You could do with reading correctly. I did not say "unisex facilities", which are generally one large room with several toilets anyone can use. I was talking about establishments with only one toilet, or individual toilet rooms. Or is that illegal in America? I have no idea as I have lived in Japan for decades. Also, as it seems to me that handicapped restrooms are a far better answer, and its a reason why I disagree with the bills being talked about. Anyone who wants to combat such bills will do so better with a better solution. Isn't part of this about combatting the current bills?
I don't agree with anything I am hearing. Right. And could you please stop recharacterizing my statements so recklessly? I never said anything that sounded like "dont like how they look". I said they do not appear to be the right gender, and are thefore suspected of being some sort of pervert or molestor. It would just be a bad idea to mandate that people can or must use a restroom if it makes others suspicious or even angry. Generally people regulate themselves better than old men in ivory towers making laws.
I guess I made the assumption that handicapped restrooms entailed unisex, similar to family restrooms. These are single occupancy restrooms and are not common in most establishments, especially those that are meant to accommodate higher occupancy like shopping malls and big box stores. It’s not illegal, just uncommon. So the alternative to state governments stepping on the rights of marginalized minorities is for those marginalized minorities to insist on burdensome regulations that have no chance of being implemented? You understand why that’s not a valid response, yes? We already have a simple and effective answer. Let people use that bathroom that aligns with their gender identity and everyone else can just mind their own business. Really. That’s it. The fact that so many on concerned about what other people are doing in the bathroom is mind boggling.
Sorry, but can you explain the difference. Why must my ability to use public facilities be predicated on the subjective bias of every possible person that could be around me. Wouldn’t it be better to mandate that people self-regulate their emotions and not accost strangers? At the very least I agree legislators ought to stay out of it.
They can't self-regulate their emotions when suspecting a sexual assault. This is why women demanded separate restrooms in the first place. And that was back when...it seems to me....people were better socially adjusted and generally more sensible and controlled.
With what evidence? Their subjective assessment that a person is not the appropriate gender to enter the bathroom they’re accessing? Sounds like they need to mind their own business. Public restrooms, at least in America, have been segregated by gender since their inception. When exactly did women demand segregated facilities? That just seems to be how it’s been forever. I feel like you’re basing your arguments on intuition and not fact.
Not really altogether true. Funny how you use a term like GICE in the wrong context. Gender Identity change is transition to a non-natal sex, which is harmful. Gender and sex is not separable as pro transitionists would have us believe. Here are a couple of links showing what you say is not really true overall. The belief that a human being can actually charge their natal sex is ludicrous on the face of it yet, we have a few so called 'mental health professionals' condoning it. "The largest dataset on sex-reassignment procedures—both hormonal and surgical—reveals that such procedures do not bring the promised mental health benefits." https://www.heritage.org/gender/com...dont-help-mental-health-largest-dataset-shows "The U.S. has an assortment of laws on what is legal for mental-health professionals with regards to counseling transgender patients, leaving some Catholic professionals at risk of punishment if they don’t support ‘gender transition." https://www.ncregister.com/news/mental-health-professionals-muzzled-by-gender-ideology
So a bio female who keeps getting this "nay" because she doesn't pass needs to be the one who has to "cease and desist"? Define "dealt with". In the US, handicapped facilities are mostly found in the restrooms themselves, as separate larger stalls. So no, not an easy answer as it would require major renovations to buildings.
Heritage Foundation is a highly biased source. It's immediately dismissed. And no I don't just do that with conservative sources. When I made those links earlier to bio females getting attacked or accosted because they didn't look "female enough", I immediately rejected the articles by Vox because they are a highly biased liberal source. National Catholic Register is also a biased source. When you can present evidence from unbiased sources, come back and try again.
Yes. We can't read minds and underwear inspections are unacceptable. We can only judge what we can see. And people whose gender is so difficult to indentify are rightly suspect to have a medical/ psychological issue. Instructed to use the more appropriate facility. Told off if they don't. Police summoned if they still won't comply. Then the renovations need to be made. People will be employed. The money can come from the Ukraine and Israel war toy fund.
I doubt if you can find an unbiased source on this subject. Even the medical community seems to slant far left on this one as many medical professionals are for transitioning those with sexual dysphoria to their imagined and non natal sex instead of looking for the reason an intact man (for instance) would like to chop of body parts and have them re arranged to female parts. That really won't transition them at all, they are still male with (XY) chromosomes. They can only pretend pumped full of hormones, chemically neutered and only acting like a woman. I don't really care what they do but, the medical community should not support it.
There are plenty out there. NIH is always a good one. Allsides is a good place to check for bias. For this topic, anything run by a church or a trans activist group are immediately suspect. This translates to "anything that doesn't agree with me is slanted far left and delusional" Since that is not the claim put out by the transgender community, it is a strawman argument and one commonly used by trans opponents. I noticed that you dodged the whole point with Buck Angel and the fact that these laws would require him to use the women's restroom. And further you are still dodging the question of, regardless of whether transgenderism is real or not, do these laws increase protection bio females more or increase the risk to bio females?
GICE is a term coined by the American Psychological Association and I’m absolutely using it correctly. Thank you for demonstrating that your grasp on the subject is tenuous at best. I get it, the consensus is always corrupt and wrong, and the minority view is always right; as long as it agrees with your bias. My parents are the same way, so I’m familiar. Gender and sex are separate concepts, a point I know you’ll never accept. Trans people don’t believe we are changing our sex. We can however change our gender presentation, our secondary sex characteristics, and some of our primary sex characteristics. The “few mental health professionals” you speak of are the overwhelming majority of them. The only medical professionals who challenge gender affirming care constantly prove that their opinions are motivated by ignorance and personal/political bias.
Please come up with an answer that does not involve harming cis women based on subjective beauty standards or burdensome regulations on public spaces. You can’t. The answer that makes the most sense is minding your own damn business.
Scientific fact: Humans with (XX) chromosomes are female and humans with (XY) chromosomes are male. That's FACT.
A grade school understanding of biology, but not wrong. How does that relate to the topic of the thread though?
Has nothing to do with the topic. The discussion is on whether these bills bring more protection or more harm to bio female cis women.
'The discussion' is ridiculous in the first place. I reject your 'cis' prefix it is not needed in a sane world. A human is either a man or woman, there is no 'cis' needed. All that is happening here are arguments about the mentally ill. There should be 0 consideration of bathroom use, it's ignorant, stupid and confusing for the vast majority. It's really simple, no matter how one 'feels' if one has male plumbing, use the 'Man' restroom and if one has female plumbing, use the "Women'" restroom. If some loons use the opposite sex restroom we should have the right to throw them out.
One would think that grown adults in America have a 'grade school understanding' of what comprises a male or female human being. As it said, we should have the right to throw opposite sex out of a bathroom. This bullshit is just not needed, is a waste of time and energy. I'm not for banning people from bathrooms I just want the right to kick them out. Here is an example: a self defined 'woman' (who is actually a man) enters a multi stall, public restroom labeled 'women.' Real women in that bathroom should be able to have them kicked out. If the real women don't care or the guy is disguised enough to not be seen as a man, no problem. Just give women and men the right to throw obvious loons out.
Should I just assume that none of your posts are going to address the OP? These laws harm cis women in the name of protecting them from trans women. How do you defend that?
I said they should have the right to have trannys kicked out. How is that not addressing the discussion?
First, “Tranny” is a slur. Are you intentionally using slurs? Second, by what standard are we identifying trans women and throwing them out? How many cis women are you willing to have accosted for not meeting an arbitrary beauty standard? If you’re not basing it on beauty standards, what’s your criteria?
