danivon wrote:It is not a "typo" and is not out of line with the linear trend observed in later polling.

4% is not credible.

For example, let's suppose 4% were in favor of doing away with slavery. Would we have fought the Civil War?

No.

You can say, "But, Gallup says . . ." 3 billion times, it doesn't make what they say any more meaningful.

What do you expect people of the 1950's to say, "Yes, I understand interracial marriage is illegal in my State, but I support it?"

Who freaking cares?

And, what does it have to do with deluded individuals who imagine themselves to be something other than they are? If someone on the street says he's a Martian, you liberals would ask how he got to Earth.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:At some point in this painful discussion the punch line will be photo ID or indelible ink.

Well, those who want to make rules about toilet access do need to address enforcement. Do you have to drop your trousers/pants (or skirt) before you enter, instead of the usual custom of doing so inside the bathroom?

No, that's only for Brits.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:I imagine that transgender who have successfully transitioned and are passing as their chosen sex are probably using their chosen public washroom without incident or comment all over the US.
Its the one's who aren't very successfully appearing as their chosen sex who might be in peril.

I am fine with them using after surgery for gender reassignment.

So for you it is all about the genitals?

I believe I asked a question about whether other people's rights are needed to be considered. Cre to answer that one?

Yes.
Other people's rights should be considered. But you never really answered the question as to what the harm was to which rights.

So, yes it is about the genitals.

I said there is no award of damages to Jews, and I asked you if there was. Did not get a response about that. If there is no award of damages, but someone can ask for policy change because of being offended... Then the people who want to have a woman's or men's bathroom be just for that sex should be able to have that.

Also you asked if there were any problems from people who go into the bathrooms because of this policy. I gave the Univ. of Toronto as a linkable news item. Those boys caused mischief and this policy was changed.

bbauska wrote:Also you asked if there were any problems from people who go into the bathrooms because of this policy. I gave the Univ. of Toronto as a linkable news item. Those boys caused mischief and this policy was changed.

Sorry, but this is a pointless topic. Danivon and his ilk firmly believe that little girls should have to see men, who may or may not actually believe they are women, parade their genitalia in front of little girls.

I'm out.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:Also you asked if there were any problems from people who go into the bathrooms because of this policy. I gave the Univ. of Toronto as a linkable news item. Those boys caused mischief and this policy was changed.

Sorry, but this is a pointless topic. Danivon and his ilk firmly believe that little girls should have to see men, who may or may not actually believe they are women, parade their genitalia in front of little girls.

I'm out.

That's not how women's toilets work. In a men's room you often have urinals and so genitals are potentially visible

But women get stalls - which should have boltable doors for privacy and so if a transsexual uses them no-one need see any genitals. Ask any woman, it's not full frontal nudity in there, and if that happens it's ALREADY ILLEGAL!

You are just employing slurs for effect. Probably best you do not come back (but like a dog to its own shit, you will come back, and probably repeat this nastiness a third time)

Question for you guys (not DF, you are "out"): You are out with your young daughter. Mum is not around, and your daughter is too young to go to the toilet herself. She needs to go, and you are some way from home or a "single toilet" or unisex facility. Which multi-use bathroom do you use, men's or women's?

Great question. I have sent my older son in first to make sure it is clear out of courtesy to the other occupants. When she was older (6 and up, I let her use the woman's bathroom by herself.

What did you think of the Toronto issue? Do you think the gender neutral bathrooms are partially to blame?

bbauska wrote:Great question. I have sent my older son in first to make sure it is clear out of courtesy to the other occupants. When she was older (6 and up, I let her use the woman's bathroom by herself.

So two people with penises would go into the ladies? What about a woman who comes in afterwards, she might faint from the shock!

Or, it's not actually a problem.

What did you think of the Toronto issue? Do you think the gender neutral bathrooms are partially to blame?

Why should I care about Toronto?

They have gone from unisex to by gender, because some young horny men were being pervs. But these were not just toilets, they had showers in them as well, and that seemed to be where the problem was.

But they now say that the toilets are for those who identify as a gender, rather than by genitalia or birth certificate. I am sure you will report back if this solves the problem they had or not.

Why should you care about Toronto...

Hmmm, Why do you care about anything? Certainly the toilet laws in North Carolina have little, if any impact on England, but yet you bring it up? Why the change now?

As for Toronto, I am sure that the problem was with showers, that the perverts were using this ill-conceived law to there benefit. Hopefully the problem does subside.

bbauska wrote:Why should you care about Toronto...

Hmmm, Why do you care about anything? Certainly the toilet laws in North Carolina have little, if any impact on England, but yet you bring it up? Why the change now?

As for Toronto, I am sure that the problem was with showers, that the perverts were using this ill-conceived law to there benefit. Hopefully the problem does subside.

Which "law" were they using in Toronto? Please cite it. Or better, quote it so we can see how "ill-conceived" it is.

I doubt there is a "law" - it was the practice at a university.

I don't care about Toronto because the problem was not transgender people using the "wrong" gender-labelled toilets. Or even people pretending to be transgender.

It was cis-males abusing unisex showers.

But as the article says, they think it will be solved by having men's and women's bathrooms, segregated by gender identity. Meaning that transgender people can use the bathroom they want to.

Do let us know if that is a problem (and hey, try and find a "law" on that too)

OK, policy.

A gender neutral policy? No?

bbauska

A gender neutral policy? No?

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, or perhaps prove?
Whatever issues U of T had with a couple of voyeurs, they had the means to deal with the issue. (They were probably engineers...its always engineers with the peeping)
There have been voyeurs and exhibitionists on campuses and in public spaces predating the advent of gender neutral bathrooms. There will probably continue to be people who act out with these behaviors no matter what we do.... It is a compulsion.
You'll note that the two voyeurs were not transsexual. And yet if they were the same rules, laws and regulations would have applied to them
Just as in the States where they are passing the discriminatory laws... There exist laws against voyeurism and exhibitionism. The laws are gender neutral. Everyone regardless of their sex must follow these laws or face prosecution. They serve as preventative measures against these crimes.
There is, therefore, no particular reason to pass laws that specifically target transgender people if the worry is either voyeurism or exhibitionism ...or worse...
The myth being propagated by proponents of the law is that trans-gendered people are particularly disposed to both exhibitionism and/or voyeurism or perhaps sexual assault.
It just isn't true. Trans-gendered are more often victims of criminal violence and assault. They also commit suicide at alarming rates.
These discriminatory laws will only increase the feeling of persecution of trans-gendered, and serve
to help reinforce the attitudes of those who would be predisposed to commit violence against trans-gendered due to their bigotry.

bbauska wrote:OK, policy.

A gender neutral policy? No?

I have literally no idea what your point is.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:OK, policy.

A gender neutral policy? No?

I have literally no idea what your point is.

You say it is no big deal, and not the fault of the bathroom. The peeping occurred in a gender neutral facility.

You say it is not a law, but a policy. I agree with you. I found no instance of peeping there before on Google. I find it more than coincidental that this peeping occurs after being made neutral.

Does that help you follow?

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:OK, policy.

A gender neutral policy? No?

I have literally no idea what your point is.

You say it is no big deal, and not the fault of the bathroom. The peeping occurred in a gender neutral facility.

You say it is not a law, but a policy. I agree with you. I found no instance of peeping there before on Google. I find it more than coincidental that this peeping occurs after being made neutral.

Does that help you follow?

Nearly. I still don't see that it shows that letting transsexuals use the toilets based on their identity is a problem. Expecially when you see what their solution is.

For the third and last time:

Unisex bathrooms with showers at a college are NOT THE SAME THING as public toilets which don't have showers and are designated by gender.

I agree. They are not the same. No more than Republican pols are transsexuals. But that didn't stop you, did it?

I have said that a transsexual use a bathroom after gender reassignment surgery is fine. Before, and it infringes on the rights of others.

Can we at least agree on that?