(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?  

It's not about going into a bathroom to rape, it's about going in there to peep. Obviously it's easier to do this if the man is dressed like a woman to make people think he is trans than if he just walks in as is.

(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.

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.

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

Easier, as in not locking your stall. Or leaving the stall door open for all to have an enjoyable display. Which in itself would make the case for a lovely sexual harrassment suit. It's not as if women's bathrooms feature a set of urinals.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:49 pm)Losty Wrote:

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

You totally lost me now. When you say his business is required do you mean forced by law?  And what do you mean we aren't talking about him we're talking about his business.  If he runs the business then he makes the decisions, the business isn't a separate sentient being who can make decisions.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:51 pm)abaris Wrote:

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

Easier, as in not locking your stall. Or leaving the stall door open for all to have an enjoyable display. Which in itself would make the case for a lovely sexual harrassment suit. It's not as if women's bathrooms feature a set of urinals.

Right. It makes sense until you actually think about it...

(April 15, 2016 at 8:51 pm)abaris Wrote:

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

Easier, as in not locking your stall. Or leaving the stall door open for all to have an enjoyable display. Which in itself would make the case for a sexual harrassment case. It's not as if women's bathrooms feature a set of urinals.

Yeh it's not easy to peep even when inside a womens toilets I imagine, but I imagine it's easier than doing it from the outside of the room. 

I'm honestly not an expert at doing this ( I can't stress that enough) but I imagine they could just peep over the side or under the stall or place hidden cameras or hundreds of other tactics.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:51 pm)Catholic_Lady 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?  

It's not about going into a bathroom to rape, it's about going in there to peep. Obviously it's easier to do this if the man is dressed like a woman to make people think he is trans than if he just walks in as is.

Do people really worry so much about this??? Trans women have been using women's restrooms for years and I haven't noticed any epidemic of hetero men pretending to be women for the sake of peeping.

By the way, if they wanted to do this they could do it regardless of whether or not we allow transpeople to use whatever restroom. It's not like we have a test for someone to prove their physical gender before peeing.
If someone really wants to do it they will regardless of the laws about transgender toilet usage.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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

Anything could be dangerous, C_L. The integration laws had a much more dangerous element to them, and yet they were still the right thing to do. You are still relying on a bogey man that you haven't shown to be a significant risk.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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

Why not? I can't think of a good reason why this isn't an apt comparison. Put the shoe on the other foot, C_L. If you were a black person in the 60's getting on a bus with one seat left, and it was next to a white person, do you not think that was a potentially dangerous, awkward, and incredibly scary situation?

Should I compare it to newly integrated bathrooms, then? When the scary and barbaric negroes were coming into the restrooms with little white children? How about when they got rid of the colored drinking fountains, and white children were forced to drink from the same water fountains as those disease infested niggers?

I say these words only to prove a point, that these arguments are just regurgitated fear mongering. What will these freedoms usher in? How many times are you going to fall for the same catastrophism when none of these instilled fears ever come to light?

(April 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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?

There should be a line. If a person is transgender, they should be able to choose what bathroom/locker room/changing room they feel most comfortable in.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:52 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:49 pm)Losty Wrote: 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.

You totally lost me now. When you say his business is required do you mean forced by law?  And what do you mean we aren't talking about him we're talking about his business.  If he runs the business then he makes the decisions, the business isn't a separate sentient being who can make decisions.

I feel like you are intentionally being dense.

The man himself isn't required to have a business. If he does have one there are laws that say a business cannot discriminate. It's not remotely the same as trying to force women to have sex with men they don't want to sleep with.

I don't believe you think it's the same either.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:21 pm)Sterben Wrote:       Sorry about the typo, I thought I proofread it fully. It would not be right to discriminate in any of these cases, how would you purpose to keep bigots out of businesses? While your thinking about that, let me ask you a other question. Would you classify a sex-change operation has cosmetic surgery? John who feels he is really a woman on the inside, this has been bothering him for a while and is affecting his work. He wants to get breast implants and hormone therapy, should his employers health insurance cover such a operation? A female employee could easy claim the size of her breasts are to small and is affecting her work performance. Should both be covered by there HMO or PPO? Their both trying to get "Cosmetic" surgery's. Should both be covered, or do both get denied there surgery's? Does the requests fall under a medical need? If you were the underwriter for the company's health plan, would you deny both of them, or approve both? Since both fall under "Cosmetic".

I think you're doing it on purpose now, so whatever.

I didn't propose to keep bigots out of business. They are there. Instead of protecting the business, you protect the people who are being discriminated against. The same arguments were used in the South in the 50's-60's when segregation was made illegal. More commonly businesses would lose patronage if a black person was seated at the lunch counter because the law protected that black person from being kicked out of the business for being black. So racist white people would come in, see the black people in the store, and leave for another place. This happened until it didn't.

Social change isn't always easy, but a lot of the times it's necessary.

As far as the example of the surgery, you have literally no understanding of the process for getting a sex reassignment surgery. You can't just walk into a plastic surgeon's office and ask them to turn you into a woman. It takes years of therapy, both hormone and mental/emotional, before a doctor will perform a SRS. At that point, it is medically indicated as the best treatment option. If your HMO or insurance options include certain elective options, then no, SRS shouldn't be excluded. The same would go if a person had serious emotional issues with breast size. If she went through years of therapy and her doctor recommended that an augmentation was medically indicated, then yes, that should be covered like any other elective procedure. If elective procedures are not already covered, then this is a moot point. Some companies just have shitty insurance. They can continue to have shitty insurance if they prefer that. The employee makes that decision when they join the company.

        I do understand how SRS works, I knew a person who went through it and it was very messy. I still don't see how something as breast implants can be covered under the guides of good therapy. I can see breast reduction being covered since cases have proved that it is medically harmful, I'm struggling to see why getting enhancement would be deemed medically necessary. I agree with social changes are necessary and acceptance of people that are different. As I said I support the LGBT community, where I disagree with them in the point is financially. It should be a choice whether I want to pay more to support these types of surgeries, these types should all be self funded. To all who disagree with me, I consider SRS to be cosmetic.