I don't want to criminalize behavior for transgenders. Not in any shape or form I truly believe everybody has the right to live however they want to. I'm just a firm believer that you don't fix a problem by creating others. The only answer that I can see being reasonable is that everybody has to create family bathrooms where they're not open to the public use as far as multiple people being in there that way the select few can have their privacy without being embarrassed or feeling out of place. In reality we're not that far apart on this issue. I just would err on the side of caution when it comes to women and their safety not trying to Trump somebody else's feelings but safety is my primary concern. So unless the federal government is willing to hand out funds to create an additional bathroom space I don't think there is a real answer.

 

I can't argue or take any offence over your response here. You're right it is reasonable and certainly at least somewhat fair, if not at least a good compromise. I'm not sure why in your previous responses you needed to insult me, call me stupid or wish bad things on my family and friends, especially when I never went down that road myself. I never advocated or defended criminal behavior (or criminals).

FTN - I am going to take 1 more shot at this against my better judgment. Is your position accurately summarized below? I just want to make sure I understand your position before taking issue with it.

 

FTN believes that permitting (more accurately, not prohibiting) anatomically male persons into a woman's restroom creates an environment where an anatomically male person in a woman's restroom will become more accepted and where people will hesitate to object due to the law and due to being labeled a bigot.

 

FTN believes in this environment where it is not prohibited for an anatomically male person to be in a woman's restroom, deviant, male, non-transgender persons will be embolden to enter a woman's restroom more often and more freely since there are no consequences to doing so and, if questioned, that deviant, male, non-transgender person could always simply respond that "I identify as a female" and know there will be no adverse consequences.

 

Once more deviant, male, non-transgender persons enter a woman's restroom, more deviant behavior is likely to occur. Therefore, allowing transgender persons to enter restrooms of their choice rather than the gender assigned to them on their birth certificate because it may help prevent concerns on their part does not balance against increased deviant behavior in restrooms so laws should be passed to make sure people are required to use the bathroom of the gender assigned to them on their birth certificate.

 

That pretty much summarizes my concern.

I can't argue or take any offence over your response here. You're right it is reasonable and certainly at least somewhat fair, if not at least a good compromise. I'm not sure why in your previous responses you needed to insult me, call me stupid or wish bad things on my family and friends, especially when I never went down that road myself. I never advocated or defended criminal behavior (or criminals).

 

I get a little over the top sometimes. Sorry about that. Wear my feelings on my sleeve. I was not attempting to be that way. I was trying to make the ramifications feel personal and not decide for others from a far. I alway try to think to myself how would I feel about that happening to me. If it's not good for the goose than not good for the gander.

FTN - I am going to take 1 more shot at this against my better judgment. Is your position accurately summarized below? I just want to make sure I understand your position before taking issue with it.

 

FTN believes that permitting (more accurately, not prohibiting) anatomically male persons into a woman's restroom creates an environment where an anatomically male person in a woman's restroom will become more accepted and where people will hesitate to object due to the law and due to being labeled a bigot.

 

FTN believes in this environment where it is not prohibited for an anatomically male person to be in a woman's restroom, deviant, male, non-transgender persons will be embolden to enter a woman's restroom more often and more freely since there are no consequences to doing so and, if questioned, that deviant, male, non-transgender person could always simply respond that "I identify as a female" and know there will be no adverse consequences.

 

Once more deviant, male, non-transgender persons enter a woman's restroom, more deviant behavior is likely to occur. Therefore, allowing transgender persons to enter restrooms of their choice rather than the gender assigned to them on their birth certificate because it may help prevent concerns on their part does not balance against increased deviant behavior in restrooms so laws should be passed to make sure people are required to use the bathroom of the gender assigned to them on their birth certificate.

 

Excellent post! Demonstrating you heard and understand the other person goes a long way to being able to have a healthy dialogue. You may never agree, but at least you show respect for the other person by caring enough to actually listen to their point of view and accurately represent it. Good model for the rest of us here.

Excellent post! Demonstrating you heard and understand the other person goes a long way to being able to have a healthy dialogue. You may never agree, but at least you show respect for the other person by caring enough to actually listen to their point of view and accurately represent it. Good model for the rest of us here.

 

Along the same lines, it has been documented in my previous posts that I am predominantly against the NC bill, but I think you brought up a really solid point about locker rooms. I haven't read the text of the bill, but I wonder if there is a changing room/shower/locker room/etc.. exception in that it only refers to what we would all consider only restrooms. I hope there is, and share your concerns if there isn't.

 

Ignoring the age issue (which I have many qualms about regarding parents allowing minors to begin transitioning) this is the main problem I have with the school issue and why I hate taking the two together. Since the crux of this debate hinges on anatomically male individuals using women's facilities, I see a mile's worth of difference between permitting someone to use a room made up entirely of stalls and a common sink versus the use of a common room where various states of undress are the norm.

My stance against this is not for the public restroom at the mall debate. My problem with this is does anyone think it is acceptable for a 15 y.o. boy, who is anatomically a male, to shower in a locker room full of females?

 

Does anyone think it is acceptable for a 15 y.o. girl, who is anatomically a female to shower in a locker room full of males?

 

This Executive Order doesn't spell out what accommodations are to be afforded those "identifying" as a specific gender. This could happen in some schools.

 

Again, does anyone think this is a good idea?

Charlotte Observer Editorial - from staff of newspaper.

 

Taking the fear out of bathrooms | The Charlotte Observer

 

Closing statement in editorial:

 

"Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort – with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage – then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined."

 

 

 

Read more here: Taking the fear out of bathrooms | The Charlotte Observer

Charlotte Observer Editorial - from staff of newspaper.

 

Taking the fear out of bathrooms | The Charlotte Observer

 

Closing statement in editorial:

 

"Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort – with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage – then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined."

 

 

 

Read more here: Taking the fear out of bathrooms | The Charlotte Observer

 

How about the thought of a male weirdo saying he is a female so he can go into a womans locker room and rape them or fondle himself in front of them.

How about the thought of a male weirdo saying he is a female so he can go into a womans locker room and rape them or fondle himself in front of them.

 

Once again, you're missing a key point. There's NOTHING that stops a male weirdo from walking in and doing that right now. It's easy to do, and does in fact happen. In fact, the criminal isn't likely to "announce" anything, as that would attract attention, which would hamper his ability to do whatever it is he is looking to do. And should they be able to get into the locker room/restroom assaulting, flashing, or whatever is a crime, punishable by law if he does. The "right" to be there, doesn't grant the right to commit crimes. Laws preventing transgenders from using the ladies room doesn't change any of that. It doesn't make it any more difficult to enter the ladies room, and it doesn't change the punishment should someone get caught committing a crime in the ladies room. The ONLY thing a law preventing transgenders from using the facility they prefer does, is criminalize the behavior of an innocent transgender person entering that bathroom/locker room.. In the end, only transgender people are affected by this law, not the criminals.

^^^^^^^^

Your right it dont stop them. But now it just makes it easier.

 

I still disagree, as do MILLIONS of others.

^^^^^^^^

Your right it dont stop them. But now it just makes it easier.

 

I still disagree, as do MILLIONS of others.

 

They can just walk in now. People have already posted many incidents where that is already going on. How does hanging a sign on the wall make it more difficult? Is criminalizing the a transgender person using the restroom really going to keep the bad guys out?? Unless part of the law is requiring bouncers at the door to check ID's.

 

And yes, millions disagree. And along the same line, there are millions that do agree.

How about the thought of a male weirdo saying he is a female so he can go into a womans locker room and rape them or fondle himself in front of them.

 

I want to point out that I find the editorial and especially the closing remarks outrageous.

 

Unfortunately the response you would get is that there has to be sacrifice for the broader cause. That is the progressive way. So a few rapes of families daughters, a few indecent acts in front of daughters and maybe a few sextually charged murders are just the sacrifices for the greater good.

 

How this subject is compared to the racial equality or the gay movement is beyond understanding.

They can just walk in now. People have already posted many incidents where that is already going on. How does hanging a sign on the wall make it more difficult? Is criminalizing the a transgender person using the restroom really going to keep the bad guys out?? Unless part of the law is requiring bouncers at the door to check ID's.

 

And yes, millions disagree. And along the same line, there are millions that do agree.

 

Well Im just glad I can have an opinion, at least till January in case Hillary is elected. Then America goes to dirt.

Well Im just glad I can have an opinion, at least till January in case Hillary is elected. Then America goes to dirt.

 

Somebody says this with the election of every president. Hyperbole generally isn't true, but it sure sounds good.

 

Nobody has ever said you weren't entitled to your opinion. Just like I'm entitled to have and present mine. And you can still have your opinion in January regardless of who's elected.

I want to point out that I find the editorial and especially the closing remarks outrageous.

 

Unfortunately the response you would get is that there has to be sacrifice for the broader cause. That is the progressive way. So a few rapes of families daughters, a few indecent acts in front of daughters and maybe a few sextually charged murders are just the sacrifices for the greater good.

 

How this subject is compared to the racial equality or the gay movement is beyond understanding.

 

I haven't made the comparison once. And again, I understand the fears of rapes, murders, assaults etc. But there is zero evidence that allowing them in, will suddenly cause these incidents to begin occurring, or more accurately at a higher rate. But for the 80 billionth time, there are already laws that address those acts we all fear. New laws only would criminalize a transgender person using the restroom, and not make it anymore difficult for the people we fear to commit the crimes. So ultimately, transgenders end up being the target of the law, not the criminals we fear. And for the life of me, I can't understand why we only worry about our daughters. Why we aren't worried about our boys with these same "weirdo's", is just beyond me.