It’s still legal to piss on a consenting adult, right? The only question is which room I do it in. Okay.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/companies/target-transgender-bathroom-lgbt/ Perusing social media comments relating to the Target announcement, it seems most parents, gay and straight, don’t want their young daughters sharing restrooms with people with male DNA. Are they bigots?
ummm this can’t be good ------
GENDERThu Feb 18, 2016 - 5:41 pm EST
Man strips in front of girls in locker room, says transgender law allows it
"SEATTLE, Washington, February 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - A man twice entered the changing room of a swimming pool and began disrobing, once in front of a young girls’ swim team, saying transgender policies gave him the right to do so.
The unidentified man entered Evans pool in Seattle near Green Lake last Monday, February 8, and began taking off his shirt in front of female patrons.
When asked what he was doing, he said, “The law has changed and I have a right to be here.”
“Seeing this individual in the locker room, parents of swim team members (girls) and women who had paid for lap swim became alarmed and alerted our front desk staff,” said Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami in a statement. “In response, an Evans pool staff member entered the women’s locker room and asked the man to leave.” They offered both the man and the girls the opportunity to use a family changing room.
He left, only to return during a later youth lap swim, Takami said.
Officials said he had made no attempt to present himself as a woman, nor to identify as transgender when he checked in. By all appearances, he was a man.
But appearances do not matter when it comes to “gender identity.” LGBT theorists hold that biological sex is distinct from gender, which is determined solely by the person’s mental self-identification."
This “mental self-identification” issue is a tangled knot, legally and psychologically. Who or what entity is accountable? We seem to be testing the limits of the threshold of society. Maybe we should have a formal mandate in place to psychologically ‘stamp’ a person’s mental self-identification. But, if their mental self identification was different than the ‘equipment’ they were packing, their M/F status according to the state might not match. Hence, the knot. How PC can you get and at what cost?
So if a juvenile female see the phallus of transgender woman, pre-op obviously, in the girls locker room, does the transgender get charged with exposure and ultimately have to register has a sex offender? That certainly is the case if the exposure happened in a McDonald’s parking lot. Or is it no longer a crime because the perp has a dress on?
The fact that this country is so terrified of sexuality/nudity/the human body is really the issue. “OMG A CHILD SAW A PENIS!!!” “OMG NO MY POOR BABY BOY WAS SUBJECTED TO SEEING A NIPPLE!!!” (but certainly only that level of outrage for a female nipple). God forbid you actually have to do some parenting and explain to your child something that is natural and all living things (excluding a few) do.
In your situation though obviously the legal standard applied would be about the expectation of seeing nudity in a locker room, as well as intent. Although I certainly feel violated when I see a disgusting hairy fat naked old man walking around the locker room at the gym without a towel for some reason, I feel that should be a crime.
I don’t know, personally I don’t want my daughter being shown a parade of dicks through her elementary school years but maybe Yayyywork is into that for his kids.
And the point is we are a nation of laws. They can’t conflict. Sounds like our exposure laws will have to be lightened. Going to love seeing a politician defend that idea.
Ah yes the slippery slope of if your child sees male/female genitalia in passing once or twice it is the same as “being shown an endless parade of dicks through her elementary school years”
Not even remotely relevant, but then again this whole thread is pretty ridiculous from both sides picking out some of the most ludicrous possibilities and using them as a logical argument
Also, when I first typed that comment I spelled it “ludacris” which I found to be awesome. Now I have to listen to Word of Mouf
and if the guy started pleasuring himself, would your position change? what constitutes pleasuring oneself? clearly, you have to be naked for it to be maximially offensive. second, you have to touch yourself. so you’re advocating for nudity but absolutely no touching? including in the shower? which is what change rooms are often for?
EDIT: i can’t believe this is even the subject of public debate. never have i seen so many socially liberal people say “WTF! No way!”. so who is actually supporting dicks in female locker rooms? like 2% of the population? everyone i know votes left. i’m probably the most conservative. none of them support dicks in female washrooms/locker rooms. one of them is a true feminist.
Someone being naked in a locker room & someone masturbating in a locker room are 100% different things. You can masturbate without being naked, that would be a crime. Masturbation in public is a crime, changing in a locker room isnt. There is also the possibility of a naked woman pleasuring herself while your daughter is there, but I suppose that is ok?
Look I really dont care that much one way or the other about this issue, I just found that particular argument not to be very compelling.
Fortunately the world is a safe and trustworthy place
http://wspa.com/2016/04/21/man-charged-after-10-year-old-girl-says-he-watched-her-in-bathroom/
hope bro is safe
Anyhow, essentially you have a situation where any guy can LEGALLY within his rights follow a young girl into a locker room at a gym and follow her into the showers and stand there and take a shower staring at her and claim to identify as a woman on that particular day because gender identities can be fluid.
To me, that seems very dangerous and wrong.
The situation you described is a legit concern and I absolutely understand that side of the argument. I also understand the other side where you have transgender people who can suffer based on some current conditions. There doesn’t seem to be any ideal outcome to this, so I don’t really know what the best option is.
I have just found some specific comments/arguments to be not convincing, far fetched, and frankly sincredibly stupid. The one you presented earlier for instance (equating seeing a quick bit of nudity to an endless stream on dicks) was stupid. The one MLA mentioned, very stupid. The one you just mentioned now, a very real concern. The argument is much stronger when it doesn’t stray into silly what ifs.
My argument wasn’t “stupid”, I was clarifying in what are essentially to a degree coed locker rooms that I am not ok with their being a steady stream of dicks in front young girls. You took issue essentially saying there’s a fundamentally obvious difference between viewing a few and a parade. What that difference is, I’m unsure, but apparently if your daughter sees a few dicks its ok and everyone who disagrees is stupid and has a problem (using your post before that as reference), but if she sees whatever arbitrarily constitutes a parade, you magically have a problem with that (and everyone who doesn’t understand that threshold is now behoven to stupid arguments) and this is all apparently obvious. To me, that is sort of stupid.
It becomes even moreso when you now try to parlay this logical spaghetti diagram into a legal framework, which is what we’re discussing.
Really? People who are confused about whether they are male or female “can suffer based on some current conditions”?
Ok so 1 dick = a parade? My whole original point wasn’t about the definition of a parade of dicks, it was that this country makes too big of a deal about nudity & human sexuality in general.
If you were transgender born a man, transitioned and lived your life as a women but according to a law that was passed in your state or town that now said you had to use the mens room I could see how that would make you suffer.