Arizona mulls transgender washroom use

PJ_Soul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

chadwick wrote:

ya every cop in the world cannot wait to abuse transgender people. i'd imagine most cops would protect them & try to keep the peace.

Sadly, you'd be wrong.

Very sadly. Police forces are often fuuuuuucked uuup.

chadwick

PJ_Soul wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

chadwick wrote:

ya every cop in the world cannot wait to abuse transgender people. i'd imagine most cops would protect them & try to keep the peace.

Sadly, you'd be wrong.

Very sadly. Police forces are often fuuuuuucked uuup.

oh yes just very sadly wrong. very sad

very

pjl44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

They're afraid people will expose themselves to children.

Is there no law against that already?

They have to punish the whole transgender community because men occasionally flash little girls?

Right? In an exhausting article, that was the most bizarre argument. There are kids in both bathrooms. How would this prevent or exacerbate anything?

unsung

On a side note there is a nuclear plant in either Arizona or California that has three locker rooms. So the issue is addressed.

PJ_Soul

unsung wrote:

On a side note there is a nuclear plant in either Arizona or California that has three locker rooms. So the issue is addressed.

Hey cool - it's kind of like having separate water fountains. What a good idea. :fp:
Transgendered people identify as the sex opposite of that which they were born, and that is what they're striving to be identified as by others. Not as a third gender that has to be separated from the other two. To have a third washroom/locker room for them would only be ostracizing, wouldn't it? (yes, it would)

unsung

Not at all. They are probably trying to make everyone comfortable. :fp:


Nah, let's do it your way and only have ONE bathroom. Men, women, whatever, get in there. Make sure to take the doors off the stalls too since we are all now one harmonious group. In fact lets just have a trough in the floor, no doors, no walls.

PJ_Soul

unsung wrote:

Not at all. They are probably trying to make everyone comfortable. :fp:

Well if someone told me to start using a third washroom because no one wanted to share one with me, I'd feel distinctly UNcomfortable.

unsung wrote:

Nah, let's do it your way and only have ONE bathroom. Men, women, whatever, get in there. Make sure to take the doors off the stalls too since we are all now one harmonious group. In fact lets just have a trough in the floor, no doors, no walls.

I never said I supported unisex washrooms. Actually, I said the opposite of that.
But I am not sure why you are comparing this issue - allowing those who identify as a particular gender to use that appropriate washroom - with a complete loss of privacy in public washrooms. One has nothing to do with the other.

unsung

Your logic is to make a high majority uncomfortable because a very small minority. I respect the rights of an individual and the three rooms is acceptable to give everyone what they need. This person, despite how they feel, is not physically that way. It is not racial as you suggested. If the person was born a man, then use the men's room, if the person was born a woman then use the woman's if three isn't acceptable to you.

PJ_Soul

unsung wrote:

Your logic is to make a high majority uncomfortable because a very small minority. I respect the rights of an individual and the three rooms is acceptable to give everyone what they need. This person, despite how they feel, is not physically that way. It is not racial as you suggested. If the person was born a man, then use the men's room, if the person was born a woman then use the woman's if three isn't acceptable to you.

Well, for one, I don't think that a high majority would be uncomfortable. In fact, I think that 99% of people wouldn't even know the difference.
Also, um, yeah, that's how it works. Minorities are often accommodated for the sake of equality, even when some people aren't comfortable with it. That is USUALLY the case when it comes to civil rights and equality issues.... Let me just say that I'm glad that you don't sit as a Supreme court judge!

fife

unsung wrote:

Your logic is to make a high majority uncomfortable because a very small minority. I respect the rights of an individual and the three rooms is acceptable to give everyone what they need. This person, despite how they feel, is not physically that way. It is not racial as you suggested. If the person was born a man, then use the men's room, if the person was born a woman then use the woman's if three isn't acceptable to you.

what you just wrote tells me that you do not respect the right of an individual.

unsung

Actually I offered multiple solutions so that everyone would be satisfied. You guys are determined to try to force one individual to use a particular restroom even though it would put that individual in an uncomfortable situation at best and a dangerous situation at worst.

And don't tell me 99% of the people can't tell. There aren't many women out there (Ann Coulter aside) that are 6'3" with Adam's Apples.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

chadwick wrote:

ya every cop in the world cannot wait to abuse transgender people. i'd imagine most cops would protect them & try to keep the peace.

Sadly, you'd be wrong.

Very sadly. Police forces are often fuuuuuucked uuup.

Ahhh, it's nice we can generalize about the police and not the transgendered. Is that right? I'm trying to keep up.

fife

unsung wrote:

Actually I offered multiple solutions so that everyone would be satisfied. You guys are determined to try to force one individual to use a particular restroom even though it would put that individual in an uncomfortable situation at best and a dangerous situation at worst.

And don't tell me 99% of the people can't tell. There aren't many women out there (Ann Coulter aside) that are 6'3" with Adam's Apples.

i will bypass the stereotypes that you just presented. no one is forcing anyone to use a washroom. what is being said here is that trans people should being able to use the washroom of the sex that they identify with if they choose to without the fear of being arrested as the law in Arizona would do to them.

also, i can introduce you to many trans people who you would never know where trans.

also concerning your fear that some trans people could be harm, many of the trans people i know say that it would actually be worse if there was a 3rd washroom for just trans people. Can you guess why?

its much easier to beat up a trans person when they are all lined up for their washroom.

unsung

Ok fine.


What's your solution? What if they are men that haven't undergone any changes but they identify themselves as women?

Kel Varnsen

unsung wrote:

On a side note there is a nuclear plant in either Arizona or California that has three locker rooms. So the issue is addressed.

If they want to really address the issue shouldn't their be 4 change rooms? Transgender women (born men) shouldn't have to share change rooms with transgender men (born women).

Again I don't understand why people are so uncomfortable in Arizona. Do washrooms there not have stalls? If they are still worried adopt the George Costanza route where the stall walls go all the way down to the floor.

cincybearcat

I think a 3rd bathroom is ridiculous.

As far as what bathroom to use...I find that to be an interesting discussion.

unsung

I don't know, I was merely offering an example at possibly solving the issue and showing that it wasn't entirely ignored. No matter what not everyone will be happy.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Sadly, you'd be wrong.

Very sadly. Police forces are often fuuuuuucked uuup.

Ahhh, it's nice we can generalize about the police and not the transgendered. Is that right? I'm trying to keep up.

:fp: Those two things aren't the same at all. In one case we're talking about police corruption from which people need to be protected, and in the other, we're talking about the civil/equality rights of transgendered people (into which generalization doesn't even come into play, so I don't know what you mean).
Just because someone worries about police corruption and will not rely on a police force to always do the right thing does not mean they think every cop is corrupt. Come on, you know that.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul wrote:

:fp: Those two things aren't the same at all. In one case we're talking about police corruption from which people need to be protected, and in the other, we're talking about the civil/equality rights of transgendered people (into which generalization doesn't even come into play, so I don't know what you mean).
Just because someone worries about police corruption and will not rely on a police force to always do the right thing does not mean they think every cop is corrupt. Come on, you know that.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. "Police forces are often fuuuuuuuucked uupp" Please tell me what you mean by this then and exactly what is your definition of "often".

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

:fp: Those two things aren't the same at all. In one case we're talking about police corruption from which people need to be protected, and in the other, we're talking about the civil/equality rights of transgendered people (into which generalization doesn't even come into play, so I don't know what you mean).
Just because someone worries about police corruption and will not rely on a police force to always do the right thing does not mean they think every cop is corrupt. Come on, you know that.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. "Police forces are often fuuuuuuuucked uupp" Please tell me what you mean by this then and exactly what is your definition of "often".

(whatever helps me sleep at night? Whaaa?) Well "often" obviously doesn't mean all the time. I also didn't say that POLICE are fucked up. I said police FORCES often are. And I made that distinction for a reason. And it is absolutely true, particularly in Vancouver. This is not an opinion. It's a fact where I live.