(April 15, 2016 at 8:36 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:33 pm)Losty Wrote: What the fuck does this have to do with the discussion? You're still stuck thinking of businesses and people and they're not.

What do you mean?  I'm saying yeh it's bad to be discriminated against but government force doesn't always solve the problem.  We're talking about getting the government to force a business to hire someone who they might discriminate against.  That's at least part of the discussion along with talking about how to solve the problem of where transvestites urinate.

Exactly, businesses. No people will be required to open their homes to strangers for using the restroom or any other reason.

Your analogy makes no sense. A woman is not a business. And businesses do not refuse services to people based on penis size or ugliness. These aren't real groups that are being discriminated against by businesses. The government forcing women to have sex with ugly small dick men vs forcing businesses to provide the services they already provide without discriminating is apples to dinosaurs

(April 15, 2016 at 8:40 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No one has yet demonstrated that dressing in drag in order to sneak into a bathroom and rape a woman is any "easier" than sneaking into a woman's bathroom via any other method in order to accomplish the same thing.  In fact, I would argue such an approach is more difficult and cumbersome than if the rapist just waited for the opportune moment sans full drag.  Thoughts?  

Has anyone argued that it would be easier to dress in drag in order to sneak into a bathroom and rape a woman than any other method?

(April 15, 2016 at 8:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think the goal is to "step on trans people" out of bigotry or anything like that. I think people are concerned that this may make it easier for a hetero man with a peeping fetish to pretend to be trans in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep. 

Like I have said, this isn't a big fear of mine. My biggest reason for saying a 3rd bathroom is the best option is due to women feeling uncomfortable while in a bathroom/lockerroom with a person who is still physically male. However, I do think it is a valid concern that should be taken into account.  

Did you see my post where I was asking you guys where you would draw the line (if one should be drawn at all) and if it should be different for lockerrooms?

What does it matter what the goal is if the outcome is just as I said?

I think if the outcome could be dangerous, it should matter. There are 2 sides to everything, and both sides should be considered and options weighed.

Quote:As to your question, I answered it, we leave it up to the trans person. Wherever they feel more comfortable peeing, that's where they pee.

Just like in the 50s-60s, when white people were uncomfortable sitting in the booth next to black people, you'll get over it in time. Black people were a minority then just like they are now, but they deserved protection, even at the cost of the majority being uncomfortable while they adjusted. So while having a black person sit next to you (global you) on the bus was just about nearly intolerable, having a trans person nervously shuffle into a stall to use the restroom will be something you'll get over. It's even easier this time, because you'll probably not even notice that it's happening.

Again, the perv bogey man is just a tactic that was drawn up out of fear mongering from the right. Denying people rights and putting them in danger because some asshole politician whose party has been involved in more bathroom perversions than the people they are claiming to protect against is creating this "trans panic" is a thing that would fly in no other situation.

Sorry I missed it.

One thing, I don't think it's fair to compare a woman feeling uncomfortable in private situations or in states of undress in the presence of a physically male person, to a white person not feeling comfortable next to a black person.

To be clear, do you hold the same views for lockerrooms/changing rooms as well? That there should be no line at all, and any person who says they are trans can just go in, even if it's a very male looking individual who is wearing lipstick?

(April 15, 2016 at 8:30 pm)paulpablo Wrote: But there's plenty of discriminated people out there who the government doesn't help with force.  I mean I can't imagine how bad it must be to be really ugly with a tiny penis.  They have no access to vagina from a good looking woman, and yet their bodies testosterone constantly demands that they get vagina from a good looking woman. He will have no chance of getting certain jobs in a trendy clothing store or part of a sales team. They could possibly pay for access to sex but that would be illegal.  So they're being discriminated against and the one thing they could do to stop it is actually prevented by several government laws.

Because "access to vagina" is not a human right. Because no one's rights should require another person to lose theirs. That man is not being subject to legal discrimination. In your definition, all dating is discrimination. If I break up with you because you are an insufferable idiot, have I discriminated against you? If I choose not to date a man because I am not attracted to men, have I discriminated? If you want to stretch colloquial meanings to wrench a point home, by all means go ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us to play along.

If you open a business, your agree to the laws that come with opening a business. Federally, in the United States, that comes with anti-discrimination laws--with good reason, considering our history. We Americans, despite calling ourselves a melting pot, love to make people feel like outsiders, we love to base our prejudices in deep rooted stereotypes and act on them. So we have anti-discrimination laws.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:42 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:40 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No one has yet demonstrated that dressing in drag in order to sneak into a bathroom and rape a woman is any "easier" than sneaking into a woman's bathroom via any other method in order to accomplish the same thing.  In fact, I would argue such an approach is more difficult and cumbersome than if the rapist just waited for the opportune moment sans full drag.  Thoughts?  

Has anyone argued that it would be easier to dress in drag in order to sneak into a bathroom and rape a woman than any other method?

If you replace the word "rape" with the word "peep" then yes it's at least been brought up that some people feel that way.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Losty Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:36 pm)paulpablo Wrote: What do you mean?  I'm saying yeh it's bad to be discriminated against but government force doesn't always solve the problem.  We're talking about getting the government to force a business to hire someone who they might discriminate against.  That's at least part of the discussion along with talking about how to solve the problem of where transvestites urinate.

Exactly, businesses. No people will be required to open their homes to strangers for using the restroom or any other reason.

Your analogy makes no sense. A woman is not a business. And businesses do not refuse services to people based on penis size or ugliness. These aren't real groups that are being discriminated against by businesses. The government forcing women to have sex with ugly small dick men vs forcing businesses to provide the services they already provide without discriminating is apples to dinosaurs

but when we use the word business we're talking about people and the discriminatory decisions they make.

If we say "the bakery down the road discriminates against homosexuals" we're talking about the people who own the business, not the bricks and mortar that make the walls of the bakery or the bread or the ovens, it's people.  People discriminate based on looks, intelligence, charm, who's closer to them in family.  So in both senses it's just people discriminating against other people, denying them what they want based on things they can't control.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Losty Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:42 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Has anyone argued that it would be easier to dress in drag in order to sneak into a bathroom and rape a woman than any other method?

If you replace the word "rape" with the word "peep" then yes it's at least been brought up that some people feel that way.

Yeah, I mean I'm not attached to the word "rape". I mean fill in the blank with any sexual offense. What would make it "easier" and how would you determine that?

(April 15, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Losty Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:42 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Has anyone argued that it would be easier to dress in drag in order to sneak into a bathroom and rape a woman than any other method?

If you replace the word "rape" with the word "peep" then yes it's at least been brought up that some people feel that way.

Well it would be easier to peep at women using the toilets if you're inside the restroom more so than if you're outside the restroom.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:46 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Losty Wrote: Exactly, businesses. No people will be required to open their homes to strangers for using the restroom or any other reason.

Your analogy makes no sense. A woman is not a business. And businesses do not refuse services to people based on penis size or ugliness. These aren't real groups that are being discriminated against by businesses. The government forcing women to have sex with ugly small dick men vs forcing businesses to provide the services they already provide without discriminating is apples to dinosaurs

but when we use the word business we're talking about people and the discriminatory decisions they make.

If we say "the bakery down the road discriminates against homosexuals" we're talking about the people who own the business, not the bricks and mortar that make the walls of the bakery or the bread or the ovens, it's people.  People discriminate based on looks, intelligence, charm, who's closer to them in family.  So in both senses it's just people discriminating against other people, denying them what they want based on things they can't control.

No we aren't talking about him we are talking about his business. Not the building. The business. If he doesn't want to bake cakes he is welcome to pack his shit up and go home. No one requires him personally to be a baker or to bake cakes. But if he has a cake baking business then his business is required to offer services without descriminating.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:48 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Losty Wrote: If you replace the word "rape" with the word "peep" then yes it's at least been brought up that some people feel that way.

Well it would be easier to peep at women using the toilets if you're inside the restroom more so than if you're outside the restroom.

If you're going to make a point, why not make it? You don't want me to be able to say you're making the argument you just said nobody was making?