If I identify as a 4 year old, it is MY RIGHT to attend kindergarten class.
-
95
-
Just create the 3rd “alternative” bathroom lockeroom already and make it the norm everywhere that way they/them can go in there and have at it with anyone else who wants to stare at people and/or get freaky and leave everyone in the other bathrooms alone!!
83 -
aisdjfoasidjfosdij wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Are you one of those guys that showers in his underwear?
I am not. I have no issue with nudity, it is more the weird old man junk hanging out while they have hour long conversations. It is weird but I deal.
The point is I just don't care much about what the genitals are that are hanging out. Man, trans-man, whatever. Use the locker room that fits you identity and the rest of us just ignore it...like I do with the old man dong.
Letting men into female-only spaces where they're vulnerable - gee how could that ever go wrong?84 -
Let it Rupp wrote:
If I identify as a 4 year old, it is MY RIGHT to attend kindergarten class.
If the law is written that way(the way it is in Washington State) then yes. Do I agree with it--no. But that is your right if the law allows it.
42 -
I'm a progressive 'Bill Maher' liberal so I don't like Woke people (or Trump) -- that said, society is obviously still wrestling with transgender people. I've known a bunch of transgendered folks, mostly from work. I'd say there are 3 types:
1. True believers. They honestly believe they are the other gender, for whatever reason.
2. Bored white women who want to be 'they' for attention and to be interesting.
3. Fakers who want to rattle authorities to kowtow to their BS and leer at women. ----
Problem is sorting between 1 & 3. A clearly gay male who puts on a wig and wants to be called Cinderella is hardly much a sexual threat to women, but what if the Fakers and predators to the same? .... But yeah they should have a 3rd changing room. Put the sauna/ hot tubs outside the locker rooms too, that's not really a brain buster.
24 -
parkerbros wrote:
I'm a progressive 'Bill Maher' liberal so I don't like Woke people (or Trump) -- that said, society is obviously still wrestling with transgender people. I've known a bunch of transgendered folks, mostly from work. I'd say there are 3 types:
1. True believers. They honestly believe they are the other gender, for whatever reason.
2. Bored white women who want to be 'they' for attention and to be interesting.
3. Fakers who want to rattle authorities to kowtow to their BS and leer at women. ----
Problem is sorting between 1 & 3. A clearly gay male who puts on a wig and wants to be called Cinderella is hardly much a sexual threat to women, but what if the Fakers and predators to the same? .... But yeah they should have a 3rd changing room. Put the sauna/ hot tubs outside the locker rooms too, that's not really a brain buster.
Problem is that the left doesn't want to distinguish between 1, 2, or 3. It forces them to take a stance and define what a woman/man is, which none of them appear to be able to do.
55 -
jamb innnnn wrote:
parkerbros wrote:
I'm a progressive 'Bill Maher' liberal so I don't like Woke people (or Trump) -- that said, society is obviously still wrestling with transgender people. I've known a bunch of transgendered folks, mostly from work. I'd say there are 3 types:
1. True believers. They honestly believe they are the other gender, for whatever reason.
2. Bored white women who want to be 'they' for attention and to be interesting.
3. Fakers who want to rattle authorities to kowtow to their BS and leer at women. ----
Problem is sorting between 1 & 3. A clearly gay male who puts on a wig and wants to be called Cinderella is hardly much a sexual threat to women, but what if the Fakers and predators to the same? .... But yeah they should have a 3rd changing room. Put the sauna/ hot tubs outside the locker rooms too, that's not really a brain buster.
Problem is that the left doesn't want to distinguish between 1, 2, or 3. It forces them to take a stance and define what a woman/man is, which none of them appear to be able to do.
To the left, any person that claims they feel like the other sex is classified as #1, and should go under the knife and get hormone jabs.
24 -
joedlrt wrote:
Why is it the left feels that a right to privacy applies to abortion, but not to a woman who feels that a biologic male should not be allowed in the same locker room as her and her grand daughters? Shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation that a woman's locker room should be a penis-free zone?
Because in one situation, the government is forcing a woman to give birth. In the other, a non-governmental entity is instituting a policy for its locker rooms. If the government were forcing women to go to their local YMCA and look at penises in the locker room, then yeah, people would be arguing that the government does not have that authority.
103 -
Primate1 wrote:
joedlrt wrote:
Why is it the left feels that a right to privacy applies to abortion, but not to a woman who feels that a biologic male should not be allowed in the same locker room as her and her grand daughters? Shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation that a woman's locker room should be a penis-free zone?
Because in one situation, the government is forcing a woman to give birth. In the other, a non-governmental entity is instituting a policy for its locker rooms. If the government were forcing women to go to their local YMCA and look at penises in the locker room, then yeah, people would be arguing that the government does not have that authority.
The gub isn't forcing anyone to give birth. They are 'forcing' people to not murder other people.
915 -
Cornpop wrote:
Primate1 wrote:
Because in one situation, the government is forcing a woman to give birth. In the other, a non-governmental entity is instituting a policy for its locker rooms. If the government were forcing women to go to their local YMCA and look at penises in the locker room, then yeah, people would be arguing that the government does not have that authority.
The gub isn't forcing anyone to give birth. They are 'forcing' people to not murder other people.
That's not how pregnancy works. You can't just decide not to give birth if you don't have an abortion (either spontaneous or induced). So if the government bans abortion, it is effectively forcing a pregnant woman to give birth. You may believe that the government is morally justified to have that authority, but that doesn't change what the authority is.
In any event, it really has nothing to do with the YMCA case, which doesn't involve the government at all.
84 -
parkerbros wrote:
I'm a progressive 'Bill Maher' liberal so I don't like Woke people
Truly woke people are those who are alert to to injustices and racism perpetuated throughout society.
You don't like people who are aware of that? Does that mean you think people should pretend everything is OK and believe racism has ended?
24 -
This is what happens when the Republicans pass laws banning teachers from calling boys boys and girls girls!
22 -
Ex L wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
Since when does the Christian Org called the YMCA allow adult males in girl's locker rooms?
Doesn't the will of the vast majority carry the day?
I guess since place decided to do that.
No, the majority of guests do not get to decide policy of any place.
Really?
The people have no say?
03 -
Ex L wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
So you are calling the 80 year old lady a liar?
I did not call her a liar.
In fact, I said that if what she said is true, it should be addressed.
You. You are a liar. I have seen you lie many times on this site.
The old lady may have misconstrued something or in fact, maybe she was absolutely right. That should be looked into.
I see.
She is old and may have "miscontrued something".
Got it.
List some of the many lies I have told on this site or be decent enuff to apologize
38 -
The solution seems clear, although it would require some expensive remodeling of facilities.
All restrooms are open to everyone and they are all constructed like women's restrooms currently are: stalls with doors where you use the toilet, and then a row of communal sinks and mirrors.
All locker rooms have individual stalls where you change clothes, some of which have showers for those who wish to shower. Then you go out and put your clothes and stuff into a locker in a communal area.
Personally, I have no problem being naked around other women in a locker room, but I'd feel mighty uneasy about doing so in a mixed-sex room. Now that we've decided people can choose their gender, the only reasonable solution is to provide privacy for everyone.
91 -
The 80 year old got banned after she confronted a person who identified as a woman, in a womens baithing suit, showering over her baithing suit, asking her if she had a penis and then trying to force her to leave. The clothed showerer responded that her genitals weren't any of the 80 year old's business. That's it. There is no evidence that she was staring at girls changing. If she did have a penis, it wasn't exposed. Why would you write a title that implies there was someone with their penis out watching girls changing when even the articles linked state that was not what was happening.
105 -
amkelley wrote:
The solution seems clear, although it would require some expensive remodeling of facilities.
All restrooms are open to everyone and they are all constructed like women's restrooms currently are: stalls with doors where you use the toilet, and then a row of communal sinks and mirrors.
All locker rooms have individual stalls where you change clothes, some of which have showers for those who wish to shower. Then you go out and put your clothes and stuff into a locker in a communal area.
Personally, I have no problem being naked around other women in a locker room, but I'd feel mighty uneasy about doing so in a mixed-sex room. Now that we've decided people can choose their gender, the only reasonable solution is to provide privacy for everyone.
This proposal would render unsustainable the collective pretense of society that women don’t poop.
60 -
Go Sweden1 wrote:
Just create the 3rd “alternative” bathroom lockeroom already and make it the norm everywhere that way they/them can go in there and have at it with anyone else who wants to stare at people and/or get freaky and leave everyone in the other bathrooms alone!!
Or just do what they do in many countries. Full length stalls, all genders are allowed in the stalled bathroom, and each stall is its own little room. There is often a seperate room with a trough for those who can pee standing up to use if they like. Changing room stalls can be similar. Showers can be similar too. We can all be in the same room without seeing eachother naked. That would be a lot easier than creating a seperate bathroom.
00 -
amkelley wrote:
The solution seems clear, although it would require some expensive remodeling of facilities.
All restrooms are open to everyone and they are all constructed like women's restrooms currently are: stalls with doors where you use the toilet, and then a row of communal sinks and mirrors.
All locker rooms have individual stalls where you change clothes, some of which have showers for those who wish to shower. Then you go out and put your clothes and stuff into a locker in a communal area.
Personally, I have no problem being naked around other women in a locker room, but I'd feel mighty uneasy about doing so in a mixed-sex room. Now that we've decided people can choose their gender, the only reasonable solution is to provide privacy for everyone.
We don't have to convert ALL restrooms and locker rooms. All we need is a small number of unisex, single-unit restrooms and locker rooms. There are already places that have three public restrooms, men's, women's and unisex. The third one can be much smaller than the other two, given the number of people who need them.
21
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.