|
Post by jasonward on Feb 25, 2017 22:50:02 GMT
It's my opinion that the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers, why wait until the worst case scenario happens until acting? So the unquantified danger of toilet attacks should be legislated for, but the very well known and quantified risk of allowing people to have guns is something that should not be legislated for? I see.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 25, 2017 23:14:49 GMT
The War on Poop annoys me quite a bit.
1. These people were already in your bathrooms.
2. The unjustified assumption underlying these laws is one that allowing access will incite pedophiles (does that term even work?) to pretend to be a sex whereby they can more easily gain access to a bathroom...
...3., a bathroom where in the act of rape/molestation must still occur if this perpetrator's design is to be fulfilled.
You need to pause right now. You need to consider why laws regarding sex crimes and sex crimes against children do not deter sexual predators. Now, ask yourself whether or not a sexual predator not deterred by those laws would be deterred by a bathroom occupancy law. Why would someone willing to commit rape/molestation in public be deterred by the sign on a bathroom door? Why?
Put your fear down and think. Pretend you are Spock.
What kind of utter imbecile pervert are you hoping to thwart?
Answer: None of course. This is fear-based legislation, which is nearly always irrational.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 25, 2017 23:21:50 GMT
"It's my opinion that the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers, why wait until the worst case scenario happens until acting?"
I think it is unfair play to over-simplify the question in that manner.
The question is not whether or not "the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers." It never is. The questions start with "what is the nature and scope of any danger (severity of event, probability of its occurrence, etc), what are the costs/benefits of its existence vs. its non-existence, what expenditure of resources is required to address the danger (will the plan work?), and what side of the bargain does society want to come out on?
I'm sure I missed about a thousand more questions.
If the decision comes down to whether or not one is scared of the possibility of someone claiming trans status so as to gain access to a bathroom and commit a sex crime, BUT who would never be willing to do this absent the bathroom law, then I consider one to think about this logically rather than emotionally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 0:11:25 GMT
The last few posters rebut Ulysses' point better than I could - how, if someone were determined to commit rape or sexual assault does any legislation on this matter stop that? They're willing to break rape laws..you think using the wrong bathroom is gonna stop them? It would have to be a predetermined act and not an impulsive one as you hypothesise that the violators would cross dress before getting to the bathroom in question. Seems that if someone went to that length, they'd be willing to take their chances of using the wrong bathroom to find what they're after regardless of state or federal law.
I'd also echo Jason's point that you're basing your whole premise on taking the example to extremes and admit you have zero statistics and zero research to inform you that there is any difference in any sexual assault whether a bathroom is open to transgender people or not. I don't imagine there is any research to back up your view even if you did look as we'd have the figures thrown at us already from the transphobes in power already. They've not even bothered to make numbers up which, under this administration, says a lot.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Feb 26, 2017 0:30:06 GMT
www.bustle.com/p/what-really-happens-when-a-trans-woman-uses-a-public-restroom-40417I'd like to add that a conservative news site I read recently found 21 cases of men assaulting/ violating privacy in womens's public toilets since 1999 : that's about 1 and a bit each year in a country with a population of around 300 million. As with the argument for gun control, men - and it is men who are the problem here - a criminal is going to do this regardless of the laws in place. So to use the gun rights activists argument against them: why legislate a problem that's going to happen anyway? I mean, most people have had more training on the correct use of toilets than on the correct use of guns. (I am not a US citizen, but I am a parent of a trans man and I live in a country that takes a lot of cultural/ political cues from the US: I can see this issue taking off here in Australia because we have had a few high-profile cases of people being assaulted in toilets over the years)
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 26, 2017 0:48:44 GMT
It's my opinion that the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers, why wait until the worst case scenario happens until acting? So the unquantified danger of toilet attacks should be legislated for, but the very well known and quantified risk of allowing people to have guns is something that should not be legislated for? I see. 1. If you want to talk gun control, start another thread. 2. Ive given my concerns, you have not addressed them to my satisfaction. You have the opportunity to address my concerns, and try to find a middle ground, where we all might end up happy. 3. your 'I see' comment came across as childish and condescending.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 26, 2017 1:05:24 GMT
The truth knowing gut hath spoken and you all were found wanting. This amuses us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 1:19:44 GMT
Seems logical to me. A trial run to ensure that the procedure is truly what they want and to acclimatise themselves to that new aspect of their lives. And for the community to help ensure that it is not paying for something that ultimately does more harm than good. Exactly. It's to benefit of all involved really. www.bustle.com/p/what-really-happens-when-a-trans-woman-uses-a-public-restroom-40417I'd like to add that a conservative news site I read recently found 21 cases of men assaulting/ violating privacy in womens's public toilets since 1999 : that's about 1 and a bit each year in a country with a population of around 300 million. As with the argument for gun control, men - and it is men who are the problem here - a criminal is going to do this regardless of the laws in place. So to use the gun rights activists argument against them: why legislate a problem that's going to happen anyway? I mean, most people have had more training on the correct use of toilets than on the correct use of guns. (I am not a US citizen, but I am a parent of a trans man and I live in a country that takes a lot of cultural/ political cues from the US: I can see this issue taking off here in Australia because we have had a few high-profile cases of people being assaulted in toilets over the years) Hold up... A $2500 bounty as part of a government bill to hunt transgendered people out of bathrooms? What a ridiculously stupid waste of time and resources. I have a friend who began life as a woman and decided that he wanted to become a man. Fine by me, I have no issue with his decision. I do not get to play dictator and rule another person's life by curtailing their own identity. You can tell how seriously I take this whole debate by my Braveheart reference, I don't think it should be an issue for politics and if it must be, then it's a matter for the federal government as kimalysong said. I'm very tired of seeing people bullied for their difference, I really am, particularly by those who abuse their position of power to make themselves appear popular. Pushing other people down to raise themselves up seems very cowardly to me. Should such a discussion erupt here in our land of seemingly endless summer, I know whose side I will be backing. People should have the right to express who they are without fear of retribution. Hell, without having to fear at all.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 26, 2017 1:37:10 GMT
"It's my opinion that the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers, why wait until the worst case scenario happens until acting?"
I think it is unfair play to over-simplify the question in that manner. The question is not whether or not "the government can try to legislate for apparent dangers." It never is. The questions start with "what is the nature and scope of any danger (severity of event, probability of its occurrence, etc), what are the costs/benefits of its existence vs. its non-existence, what expenditure of resources is required to address the danger (will the plan work?), and what side of the bargain does society want to come out on? I'm sure I missed about a thousand more questions. If the decision comes down to whether or not one is scared of the possibility of someone claiming trans status so as to gain access to a bathroom and commit a sex crime, BUT who would never be willing to do this absent the bathroom law, then I consider one to think about this logically rather than emotionally. At least youre makin some sense. But understand, over simplifying questions is what I do. One thing I do very well, is worry. It's just my nature. I have no doubt that there are as many homosexual sexual predators as there are heterosexual sexual predators, and you cant just ban all people from using the bathroom. But, I would like to see a way for law enforcement to arrest and punish those that abuse the use of public bathrooms, in a predatory fashion. So what do we do with sexual predators who do take advantage of the lack of laws on the subject? (Can we "take them rascals out in the swamp, put em on their knees and tie em to a stump, let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest"?) or is that too extreme?
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 26, 2017 1:43:22 GMT
The truth knowing gut hath spoken and you all were found wanting. This amuses us. You just come across as childish. period. Some of us are trying to have an adult conversation. Your post here, shows you are just trying to annoy me. In other words, grow up!
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 26, 2017 1:47:42 GMT
So the unquantified danger of toilet attacks should be legislated for, but the very well known and quantified risk of allowing people to have guns is something that should not be legislated for? I see. 1. If you want to talk gun control, start another thread. 2. Ive given my concerns, you have not addressed them to my satisfaction. You have the opportunity to address my concerns, and try to find a middle ground, where we all might end up happy. 3. your 'I see' comment came across as childish and condescending. Sorry, I'm no longer interested in engaging you in debate, your arguments are not only often revoltingly extreme but are often bizarre, baseless and serve little purpose other than self serving homily. I'm just occasionally going take the odd snipe at your most bizarre and baseless arguments. Take that or leave it, it's all I'm going to offer.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 26, 2017 1:51:05 GMT
The last few posters rebut Ulysses' point better than I could - how, if someone were determined to commit rape or sexual assault does any legislation on this matter stop that? They're willing to break rape laws..you think using the wrong bathroom is gonna stop them? It would have to be a predetermined act and not an impulsive one as you hypothesise that the violators would cross dress before getting to the bathroom in question. Seems that if someone went to that length, they'd be willing to take their chances of using the wrong bathroom to find what they're after regardless of state or federal law. I'd also echo Jason's point that you're basing your whole premise on taking the example to extremes and admit you have zero statistics and zero research to inform you that there is any difference in any sexual assault whether a bathroom is open to transgender people or not. I don't imagine there is any research to back up your view even if you did look as we'd have the figures thrown at us already from the transphobes in power already. They've not even bothered to make numbers up which, under this administration, says a lot. I think those are good points. No law will stop a sexual predator from attempting to do whatever it is that they have planned, yall have helped me get that. On your second paragraph. Taking things to extremes is what my mind does. Ive witnessed the worst in people and have seen how sick and twisted some of them are. That's why I like getting imput from yall, youre all much more optimistic than I am.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 26, 2017 1:53:13 GMT
1. If you want to talk gun control, start another thread. 2. Ive given my concerns, you have not addressed them to my satisfaction. You have the opportunity to address my concerns, and try to find a middle ground, where we all might end up happy. 3. your 'I see' comment came across as childish and condescending. Sorry, I'm no longer interested in engaging you in debate, your arguments are not only often revoltingly extreme but are often bizarre, baseless and serve little purpose other than self serving homily. I'm just occasionally going take the odd snipe at your most bizarre and baseless arguments. Take that or leave it, it's all I'm going to offer. It's good to know that you are just trying to rile me up, instead of help me to get better educated. And that you have no desire to actually debate on anything. I am actually trying to be open minded, what are you trying to be?
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 26, 2017 2:18:30 GMT
mrperson thanks for helping me to get a better understanding of what it is that I fear about this issue. And I have come to realize those fears are probably extremely irrational. Separating my emotions with logic, is not something I am good at. When I go on a road trip, I don't take a spare tire, I take 2. Logical? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Feb 26, 2017 2:30:45 GMT
I'll give you an extreme. You want attacks on women etc in public toilets to stop? Make all of them women only.
A bit of Golda Meir as a squinty analogy: "When Golda Meir was asked to place a curfew on women to help end a series of rapes, Meir replied by stating, “But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home.”
If a society is to be civilised then it must aim to legislate for the best of itself and not to pander to its fears. No smoke without fire? Show me the fire.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 26, 2017 9:30:09 GMT
I would like to see a way for law enforcement to arrest and punish those that abuse the use of public bathrooms, in a predatory fashion. Maybe the seeming novelty of some of the scenarios in question is contributing to your level of concern? Hopefully people should already be protected from predation to whatever degree is humanly possible, regardless of the gender of the target or the perpetrator and regardless of who is allowed to use which facilities. If someone is stalking someone else they are a stalker regardless of gender concerns, and if they have any record of criminal sexual offenses, they may well deserve the extra scrutiny they may receive if they are reported as stalking or engaging in other criminal behavior - whether the criminal activity (or the attempt) takes place in a public bathroom or a private home. As I tried to point out earlier, there are other auspices an offender might already try to exploit to gain access to public facilities besides transvestitism or transgenderism, such as simply assisting someone else using the facilities (or pretending to be). It's not necessarily a new thing to have men in the ladies' room and vice versa, but maybe it's being slightly misframed as something completely new and unfamiliar here? The setting might also be important here - truck stops vs schools for example. If this were being raised a concern in schools, there may be some additional questions about what a sex offender is doing in a school bathroom in the first place, and I'm not sure they're questions about gender or preference. I'm not really sure what we have except the protections we hopefully already have - and these days that hopefully includes not only some from of personal protection but cell phones with cameras where with any luck a potential victim could not only contact the authorities but provide them with a photo of the person trying to climb into their stall. Hopefully the public nature of the place serves as discouragement in itself, though. While on the one hand, using a public bathroom might represent a chance for a criminal to find you indisposed (with your proverbial pants down literally), on the other hand the public setting means there may be witnesses to help discourage an attempt from taking place (or even help subdue or detain a perpetrator as sometimes happens), and even if a would-be perpetrator thinks they're alone with their victim, especially in the most publicly accessible places there may be little guarantee the situation will remain that way very long since twelve people might pile in from a private tour bus unannounced at any second, regardless of the hour. Perhaps this has something to do with why assaults or robberies in our local parks have to the best of my knowledge tended to take place in secluded wooded trail areas (or remote parking areas) rather than in restrooms?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 14:38:10 GMT
Shouldn't it just be whether you have a thing or not that thing? I hate to make it sound simplistic, but either you have one or you don't and that's the gender... I don't get it, in short.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 26, 2017 15:03:38 GMT
Shouldn't it just be whether you have a thing or not that thing? I hate to make it sound simplistic, but either you have one or you don't and that's the gender... I don't get it, in short. Except even if you force that onto people that feel they have the wrong physical plumbing, there are quite a number of people who have plumbing which could be either, or both, or neither. Personally I am left wondering if some transgender stuff at the moment is because its a soft of fashion, much like alien abduction reports were fashionable a few years back. A lot of abductees are and were reporting things they genuinely believed had happened to them, although I see no evidence that it did. I do believe that there are quite a number of genuine transgender people, but I fear some may have unwittingly found themselves caught up in a trend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 15:08:58 GMT
Shouldn't it just be whether you have a thing or not that thing? I hate to make it sound simplistic, but either you have one or you don't and that's the gender... I don't get it, in short. Except even if you force that onto people that feel they have the wrong physical plumbing, there are quite a number of people who have plumbing which could be either, or both, or neither. Personally I am left wondering if some transgender stuff at the moment is because its a soft of fashion, much like alien abduction reports were fashionable a few years back. A lot of abductees are and were reporting things they genuinely believed had happened to them, although I see no evidence that it did. I do believe that there are quite a number of genuine transgender people, but I fear some may have unwittingly found themselves caught up in a trend. Well, I don't know much about transgenderism, but I don't see the point of having the operation if you still don't know which gender you are afterwards...
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 26, 2017 15:12:20 GMT
Are there really people out there that are ...how shall I put it...that shallow?
I know some folks who absolutely worship some celebrities, But to emulate a transsexual because it's fashionable seems, well, pretty extreme to me.
|
|