of giving a shit about women and girls, some of whom have been brutally raped by men with penises in ladies rooms. Another approach is to have a much more complicated law that reflects that actual but relative rare cases of people who don't technically belong in the ladies room under some standard or other, but who fit right in. But such a law needs to exclude the 49% of people who definitely don't fit in no matter what stunts they want to pull. To date, nobody has offered one of those.

This is ironic because this is how all of Wordforge pictures you.

This is your defense? You are afraid of that person? No wonder my pony avatar frightened you. Do you realize that under your bathroom law that person would be following your little boy into the bathroom. He might even give him the gay.

In other words shut the fuck up because that was all sorts of bullshit fail.

your comments are incoherent. Let me draw with crayon so you can comprehend it - many places in the world have public restrooms, with plumbing, in buildings such as restaurants, bars, theaters, department stores, and such which are not genitally segregated.

Your drooling bullshit about shitting in the woods is irrelevant

many people of many different hues shit in a wide variety of places in this day and age, and throughout human history. So what? Can you stay on topic or not?

(she asks rhetorically knowing the answer already)

how so?

(really not energetic enough to review the thread to suss it out)

a nutter.

Big deal.

There are lots of nutters and they all pee with somebody's kids eventually.

Those are single occupancy restrooms, where only one sex is using the bathroom at a time. You can lock the door while doing your business. We do that so we never have the case of a man and a woman in the same bathroom at the same time. It's just giving that vital space to women who've been violently raped by men with penises.

But to hell with all the rape victims, the whims and desires of trans people override all else.

To name just some of the most striking problems: You are now claiming that trans people can definitely and even easily prove to a jury (not a panel of experts!) that they are trans, which would assume broad cultural consensus and a general absence of exactly the bigotry facing you in this thread, and in doing so, you're accepting that they would have to be expected to do so. You are claiming that you know that no-one would abuse the new situation, which you can't; and again, you are accepting that that should be a prerequisite for trans people being treated equally, as if absence of all possibility of abuse was a condition for rights (2nd amendment anyone? 1st amendment, too?). And you are making some notably bad arguments, such as pointing to the absence of abuse in a different, past situation to predict absence of abuse in a changed, future situation.

Post 100 clearly demonstrates that we need a or rep symbol.

Bullshit.

Then I'm sure you have photos of the men and women mingling together in a bathroom, aside from some drunken sorority girl at a bar trying to pee in a urinal.

Where? I've never even daydreamed such a thing.

No, I'm saying that they would not do so MORE because of said policy. We know this because we have a shit-ton of actual data supporting the conclusion. YES, there are guys who go in women's room for sexual gratification. YES a few of them do so in some sort of fem attire (usually fetishistic more than passing attempts) but no, experience shows that the RATE at which this happens doesn't rise in the wake of trans-respecting policies.

If we're asked to accept the proposition that what happens in the future will defy the evidence already accumulated, I need a better argument than "they just will" - that sounds like a Trump promise to make everything better because Trump.

Not so. Simply calling a false argument what it is - false.
After all, we know many ministers abuse women and children under their ministry and yet I support the rights of women and children to go to church regardless

No. I'm pointing to absence of abuse in an identical, current situation. The only variable factor which might create an increase is the constant drumbeat from the Pharisees that gturner is parroting that these laws are writing a blank check for perverts - theoretically some of the perverts might take their word for it and give it a go.

you support photography of strangers in the restroom? Sounds like you're part of the problem.

A lot of urban India, especially the slums where a huge slice of the 1. 1 billion live, have communal public toilets which are gender segregated yet rapes are an epidemic due to local culture. I posted a video about this a while back.

I agree that in the US most men will not use the women's bathroom but you will get some pervs and it will be very difficult to keep them out if they claim to be trans. That is a small but never the less worry some group. How do you suggest a local PD deal with that group?

The local PD won't be able to do anything because they'll be hit with a multi-million dollar discrimination suit.

@Packard
My arguments made in this thread:

In current ongoing experience, with policies in place EXACTLY like the one Charlotte passed, the likely outcome the gturner (and the Cultural Pharisees) predicts does not, in fact, occur.

The assumption that penis and vagina may not toilet in the same room without penis routinely and systematically victimizing vagina is demonstrably false as evidence by current and ongoing experience in a massive sample of data.

The legal interpretation of the laws according to the people who wrote them, those who enforce them, and outside legal experts, runs contrary to gturner's assertion.

{quote]the photo post[/quote]
Which you praised so i assume is not the point at issue

That is, that the entire "restrooms are unsafe spaces" premise is flawed to begin with. Therefore, arguments based on the premise are fatally flawed - thus such arguments are strawmen.

[
Containing none of the arguments you say I'm making

Ditto.


That's all before you posted this:

Every argument I quoted here is highly defensible, they do not resemble the arguments you described, and they are not shifted to the current hour.

If you refer to a claim I've made which I've not quoted above, you'll have to cite it.

And Ted Cruz is Canadian!

OF COURSE. Thank you. That's the underlying issue. Rape culture, or rape as a part of prevailing culture. Happens whether you sort out the bathrooms or not because it's not about the bathrooms it's about the rapey cultural assumptions of the men.

The same way they deal with them NOW. I reiterate, some pervs do this, even in places without trans-respecting laws. Perv gonna do what a perv gonna do and the law deals with it.

But there are thousands of restrooms RIGHT NOW as we speak that are under Charlotte type NDOs and some of them have been for decades and there is no higher incidence of the pervs doing what they do there than there is in Mississippi or Oklahoma or Kansas or Arkansas or anywhere else that is strict about their bathrooms.

In, for example, Los Angeles, where tens of thousands of restrooms are covered by an NDO, if a perv dresses up and claims to be trans (which from a statistical point of view essentially never happens) then the cops deal with him for his violation EXACTLY the same way they would do if the same guy tried it in Tupelo MS. What's difficult to understand about this?

@Nova, I know you don't believe any of those things. @gturner has you arguing in their defence anyway. That's my point.

I've seen plenty of places that have unisex multiple occupancy bathrooms.

Which is a place that men can just hang out and occupy the space. Well now they can do that in ladies rooms, too. They can no longer get in trouble for it. If women try to throw them out the women could get charged with a civil rights violation.

The people so concerned about this strongly resemble the Saudis who think men and women must be segregated in most circumstances. Think about all the things done by both penis and vagina in the same room. If it's not a problem in the dining room, why is it a problem in the bathroom?

We're not banning women from the men's restroom, we're trying to let women keep men out of the women's restroom.

I've never known any men who hang out in bathrooms.

Because we weren't allowed to hang out in the women's bathrooms.

And did you think men didn't go into the co-ed locker rooms and showers because men don't like the sight of naked co-eds? No, it's because we were strictly forbidden from going in there. But now they can't keep us out because we can file a civil rights complaint.

@gturner, I think you should totally test that theory. Just go hang out in the lady Wiildcats locker room and report back to us.