(April 18, 2016 at 11:12 am)paulpablo Wrote:(April 15, 2016 at 8:51 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: How so? Could a man not wait outside of a deserted restroom in the wee hours of the night, go in behind her, and accomplish the exact same thing minus having to dress up? If you are going to make the claim that it is easier, you have to demonstrate that.
I didn't see this post before. I thought we were talking about if it would be easier for a person allowed into the toilets legally being able to peep than someone not allowed into toilets. My only point was that it's easier to commit offences in toilets that you're legally allowed to go into. No I can't imagine many rapists bothering to dress up as women to rape.
Um, you're already "allowed" to go into toilets anyway, because the door isn't locked and no one guards them. It's as easy as that. The idea that making it okay for transgenders makes it "easier" for someone to do that kind of thing is patently ridiculous.
If a transgender lady still is not transitioned, to the point that she still looks entirely like a man, she's not going to feel comfortable going into a womens' room and standing out. She'll use the men's room until such time as she feels comfortable moving to a more appropriate location where she can fit in. And yet, we're discussing the comfort of the straight people, just in case they notice a person who doesn't quite fit in?
How can y'all not see that this is the same exact argument that was used against desegregation and gay rights? It's being used now against the BLM movement, with the "well what about white people's feelings!?!" counter.
When you are a majority looking to take away rights of a minority that is already telling you they are under constant (literal) assaut, either verbally or physically, or you try in any other way repress them, it is the highest degree of inanity to then claim it's YOUR discomfort and fear that should be taken into account.
FFS!
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.