Transexuals

[Silver]

Methinks your sarcasm meter is defective today.

No, I knew he was being sarcastic. xD

[LadyForCamus]

Personally I'd just be a whole lot more comfortable using which ever bathroom the hot girls use. Thanks for understanding.

Fine, but enter at your own risk...hot girls get explosive diarrhea too!

[Goosebump]

Personally I'd just be a whole lot more comfortable using which ever bathroom the hot girls use.  Thanks for understanding.

Fine, but enter at your own risk...hot girls get explosive diarrhea too!

And are probably more likely to use and carry pepper spray and tasers!

[Jenny A]

I wouldn't require anyone to use such a bathroom,  but men with infant daughters,  mixed sex couples who need to assist  one another, people looking after severely retarded members of the opposite sex, and persons in transition of ambiguous visual gender would appreciate a neutral room.,

What part of appreciate versus  required to use did you miss?

I didn't see "appreciate" in the quote or what you were responding to when I quoted it. If I missed an earlier post that's my bad and I apologize.

The reason why I enter into the "required" argument is that is the vain of the thread with Catholic_lady. It's where my mind was and that influenced how I read it.

Just to be clear: you don't think a transgender should have to use the unisex BR, in your summation they could use that one or the one they gender identify with?

- Again sorry for the confusion. -

No I think people's bathroom of choice is fine. But a third option would be nice in larger venues just as a one room unisex room works in smaller venues.

[Goosebump]

I didn't see "appreciate" in the quote or what you were responding to when I quoted it. If I missed an earlier post that's my bad and I apologize.

The reason why I enter into the "required" argument is that is the vain of the thread with Catholic_lady. It's where my mind was and that influenced how I read it.

Just to be clear: you don't think a transgender should have to use the unisex BR, in your summation they could use that one or the one they gender identify with?

- Again sorry for the confusion. -

No I think people's bathroom of choice is fine. But a third option would be nice in larger venues just as a one room unisex room works in smaller venues.

Got it. Thanks so much for being civil and patient with me. 

[rexbeccarox]

Except that for those who are transitioning, even though they may not have had the bottom surgery done, are informed that they must fully incorporate into their lives every aspect of that which they are.  After all, a man transitioning into a woman is no threat to anyone in a woman's bathroom except bigoted assholes who would prefer to judge than empathize or understand in any capacity.

I don't think so. I think a woman can feel uncomfortable with a physical man (despite gender identity) being in the same bathroom and/or lockerroom, and that does not make them bigoted assholes. Personally I would be uncomfortable changing/showering in the same vicinity as a physical man.

Why does your comfort level trump that of other people's?

[Goosebump]

Except that for those who are transitioning, even though they may not have had the bottom surgery done, are informed that they must fully incorporate into their lives every aspect of that which they are.  After all, a man transitioning into a woman is no threat to anyone in a woman's bathroom except bigoted assholes who would prefer to judge than empathize or understand in any capacity.

I don't think so. I think a woman can feel uncomfortable with a physical man (despite gender identity) being in the same bathroom and/or lockerroom, and that does not make them bigoted assholes. Personally I would be uncomfortable changing/showering in the same vicinity as a physical man.

And you don't see how this is likely exactly how transitioning women feel when having to use the men's room? Only there it's them surrounded by ALL men instead of you with one, woman with some man parts?

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think so. I think a woman can feel uncomfortable with a physical man (despite gender identity) being in the same bathroom and/or lockerroom, and that does not make them bigoted assholes. Personally I would be uncomfortable changing/showering in the same vicinity as a physical man.

Why does your comfort level trump that of other people's?

As I have explained, I think the comfort level of the majority trumps the comfort level of the minority. There are a lot more women than there are physical men who identify as women but have not had sex change. Nonetheless, a 3rd bathroom is what I believe the solution should be, so these people don't have to feel uncomfortable either.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think so. I think a woman can feel uncomfortable with a physical man (despite gender identity) being in the same bathroom and/or lockerroom, and that does not make them bigoted assholes. Personally I would be uncomfortable changing/showering in the same vicinity as a physical man.

And you don't see how this is likely exactly how transitioning women feel when having to use the men's room? Only there it's them surrounded by ALL men instead of you with one, woman with some man parts?

See above.

[Esquilax]

There is a continuum between minor body modifications from tattoos to voluntary amputation. You must be aware of body integrity identity disorder. That is the condition where people self-identify as amputees. What do you suggest for them?

I think that's something I'd need to learn more about before I make a judgment call. Like I did with the transgender stuff.

Mind you, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, not all transgender peeps are willing or able to go through with the process of surgical gender reassignment, so there's no sense in painting all with a brush that would only reach some, anyway.

The concern has never been about transgendered sexual predators; but rather sexual predators posing as the transgendered.

So your position, properly stated, is that you're concerned about sexual predators, so you've decided to base your view on the issue around stopping a completely unrelated group of people from visiting the correct bathroom. Your solution is so deeply irrelevant to what you're trying to prevent as to be useless on the face of it: I can't even call this an acceptable casualty because to do that, you'd need to actually be aiming to hit your chosen target.

This specter of bathroom rape resulting from equitable transgender laws is constantly brought up, but there's simply no facts to support it.

And I hope there never will be.

Are you in the habit of taking drastic, freedom-reducing measures to combat fears which have no evidence or basis in reality, "just in case," in general, or is this just like a little special pleading thing on your part?

It’s more like this:

“I better not alert anyone that a suspicious man is hanging out in the women’s room because I might be called a bigot”

Your attitude creates an incentive for people to not report potentially dangerous situations.

If you're alerting someone just on the basis that there's a trans person in a bathroom? Yeah, that would be bigotry, in exactly the same way that alerting someone because there's a black guy taking a long time in a supermarket aisle, or a muslim fiddling with his suitcase in an ariport: you'd be profiling a person based on outward physical characteristics and stereotypes, rather than on anything they're doing. That is bigotry.

Now, if the person is actually doing something worthy of that attention, then you have something to report beyond that there's a trans person in a bathroom, and the situation is different. Really, this whole proposition from you is wall to wall dumpster fires, man: you're proposing punishing an entirely unrelated group of people, to alleviate the risk of actions which are already crimes, based on zero evidence and selective criteria you will not consistently apply, for the sole purpose of making it so that the kind of person who'll report someone simply based on their looks won't be afraid of their fee fees being hurt... in a country that already doesn't particularly care how transgendered people feel. There is no perspective in which your proposed action makes even a lick of sense.

Again, sexual assault is already illegal. The statistics don't support even a mite of what you're saying; time and again we find that the majority of rapists are people known to the victim, not random attackers doing their thing out in public in places where people not only come in and out at will, but are expected to. You're suggesting dealing real harm to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and I don't know why you'd ever want to do that. There's nothing factual here to even deal with.