Transgender in California can now use the same Bathrooms/Locker Rooms in public schools

Do you call your dad "transgender" or "shemale"? Just go with what you call him... this is old hat for you bro.

 

Did someone change the definition of a civil right and just didnt tell anyone? treeman is rarely wrong on these issues so I had to ask.

 

You seriously just tried to equate black civil rights with a transgender rights to share a bathroom in a school environment with members of the opposite sex?

Last time I checked, a transgender / cross dresser / gay / bi or Lesbian can choose to one day STOP being a transgender / cross dresser / gay / bi or Lesbian if they want...African Americans & other blacks have no choice in the matter.

There has to be a line somewhere, and this just crosses it, point blank.

The fact that some imbecile P.C. liberal jerk wants to force little girls in school to have to share a bathroom with a member of the opposite sex, because he is confused about his SEXUAL preference or identity is ludicrous, absurd and abhorrent.

I am totally disgusted...why not just have a transgender / cross dresser / gay / bi or Lesbian bathroom for choice? Young ladies rights shouldn't be quashed in order to give someone else the freedom to do as they choose.

 

No, it's not.

Hey, why don't we just abolish separate gender restrooms altogether. I mean, obviously, they're a violation of someone's civil rights. Unisex for all should be the way we go. After all, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, right? And if the 99% of human beings who don't like it object, well, screw them - they're a bunch of bigots, right?

So who's with me? Unisex for ALL!

There's your logic.

 

Ana again, no one gives a s^it about the other kids' rights...

Little white girls don't want a negro in their restroom or locker room, and little boys do not want a negro in their locker room. We are not talking about a negro here who should know their place.

We have separate facilities for the simple reason that member of each race don't want to share those facilities with members of the other race. This in effect says that there's no need anymore for separate facilities.

So, take it to its logical conclusion. Why not just have uniracial restrooms and locker rooms for everyone?

Ridiculous. And don't blabber to me about bigotry, it's not bigotry to consider what the other 99% of the population wants. It is astounding that no one seems to give a crap what everyone else wants.

 

Weird how all of LA and SF have had this policy for a while already (a decade in LA) and there aren't all these outraged parents out there. Maybe the policy doesn't really play out in reality the way you think it does in your mind. It does seem like a strange policy, but history seems to suggest it works out just fine in reality.

I'd also point out the silliness of this statement:

Er, this is not a civil rights issue. You have no civil right to use public facilities intended for the opposite gender. And if you think you do, why don't you try using the opposite gender's facilities in public places and see how it works out for you? You'll likely end up in handcuffs. And for good reason.

Go back 60 years ago, and the same would have been said about separate-but-equal:

Er, this is not a civil rights issue. You have no civil right to use public facilities intended for a different race. And if you think you do, why don't you try using a different race's facilities in public places and see how it works out for you? You'll likely end up in handcuffs. And for good reason.

This is far more complex than civil right so I tend to agree with you, but I don't think your statement helped your argument that it's not a civil rights issue.

 

Sounds kinda familiar.

In the 60s, an African American did not have the right to use the same public or private facilities as a white person. If he tried to use a white bathroom, restaurant, elevator, bus, school, neighborhood etc he would most likely end up in handcuffs. When the gov forced desegregation, any normal Southerner were outraged. They were outraged that their kids have to endure going to the same school as a black kid, they were outraged their kids will now have to use the same bathroom as a black kid etc etc.

 

According to the results from studies like this,, maybe they can't just choose one day to stop being a transgender.

http://ts-si.org/files/doi101016jbiopsych200808033.pdf

 

Treeman's comparison and statements were absurd, but I think his point is correct on the civil rights aspect. It's not a civil rights issue in that we, as a society, do believe men and women should have separate bathrooms and lockerrooms. No one has suggested that the two should be merged on a general basis.

The TG kids are a unique issue in that they bring up a question of how to define gender rather than whether genders should share a bathroom. It's a different issue that really has nothing to do with civil rights.

 

The only thing that I'm surprised about is that these laws didn't exist already. Transgendered people have always existed and face a much tougher life than even gay and lesbian people -- it's not as though you can just pretend they aren't there.

 

What a morally disgusting statement. Luckily statements like the above are dying out (and our kids will find a quote like this in the future and be confused as to how people could be so ignorant).

It's amazing how many people are still affected by the "icky factor".

Ill say it again: the quoted statement reflects a severe moral shortcoming.

 

Here is my take:

As a straight person, do I WANT a gay guy to be near me when I am half naked? No, but as long as he doesn't rape me, why do I care that he is attracted to me (I realize that gay people are not attracted to every male)? My point is, someone being gay or transgender does not affect me, so why do I care where they pee?

 

It's an accommodation for a genuine human condition. It's most certainly a civil right. I hate to compare it to the disabled but perhaps it's a decent example of public accommodation as a civil right. I don't think transgendered is well understood by the average person as you can tell by some of these responses.

 

is it actually a civil right, as defined by law? or are you using the term "civil right" liberally/loosely?

 

And I have to say again: anyone who thinks this is a good idea, and that separate facilities is a civil rights issue, NECESSARILY must also think that such concepts must extend across lines to adult populations in all applicable areas. That means that you MUST logically support the abolition of separate restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and any other facility that separates by gender.

So, if you are going to be logically consistent and you support all of these changes for adult populations, I'd like to hear your argument. Explain to me why you think that all there should only be unisex restrooms, and not Men/Women. Explain to me why there should be unisex locker rooms and dressing rooms.

If you cannot voice that then you are not being logically consistent, and your argument is BS.

So, champion the unisex restroom for me, liberals, I'd love to hear the reasoning there.

 

Good job man, I'm with ya on this one.

 

This is not about gay people, it is about people of the opposite sex using the same facilities. So the proper question is: are you comfortable having a female stranger stand next to you while you pee/poop? Do you think that women will be comfortable having a strange man/boy right next to them as they pee/poop, adjust their bras, etc.?

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

 

Is said female attractive?

I can't speak for women, I can speak for myself as a male. As a male, I don't care who pees next to me, as long as they don't stare at my junk, or do anything inappropriate, why do I care where they pee? I am mature enough to not freak out and scream "kudis" any time a girl has to use the restroom. And wouldn't these transgendered people appear to be of the same sex as those in the restroom? If a woman, who is now a man, was in the stall next to you, would it make you feel sick? Frightened?

I think most straight males agree that homosexuality and transgendered people are "weird" or "strange" in a way, but who cares? Their sexual preference or identity is none of my concern, it literally affects me in ZERO ways.