Transexuals

[abaris]

I can easily do this because I know so many security guards but why would I?

So do it, damn you. Who's delegated to the honorable task of shitter patrol? Who's only task is doing that - outside of the usual and overall hub security?

[paulpablo]

I can easily do this because I know so many security guards but why would I?

So do it, damn you. Who's delegated to the honorable task of shitter patrol? Who's only task is doing that - outside of the usual and overall hub security?

Well can you see how this question is dishonest.  

First of all you're stawmanning.  I never said someone has the only task of guarding a toilet. I said toilets are often guarded or locked.

Second of all you're asking me a question about who does the security guard work but telling me the answer must be confined to only being able to pick from outside of the security guards.

[abaris]

Strawmanning is quickly becoming a favorite word of yours. Actually, you're constantly moving the goal posts. At one time you're talking about guarded toilets, then it is, you never talked about guarded toilets. To repeat ad nauseam.

[paulpablo]

Strawmanning is quickly becoming a favorite word of yours. Actually, you're constantly moving the goal posts. At one time you're talking about guarded toilets, then it is, you never talked about guarded toilets. To repeat ad nauseam.

This is again a strawman.  I never said I never talked about guarded toilets.  I am definitely saying that toilets are sometimes locked or guarded.

What I didn't say as part of any argument was that toilets have a dedicated guard who only has the job of guarding that toilet which is what you tried to strawman me with.

I've never moved the goal posts my constant argument is that sometimes toilets are locked or guarded.  

This was in response to rocket surgeon saying the door isn't locked or guarded in a toilet.

[abaris]

Yes, as I said, strawman quickly becoming your favorite word.

[paulpablo]

Yes, as I said, strawman quickly becoming your favorite word.

No you just keep strawmanning me along with other people so I keep telling you and everyone else that it's what you're doing and yet you continue to make strawman arguments.

[Losty]

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!

Because transexuals are freaks. No one cares about their feelings

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh yeah, they do come and measure my nob from time to time. On a cold day I get marched into the ladies.

[Sterben]

        I do understand how SRS works,
...

To all who disagree with me, I consider SRS to be cosmetic.

Then you clearly do not understand the consequences of not being able to have SRS.

           You can have SRS, I disagree with employers having to pay for it. These surgeries should be self-funded, it's their problem that they feel like a different gender. I can understand the fear and the self-hatred that can come with Gender Identity issues. You can always finance SRS operations, I would just hate the fact of having to pay more for the sake of others in this regards. Now, since I'm not a complete ass-hole I have a idea for employers to be able to cover a operation.

          Company A offers various types of coverage's, the only way for a employee to able to get a SRS surgery is to have the highest level of coverage. It works to be perfectly fair so other employees aren't getting screwed on the cost of there coverage's. It may be considered unfair to make them pay for the highest grade of coverage to get the operation. At the end of the day serious and costly cosmetic surgeries should not have to be floated by others to pay for it.

[Losty]

Again, if you think it's strictly cosmetic, you do not understand it.