Transgender bathroom arguement.

[mumblemumble]

It existed, but compared to date rape at homes, assaults in dark areas, just "general assult", ect, this was unlikely, as any person seeing a man in a womans restroom IMMEDIATELY had legal recourse to apprehend, to do the crime of rape in a girls bathroom one first had to do the crime of being in a womans restroom. Now a guy waiting around cannot even be questioned, or the OTHER person is liable.  Also if you mean "date rape", that is much different in how its done, you can't just walk into a random bathroom and date rape a girl, so for that argument, it doesn't count.

I think most rapes in bathrooms before now were around raves or such, where the drug scene was the problem more than anything, that and nobody really cared IN these scenes. Clubbing, raves, ect... generally people are there to party, drunk, possibly high, and less caring because of this, which is why in those situations it could happen. But a restroom at a restaurant? community center? Those were extremely rare, if ever.

I just want 1 question answered : how would you keep a sex offender from using this rule (LEGALLY, WITHOUT BEING LIABLE FOR LAWSUIT / DISCRIMINATION) to use the womans restroom?

Most of those people are opportunists, and this is a HUGE opportunity to do so, as a guy could wait around in a bar bathroom waiting for a drunk girl at a time of low activity to assault. 

[Zombra]

Listen.  Have you ever been at a restaurant with some friends, a girl says, "I'm going to the bathroom," and then another girl says, "I'll go with you?"  Like women have been doing since the dawn of time in every public place?

Why do you think that is?  Hint: it's not because they want to swap makeup tips.

[mumblemumble]

This is not guaranteed to be protection, NOR is it always availible, that is not a sufficient defense, and you did not answer my question. Plus, it was rarely used for that on average, in places that aren't ultra ghetto / dangerous. It was normally used for gossiping / talking about things with guys not around. Anyways, answer please?

HOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

Even if not sex offenders, how about random men who, on a whim, claim to be trans? Unless you can suggest a checks / balance system to prevent this, there will only be backlash. This is literally the entire reason I made this thread, and so far nobody has even TRIED to get a good answer for this, most are just saying I'm wrong and that there's no more risk than there was before, which is COMPLETELY wrong.

It is, intended or not, giving offenders a legally approved hunting ground to go into, and hang out in.

[Zombra]

[Women watching out for each other] is not guaranteed to be protection, NOR is it always availible

Of course it isn't.  So what?  It's still a fact this this is a long standing practice among women, precisely because bathroom rape is and has been a major, major, major issue for a long, long time.  You're acting like this new law means that now bathrooms are dangerous for the first time in history.  That's stupid.

HOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

This is certainly a good question, but it's not particularly more important now because of this new law.  Bathrooms have never been secure, and despite your hypothetical imperviousness of exploiters, this law doesn't really provide an awesome new opportunity for guys who go in screaming "IT'S OKAY I'M TRANS".  That's not a great way to deflect suspicion, and rapists everywhere aren't rejoicing that finally they will be invisible.  I agree that offenders are opportunists, but the best opportunity is not being seen going in at all, and this law doesn't give that opportunity to anyone - kinda the opposite.

[mumblemumble]

You are missing on both points the LIKELYHOOD of it being secure. America itself, police stations, banks, none are 100% secure, NOTHING EVER IS. But you can make it MORE secure, and having a rule where men need to stay out, and legally being allowed to throw men out / arrest them for entering is what made it MUCH MORE SECURE. Since this is now impossible, it is now LESS secure, as an entire first (and really only, since if a girl is raped its too late) line of defense is gone, and not only gone, but YOU can be arrested for TRYING to use that defense. Because of this, that "filter" which would stop 90% of offenders before, is now gone, so those 90% of offenders are no longer stopped.

Think of it this way : A mugging.

Now nothing can really keep you from being mugged, but theres several factors which make you safer. Such as...

Time of day

Neighborhood

Police patrols

How you carry yourself (perceived as weak / strong)

Being armed (being able to pull out a gun makes it extremely unlikely someone you will get mugged, cause ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants a bullet in them)

What sex you are

How crowded an area is

Ect.

No single one of these things ensure you will never get mugged, but collectively they make your odds either extremely low or much higher.

A man, in a good area, daytime, seeming confident and carrying a pistol is extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely to get robbed, while a girl, at night, seeming afraid, in a bad neighborhood, unarmed, is MUCH more likely to be in danger.

Odds, likelihoods, risk factors, ECT, this is what we are talking about. Something you evidently are refusing to acknowledge, that letting men (read, any biological male with a penis who says the magic words) in the womans room is a huge risk factor to assault and harassment. Same reason employees wash hands in food service : granted this doesn't  guarantee  no sickness, nor does not washing guarantee  sickness, but it makes it more likely.

[godsring]

HOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

How do we keep sex offenders out of schools/parks/neighborhoods/etc

It is and always will be a constant fight against the mentally challenged....the best we can do is keep doing what we are doing when someone is sexually assaulted press charges.. when a pedo is stalking your neighborhood call the cops... there is a public database of all sexual offenders.. look it up look at the names faces keep an eye out... call the police

[Zombra]

Sure, of course another factor is another factor.  This is blindingly obvious and needs no explanation.

But ... you are seriously overestimating the importance of this factor.  You literally said

raping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

That means that you think that now suddenly it's a huge problem, where it was no big deal before.  That's still stupid.  And I'm being careful to restrain myself here, because my instinct is to talk about just how stupid it is.  But I'll keep it cool although you threw the first insult.

So ... OK.  Maybe this is providing another opportunity for sneaky offenders who like drawing attention to themselves.  "Hi!  I'm VERY suspicious!  But please don't keep an eye on me!"  (Note that keeping an eye on someone suspicious is not forbidden by this law.)  If bathrooms are even 1% more dangerous than before, that's a bad thing, sure, we agree on that.

But ... the law was also passed for a reason.  To protect the rights of minority citizens that you clearly think shouldn't have rights at all.

But 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

Notice that bolded part at the end?  I did.  It's fucked up.  "They're subhuman, so they can just shit their pants in public or stay off my streets."

You want to make bathrooms safer, great, me too.  But I'll be damned if I'll let you write off a minority as disposable because their existence makes that problem more complicated.  Freedom isn't free, buddy.

[Pactrick Willis]

Sure, of course another factor is another factor.  This is blindingly obvious and needs no explanation.

But ... you are seriously overestimating the importance of this factor.  You literally said

raping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

That means that you think that now suddenly it's a huge problem, where it was no big deal before.  That's still stupid.  And I'm being careful to restrain myself here, because my instinct is to talk about just how stupid it is.  But I'll keep it cool although you threw the first insult.

So ... OK.  Maybe this is providing another opportunity for sneaky offenders who like drawing attention to themselves.  "Hi!  I'm VERY suspicious!  But please don't keep an eye on me!"  (Note that keeping an eye on someone suspicious is not forbidden by this law.)  If bathrooms are even 1% more dangerous than before, that's a bad thing, sure, we agree on that.

But ... the law was also passed for a reason.  To protect the rights of minority citizens that you clearly think shouldn't have rights at all.

But 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

Notice that bolded part at the end?  I did.  It's fucked up.  "They're subhuman, so they can just shit their pants in public or stay off my streets."

You want to make bathrooms safer, great, me too.  But I'll be damned if I'll let you write off a minority as disposable because their existence makes that problem more complicated.  Freedom isn't free, buddy.

They do- Report is here http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

[mumblemumble]

HOW DO WE KEEP SEX OFFENDERS OUT OF THE WOMENS ROOM?

How do we keep sex offenders out of schools/parks/neighborhoods/etc

By banning them?  This is pretty standard practice. Have you never heard sex offenders usually cannot go within 200 yards or whatever of a school or park, or "any place children congregate"? this is to prevent it. if they enter, they can IMMEDIATELTY go to jail. We should do the same for bathrooms, and honestly some LGBT leaders are sex offenders too, fyi.

Sure, of course another factor is another factor.  This is blindingly obvious and needs no explanation.

But ... you are seriously overestimating the importance of this factor.  You literally said

raping a girl in the bathroom before this law was almost non existing

That means that you think that now suddenly it's a huge problem, where it was no big deal before.  That's still stupid.  And I'm being careful to restrain myself here, because my instinct is to talk about just how stupid it is.  But I'll keep it cool although you threw the first insult.

So ... OK.  Maybe this is providing another opportunity for sneaky offenders who like drawing attention to themselves.  "Hi!  I'm VERY suspicious!  But please don't keep an eye on me!"  (Note that keeping an eye on someone suspicious is not forbidden by this law.)  If bathrooms are even 1% more dangerous than before, that's a bad thing, sure, we agree on that.

But ... the law was also passed for a reason.  To protect the rights of minority citizens that you clearly think shouldn't have rights at all.

But 3% of the population sounds a bit high, and these people have mental health problems anyways.

Notice that bolded part at the end?  I did.  It's fucked up.  "They're subhuman, so they can just shit their pants in public or stay off my streets."

You want to make bathrooms safer, great, me too.  But I'll be damned if I'll let you write off a minority as disposable because their existence makes that problem more complicated.  Freedom isn't free, buddy.

Zombra, if men ARE NOT allowed in womens restroom, men ASSAULTING women in a womans restroom is less likely, as a certain percentage WILL be caught and dealt with JUST for entering. That percentage caught before entering, DIRECTLY lowers the rape / harassment rate, as they get stopped before they can do it.

Suspicion is one thing, and yes people will try to keep an eye on it, but keeping an eye alone does not stop things, sometimes there aren't enough eyes, and again, it cannot be stopped prior, since until they do something, theres nothing that can be done. Just like the guy in the homelsss shelter, women were suspicious, but, according to the law, and you, its essentially "cant do anything till he tries to rape you, even if you see it a mile away".

As for the law passing, it wasn't voted on. It was forced federally in america by the obama administration, and is attempted to be forced on states as well. That is not democracy.

I never said they were subhuman, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I ask you to stop, and I'd appreciate any mod watching to keep an eye for that too. That is charecter assassination, and I'm well aware PLENTY of people want me banned for even discussing this, and I do not want someone to even TRY to start a fire under me by someone putting words in my mouth. I said they have a much, MUCH higher level of  mental health issues, including but not limited to depression, pyromania, sadism, skitzophrenia, dissociative disorder, self harm, ect. THESE ARE FACTS. They have incredibly higher levels on average, and transgender feelings can come and go, and people have even de-transitioned, so strictly speaking its not "born this way", but can infact be an attained trait, and removed as well if issues are addressed.

[Ramsis]

Sigh...

You know I'm all for talking and all especially about really sore topics, but if you goofballs are going to bash each other with rocks because of conflicting opinions the least you could do is not do it publicly, do it in a PM so I don't have to warm up the temp-ban oven.

No but seriously keep this civil or I shall slapeth all of thine troubles away!

[Zombra]

Guys, please ... you don't have to multiquote an entire long post to give a one-line reply.  Some basic editing skills would be great.  Just quote the part you're responding to.

Zombra, if men ARE NOT allowed in womens restroom, men ASSAULTING women in a womans restroom is less likely, as a certain percentage WILL be caught and dealt with JUST for entering. That percentage caught before entering, DIRECTLY lowers the rape / harassment rate, as they get stopped before they can do it.

Yes.  If you read my previous post you'll know that I just agreed with you on that.  "Less likely, more likely", of course.  Again: it's obvious.  No need to keep repeating it.

Suspicion is one thing, and yes people will try to keep an eye on it, but keeping an eye alone does not stop things

I know.  I just agreed with you on that.  There isn't a perfect solution.

I never said they were subhuman, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I ask you to stop, and I'd appreciate any mod watching to keep an eye for that too. That is charecter assassination, and I'm well aware PLENTY of people want me banned for even discussing this, and I do not want someone to even TRY to start a fire under me by someone putting words in my mouth.

I don't want you banned.  I just think it's very instructive that your whole argument comes down to "We shouldn't be protecting these people's rights, because they're sick/bad/whatever".  You clearly have a low opinion of transexuals, dress it up in science if you like, but you're willing to write off the rights of a minority for the safety of a majority.  That's un-American, period.

EDIT: Thank you Ramsis.  Not sure where the line is on this board.  (I spend a lot of time on RPG Codex if that tells you anything.)  I think we all knew what we were in for with the first post in the thread, and mumble needs to take his own advice about thick skin.  If I were you I'd lock the thread and call it a day.    Until then, I'll continue to disagree with him, perhaps with hostility, but I hope with civility.

[mumblemumble]

Uhm, nope, actually sacrificing the minority for the majority is the basis of societal survival. A few soldiers go and risk death to protect the many, a few janitors get covered in filth to keep everyone clean, Men of the house put their bodies on the line to provide for the women and children, ect.  Sacrificing the majority for the minority is unsustainable, and wrong.

Plus if everyone is equal, isn't protecting everyone equally (ie, protect as many as possible) the right decision? if you disagree, are you REALLY viewing everyone as equal? I think not, because otherwise the the fact that they are a minority would mean they get the shaft, due to numbers involved. Protecting half the population, over 2% of the population. If you don't agree, you clearly view them as more important than full normal biological women.

  Until then, I'll continue to disagree with him, perhaps with hostility

Isn't this pretty much an admission that you aren't going to be nice, and won't be civil? You are intentionally trying to agitate people.

[Songleaves]

I went to a school with coed bathrooms/showers and everything was fine. American here. If people are so worried about sex offenders in bathrooms, why don't they just give us stalls without gaps in the doors and which go down to the floor? They do that in other nations. Most American's don't even realize that those are intentional design features in the US.

[Zombra]

If everyone is equal, isn't protecting everyone equally (ie, protect as many as possible) the right decision? if you disagree, are you REALLY viewing everyone as equal?

No, and yes I am.  First: there's a huge difference between protecting everyone equally and protecting as many as possible, so that question is nonsense.  Second, I'm not talking about physical protection of a number of individuals in the first place.  I'm talking about the rights of all citizens.  See the difference?  If you disavow the rights of a minority, America is fucked.  Yes, I'll say it: equal rights are more important than the safety of individuals, however many.  It is up to us to protect our citizens as individuals after we have guaranteed equal rights and freedoms to all of them.  If you disagree, you are un-American, straight up.

Note that I'm not throwing all women under the bus and saying all bathrooms should be rape factories.  I just don't think that this law is anywhere near that dangerous.  Maybe a little more, like, microscopically more, but not significant enough to worry about.  Again: public bathrooms have always been dangerous for women.  "Now I can be a secret non-transexual!" is still a really stupid way for offenders to nonsuspiciously infiltrate the ladies' room.  Like, they can also wait until no one is watching and walk in.  Like they've done for centuries?

  Until then, I'll continue to disagree with him, perhaps with hostility

Isn't this pretty much an admission that you aren't going to be nice?

Let's just say "I'm not liable if you get your jimmies rustled."

[mumblemumble]

Entirely freedom is anarchy, just fyi....society has rules which infringe on "freedom" to protect people, and these rules often aren't even made by the government, but the people. If PEOPLE are saying "you cannot enter the woman's bathroom", and you jail them, this is then infringing on THEIR rights to have their own rules at their own establishment, AS WELL as putting someone in danger. Rights are always at odds, because peoples wants often clash, and we need to look at what is more beneficial to society at large.

See, anarchy, and having "all right allowed" are simply not sustainable. If you had no noise ordinance, no limits on drug use, and no other rules, society would rip itself apart, or eventually move to small groups using martial law enforcing it, which just loops back into it with a "smaller" government, the government being, in that case, a bunch of people with guns saying "Be good or ill kill you", which is pretty much how the wild west was. 

Furthermore you are completely wrong about america being screwed if rights are not allowed to minorities IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED, WRONG, AND MADE UP. Sex offenders, felons, children, ALL have extremely limited rights, and I think most of us are ok with this, as apposed to the alternative (not saying felons rights shouldn't be adjusted, felons get absolutely screwed by society and forced into lifelong crime) As for saying rights are more important than safety, how many peoples rights, for how many lives? Is it worth, potentially, killing millions for the rights of a few thousand? Where is the line where "shit, this isn't worth it". If you don't have one, you should. Rights mean nothing if everyone is at risk, as "rights", only exist if people are safe.  If law, enforcement, and a stable society isn't around, you have no rights that cannot be stripped away by force. And you claiming I'm "UN-america" is a fallacy, "no true Scotsman" fallacy, not to mention American historically speaking is against this kind of stuff. (though since america is rather young, speaking of things being "unamerican" is dumb to begin with)

As for your last comment, theres a huge difference between someone discussing a sore, emotionally charged topic (what I'm doing) and someone putting words in someones mouth (what you are doing). So yeah, no, that defense doesn't count. What I'm doing can upset people, but is not wrong, what you are doing is wrong, and impolite, and can offend people.