Yes, it does.
Could be, but unless it comes from the horses mouth it's still speculation.
Could be just pass a law to show constituents they're working, and nobody could object to this except them hippie weirdo commie fags.

Of course if it came from Republicans it's with evil intent, but from Democrats it's just unfortunate unintended consequences. :lol2: :bolt:

Is it ok for a straight, pussy-loving man to go into the ladies room and have a wee?

There have been times, in clubs, when the men's toilets have had to be blocked off whilst staff deal with whatever, that I've seen blokes going in to use the ladies' toilets. And vice versa.

A lot of places now have unisex toilets. Makes much more sense to me.










- also much easier to share a small amount of coke, if you can all go into the same loos :P

Yebbut...

I'm talking about having a ladies, and having a gents, both properly functioning...Is it ok for a straight, pussy-loving man to go into the ladies room and have a wee?

If a man, straight or otherwise, that dresses as a woman, can go in the ladies, then it has to be ok for me, straight man dressed in traditionally male clothing, to go in the ladies, too, doesn't it?

The thing is, the kind of man who would want to subtly ogle women peeing is the kind of man who decidedly would NOT dress as a woman in public, for that or any reason. And the kind of socially-fucked-up perv who would stare and masturbate and openly leer at a woman in the bathroom is the kind who wouldn't bother putting on a dress before walking in and doing it anyway.

FYI, all men are on some level a threat until we know them and/or prove otherwise. We do not somehow feel more vulnerable in your average public bathroom than we do in, say, any parking garage after 8 pm.

Great video, if you haven’t seen it.



In brief, a young man realizes that his father, how hates black people, only knows one black family, and they are “good ones” –and he realizes that his father’s world view can’t possibly be accurate. And it was segregation of races that created the situation where his father only personally encountered a disproportionately small number of black people.

This got me to thinking… when people aren’t familiar with someone who is different from themselves, because they haven’t had a chance to interact with them, haven’t had a chance to learn that they are “okay” people, it is much easier to harbor unfair, discriminatory feelings about that group. Segregation of races created this situation, but we knew it because we could see who was different, by the color of their skin.

Fast forward to the national “bathroom laws” discussion issue and we don’t have the convenience of skin-colored segregation to define the group we are talking about. What unknowns there are that exist in this case are due to people’s familiarity with the issue—not necessarily their exposure to trans people, because they might not have known if they’ve ever interacted with a trans person. It's, literally, not a "black and white" situation.


So that's my ham-handed metaphor for the subject that's obviously super complicated and difficult to discuss, and people get all worked up about it for various reasons, but I think we should probably try to muddle through and talk about it anyway because it's not going away.

Does that include trans-men?

The NC Legislature has been accused of attacking Trans people. I highly doubt that's the case, I doubt Trans people were considered at all, or that more than half the legislature were even aware Trans people existed. Those that did probably didn't think there were any outside of Greenwich Village, Frisco, Vegas, or Tijuana. I also highly doubt they had a clue this would stir up a shit storm, and weren't prepared for...

http://cellar.org/2016/Trans1.jpg

or for this...

http://cellar.org/2016/trans2.jpg

Of course nobody would bat an eye if either of them went into the "wrong" bathroom, but I guess there's people who are not this convincing.
However if they repeal the law, Gravdigr will be free to use the ladies room once more.

this cuntry is so fucked up

I've learned a lot from my 25 year old daughter. When I would see a person of unclear gender, I would feel uncomfortable, because I wasn't able to label the person and put it into the little cubby in my brain for "male" or "female". She pointed out that it's a person, not just any person - it's Alex. It doesn't matter what gender Alex is, in fact it's wrong to label at all. We should think of every person as that person, not as a male, female, white, Asian, or whatever. Labeling someone as part of a group is the first step in dehumanizing them.

But it's safer, although not 100% reliable, to sort them into friend or foe. http://cellar.org/2015/shades.gif

I like Prince, and was shocked and saddened when I heard that he died.

When I was a young teen, and Purple Rain came out, I didn't know what to think of him. Was he gay? He was surrounded by women in his videos, but he sure acted weird. I was uncomfortable with Prince and his unclear sexuality and started to dislike his awesome music because of it. I think part of it was that I was going through my heterosexual awakening and just didn't want to be confronted by this charismatic guy who wasn't clearly in my camp. If I liked his music, was I gay? I didn't want to be gay, so I decided I didn't like his music. (It's ironic that I was listening to Queen a lot at the time and had no idea about them.)

I've come around since then. I like Prince. I like his music. His persona is all just part of the package. Liking him won't make me gay.

But I can get where the homophobes are coming from. I grew up. They should too.

Police officer: ma'am, can you describe your assailant?

Person: don't call me ma'am, I'm a person.

PO: ok, person, can you describe your assailant?

Person: it was a person.

PO: but was this person male or female? What was this person's skin tone? Was this person tall or short, fat or thin, bald or hairy...or somewhere in any of the possible ranges of any of these things?

Person: well I wouldn't label my assailant...it was just a person.

PO: ok, I'll get the APB out. I don't think your assailant could have gotten far. I'm sure we'll have your assailant in custody soon, and that person won't be accosting anyone one else any time soon.

Labels or descriptors. What are we allowed to say that doesn't interfere with the lofty ideals of the lofty idealists? Just sayin'.

Except that we've never subjected people to the level of scrutiny seen in a criminal investigation because they want to go pee. Why would we start now?? We're freaking out about nothing.

It's this new Great American Culture of Fear we live in. Welcome to it.

Heh heh... :D

I was speaking more to the tangential issue of not being able to DESCRIBE anyone.

Spexx's comment just struck me, is all. I'm fairly unopinioned about this whole topic. I don't really care where anyone pees. If I had my druthers, there would just be restrooms...but SINGLE toilet/sink restrooms all in a row that steam clean themselves between every use. Because I hate public restrooms. Peeing next to someone is just weird. I don't know how youse guys do the urinal thing anyway. :p:

/tangent...we now return you to your regularly scheduled fredthread

I hate pooping in a public bathroom. I don't care what gender you are, I don't want you in the room. I could give a fuck if women came in while I'm at a urinal.

I also think this is a lot of crap over nothing. How could it possibly be enforced? You might as well make jerking off illegal.

I do not agree with entertainers and businesses boycotting the entire state over this. I get it. They are trying to shine a light on the issue. But this only hurts the masses.

Most of all, it indicates how truly far from reality our national focus is. This is a huge deal to a very small and vocal minority.

Go shit in your hat.

So you're a Cruz man, eh?

I assume that's funny. He is pretty creepy. Is there also a jerking off tie in?

Smirk.

Sheep... I hope to hell this is highly edited...

Some places have

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...rld-penal-code

It's not fear, it's being considerate of others.

It's hard to be considerate toward what you fear.
Nobody claims the fringe, the minority, the oddballs, are weird, they claim they're a danger. Best recruiting tool ever.

Here are some words from a big brain...

Aw, shucks.

I thought it very apropos. :notworthy

I had to scan it quick because this copy is going to Canada, and the replacements won't be here until the 29th.

Poo on you ...

Easy way to fix bathroom controversy. No longer call it boys and girls. Call it "innies" and "outties".
Danglers to one room, non-danglers to the other. "tucking" is not an exemption.

To the "right parts" argument:
The right parts (to go pee) are kidneys, ureters, bladder, and urethra.

Let's not forget the prostate which in old farts with enlarged prostates can cause them to dribble on the women's bathroom floors. There's generally a higher rate of incontinence among women than men anyway; so, the old trannies with BPH will fit right in.

At this point you've all just become creepy.

We're creepy and we're kooky, mysterious and spooky, we're all together ookey, The Cellar: Community

We just did them in reverse order.

You forgot leaky. ;)

And 'sticky'.

...Take your pic ;)

hheheh. The top one is good.

At this link is a 3meg PDF of the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice. The article, which is worth reading is, "Defining the Human: Are Transgender People Strangers to the Law", by Abigail W. Lloyd.

From twitter...

I think the law passed at the state level in NC was the overreaction by a (relatively) small group of homophobes.

Why else craft a state law that reversed the city ordinance allowing transgendered people to use the bathroom that suited their gender AND also forbade all local jurisdictions in the state from passing any rules offering protection from harassment of or discrimination against people in the LGBTQ community?

Get people fired up about going pee pee next to someone with visible facial hair, but make the functional heart of the law an explicit endorsement of discrimination based on gender identity. Pure power grab by the chicken shit haters with power.

British LGBT travellers are being warned about the potential risks of travelling to some parts of the USA:

Hi, my name is Griff. I live in the third world.

a/s/l?

'Merica

Only way she can have effective protection is to not wipe.

I wish the South had won the Civil War. They should rot on their own.

It's an interesting thought. We have so, so many fictional stories surrounding "What if the Nazis had won WWII?", but none that I know of about what would have happened if the American Civil War had gone the other way.

It's easy to picture the south as just being what we think of as "The South" today, but at the time most of Southern California was also on the Confederate side, including Los Angeles, and in fact had already peacefully voted to create separate Northern/Southern California states, but then the actual Civil War broke out and all that kind of fell by the wayside.

You'd be paying a lot more for your citrus fruits, if the Confederacy had won, is all I'm saying.

You mean you and Sheldon would be Rebs. :eek:

My question is whether there's anything that people are worried a transgender person would do to them or their children in the bathroom that they'd be OK with any other stranger doing to them or their children in the bathroom.

I do find this whole thing slightly baffling to be honest. I could sort of understand if the existing laws prohibited people going into bathrooms that did not match their gender at birth and there was a movement to overturn those laws, that some people wuold find that unsettling and oppose the loosening of restrictions. What I cannot get my head around is why anybody would seek to impose new restrictions - has there been a flurry of incidents in which either trans gender people caused trouble by going into the 'wrong' bathroom, or in which non-transgender people went into the other gender's bathroom to peep or abuse under the cover of a pretended transgender status?

It seems to be legislation for no real reason other than that, with the growth of transgender identities in the mainstream, some people feel icky at the thought.

This is (half of) what it's really about. Whether or not you believe the above fear is legitimate, it's completely disingenuous for opponents to keep making this about whether genuinely trans people are genuinely dangerous. Of course they're not. This law is about 1.) the idea of a creepy, rapey straight man who puts on a dress just so he can go watch your wife pee, and 2.) the straight man's fear that a woman he is attracted to might turn out to be a man. This law forces the chicks with dicks into outing themselves, thus protecting the men from getting too close to secret dick.

Sounds about right to me too.

Damn, that's well put.

Yeah, I still don't think the NC legislature considered trans at all, simply a law to make it illegal for men to go in the ladies room. That way if some pervert did, there was a crime they could charge/punish him with. Who could be against That? I think it was just ignorance, being blind to the sexual landscape, that allowed this to happen. I subscribe to Hanlon's Razor.

No, it was explicitly written to override a city's law allowing trans people to use the appropriate restroom. They knew what they were doing.

Where did you see that?

It was in all the news when it came out... Here's one article.

OK, I'm wrong then, unless CNN and the ALCU are assuming evil intent then the legislature, at least the leadership, knew exactly what they were doing.

You're the textbook example of what I was talking about; get'em all het up about who could object to criminalizing perverts in the ladies' room? But really do waaay more.

Like override the city ordinances already in place in twenty cities

Like rolling back the longstanding ability of employees to sue their employers, take it to federal court.

Like making it illegal by state law for any city to make minimum wage laws, like we've done in Seattle.

And it was done in a way that was... Rushed. Opaque. Releasing the text of the bill only 30 Minutes before the committee vote, and doing it in a one day emergency session.

They don't want to give the opposition, also citizens, any opportunity to object.

Total power grab.

Fuck you, I am not the textbook case of anything. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif I was trying to figure out how this happened, and until HM came up with evidence of malice, I attributed it to stupidity. As for your other five examples I assure you I had nothing to do with them either.

That you just noticed the big headline about keeping perverts out of the ladies room and missed all the rest is a representative sample of the overwhelming majority of reactions.

OF COURSE, you're a special snowflake and I and everyone here loves that about you.

But your response to this epic misdirection was exactly what the lawmakers were counting on. They buried the gotcha deep inside an irresistibly juicy worm. Lots took the bait. We'll see if the body politic can shake the hook on appeal.

I bet it's facebook's fault this law even happened. I mean, if it wasn't for facebook, no one would ever know that someone else didn't like how they think. They definitely wouldn't know how offensive their friends were, and they probably wouldn't even know they were transgender if it wasn't for facebook! Facebook has a lot to answer for. Someone should make a law about how people should use facebook and who can comment on what and when and if they have to agree and if you don't like it, you have to say something else because it's all about me Me MEEEEEEEE!

I had a disagreement with a friend on facebook this week about vaccination (no I don't want to argue about it here) We sorted it out and made our amends out in the open, and then her father jumped in to defend his daughter who didn't need defending anyway.

Talk about a tail poster :lol2:

Wrong, I didn't just grab the headline about keeping perverts out, as a matter of fact I knew there was backlash against NC before I knew exactly what they did. I did know whatever it was, like the dozens of state measures going on around the country, it didn't affect me as my chances of returning to NC are between slim and none. But instead of puffing up with righteous indignation and ineffectually heaping scorn upon them, I tried to figure out how this stupid thing happened.