Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is the sexual intimidation committed against the girls. Have a beard and wear swim trunks instead of a girl's/woman's swimsuit? Use the men's locker/shower room or the individual family locker/shower room already present on the premises.
The other issue is the fact that ANY anatomical male can enter, use, and mix and mingle naked in public facilities' (schools, park districts, etc.) multiple occupancy restroom/changing/locker/shower rooms while young girls and women were half-dressed or naked, no proof of actually being transgender required, and no questions asked.
Until LGBT SJWs have a solution to that concern, the majority of the population will be against 'facilities of choice regardless of actual anatomy.'
I'll also add that companies siding with the sexual intimidation of girls/women in multiple occupancy restroom/changing/locker/shower rooms should think twice. Plenty of American men have daughters, nieces, sisters, wives, etc., who feel the same way those girls felt in that NYC Park District facility. When even NYC liberals balk, it's time to recognize this is a LOSING issue, politically.
The problem boils down to bills/laws like SB6 legislating that transgender people use bathrooms and changing facilities based upon their biological sex rather than based upon how they present.
A girl or woman is showering naked in the women's shower room, and in walks a naked 'self-IDed transgender' sporting a penis and testicles. How does that 'transgender' individual present? As a female? Or as a male?
And this problem transcends public building facilities. Let's take a look at a situation that presents in a private sector workplace...
A female employee in the workplace women's locker/shower room is unwillingly exposed to the male genitalia of a self-declared transgender in the women's locker/shower room. She files a workplace sexual intimidation/harassment charge. The anatomically male transgender claims not being able to shower in the women's facilities is discrimination.
The point is the sexual intimidation committed against the girls. Have a beard and wear swim trunks instead of a girl's/woman's swimsuit? Use the men's locker/shower room or the individual family locker/shower room already present on the premises.
-casually points to the original topic-
SB6. Biological Sex until they can get a court order approved to change their birth certificate.
Means that men, who are biologically female, are forced into the women's room. Beard, chest hair, swim trunks, and all. At least until they can get through the court process.
Would also include government-ran recreation centers like the one in the article you linked. But I do agree with their idea of blocking off timeslots for youth competition teams (boys and girls) to be able to change as a group without worry of any adult (aside from a parent) entering.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 9 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,605,492 times
Reputation: 5697
First, if you're worried about a man pretending to be TG going into a bathroom and molesting females, then shouldn't you also be worried about lesbians going into the bathroom and doing the same? Or gay men going into the bathroom and molesting your sons? I had a guy in a public bathroom tell me, when I was 12 "Let it all hang out. You watering your potato plants?" Creepy in retrospect, but still came away from it with more, as we call these days, WTF than actually being upset.
As for toll roads. I would NOT live in a place that charged 25 cents every time I turned onto another road, or even a nickel. Blame the super-libertarian, super-capitalist mindset of so many in this state. Whether out of genuine philosophical conviction or simply because they see it as an opportunity to make money when people pass through their property - it would only hamper the very commerce they're trying to promote.
A girl or woman is showering naked in the women's shower room, and in walks a naked 'self-IDed transgender' sporting a penis and testicles. How does that 'transgender' individual present? As a female? Or as a male?
That's literally the problem.
Which is why transgender women who kept their penis and testicles don't walk around naked in a women's shower room.
It is well within reason to allow transgender women into the women's changing facilities but also have rules against an exposed penis. That way, if some douchefrigate decides he wants to ride the waves of douchedom, it can be taken care of appropriately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And this problem transcends public building facilities. Let's take a look at a situation that presents in a private sector workplace...
A female employee in the workplace women's locker/shower room is unwillingly exposed to the male genitalia of a self-declared transgender in the women's locker/shower room. She files a workplace sexual intimidation/harassment charge. The anatomically male transgender claims not being able to shower in the women's facilities is discrimination.
Whose rights prevail?
Again: It is well within reason to allow transgender women into the women's changing facilities but also have rules against an exposed penis. That way, if some douchefrigate decides he wants to ride the waves of douchedom, it can be taken care of appropriately.
But. Are we talking an accidental exposed penis or an intentional one?
If it was accidental, her charge would/should be null as there was no intent to intimidate or harass her. And the transgender woman would/should be given a warning alongside guidelines for appropriate locker room etiquette to ensure a safe and healthy workplace.
If it was intentional, the charge would be valid and the person who intentionally exposed their penis would be fired. Possibly also criminally prosecuted. The same as if a cisgender man were to intentionally use his genitals to harass another male coworker in the men's room. Or a cisgender man were to intentionally expose himself onto a child (rather than just doing his business as normal).
SB6. Biological Sex until they can get a court order approved to change their birth certificate.
Means that men, who are biologically female, are forced into the women's room. Beard, chest hair, swim trunks, and all. At least until they can get through the court process.
Here's a legal precedent, in reverse:
MALE university students complained about a F to M but still anatomically female transgender using the men's locker/shower rooms on campus. The result: The transgender was expelled for doing so, and Federal Court upheld the expulsion.
Quote:
"Federal Judge Kim R. Gibson dismissed Johnston's suit, saying that his transgender status was not covered by either the Constitution's equal-protection clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds.
With regard to the equal-protection clause, Gibson writes that transgender status is not a "suspect class" under equal-protection review, so that Pitt can prevail as long as it shows a "rational basis" for its actions. The university "explained that its policy is based on the need to ensure the privacy of its students to disrobe and shower outside of the presence of members of the opposite sex. This justification has been repeatedly upheld by courts," Gibson writes."
- Massachusetts law does not protect gender expression/identity from discrimination in public accommodations.
- New Hampshire and New York laws do not protect gender identity/expression from discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations.
Which is why transgender women who kept their penis and testicles don't walk around naked in a women's shower room.
So... they shower in their clothes? Do you really think anyone believes that?
An anatomically male transgender changing into and out of a swimsuit in the ladies' locker room... how is that accomplished without exposing penis and testicles at some point?
Quote:
It is well within reason to allow transgender women into the women's changing facilities but also have rules against an exposed penis. That way, if some douchefrigate decides he wants to ride the waves of douchedom, it can be taken care of appropriately.
The transgender with a penis and testicles can claim discrimination and sue for that because women aren't prohibited from nakedness while changing or showering naked in the women's locker/shower room.
Now what?
There's still no valid answer to the question...
A female employee in the workplace women's locker/shower room is unwillingly exposed to the male genitalia of a self-declared transgender in the women's locker/shower room. She files a workplace sexual intimidation/harassment charge. The anatomically male transgender claims not being able to shower in the women's facilities is discrimination.
MALE university students complained about a F to M but still anatomically female transgender using the men's locker/shower rooms on campus. The result: The transgender was expelled for doing so, and Federal Court upheld the expulsion.
The Federal Judge is correct. It's a State issue. Some State laws protect LGBTS from discrimination, most don't.
Your hypothetical was a private company. Not a school. So all of this is off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
- Massachusetts law does not protect gender expression/identity from discrimination in public accommodations.
- New Hampshire and New York laws do not protect gender identity/expression from discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations.
You may want to refresh your knowledge every once in a while and look for updated information.
- MA signed a bill last year adding protections for gender expression/identity in public accommodations
- NY signed protections for gender identity in all respects into law in October 2015
- NH's mayor signed an EO on June 2016 prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in regards to state employment and programs. HB 478, a bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, was tabled earlier to today to review/amend language at a later meeting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
So... they shower in their clothes? Do you really think anyone believes that?
An anatomically male transgender changing into and out of a swimsuit in the ladies' locker room... how is that accomplished without exposing penis and testicles at some point?
I don't recall ever being in a locker room that lacked both private, curtained off changing space and private bathroom stalls. I also don't recall ever being in a locker room that didn't have at least one curtained off shower.
If there was such a locker room, I'm pretty sure if you polled 100 transgender women who kept their penis, I'm pretty sure you'd get 100 responses stating that they would abstain from using said facility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The transgender with a penis and testicles can claim discrimination and sue for that because women aren't prohibited from nakedness while changing or showering naked in the women's locker/shower room.
Why don't you poll some transgender women to see if they feel it would be a reasonable accommodation for them to have access to using the women's locker room with the understanding that an exposed penis is grounds for removal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
There's still no valid answer to the question...
A female employee in the workplace women's locker/shower room is unwillingly exposed to the male genitalia of a self-declared transgender in the women's locker/shower room. She files a workplace sexual intimidation/harassment charge. The anatomically male transgender claims not being able to shower in the women's facilities is discrimination.
Whose rights prevail?
An answer was given. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean anything.
If it was accidental, then it should be treated as such with a warning and counsel. The transgender's rights would semi-prevail, under the premise that she would still be allowed access after receiving warning and counseling.
If it was intentional, the cisgender female's rights would prevail under the premise of sexual harassment. The same as if a cisgender man intentionally exposed himself onto a child.
Your hypothetical was a private company. Not a school. So all of this is off topic.
The same thing applies to schools or any other public building facilities. A girl/woman files sexual intimidation/harassment charges. Now what? Whose rights prevail? The girl's/woman's right to be protected from sexual intimidation/harassment in a public facility? Or the transgender's right to expose their penis and testicles in women's locker/shower rooms?
Before you answer, remember that Federal Court upheld a student's expulsion from college for doing the same thing in reverse (F to M but anatomically female transgender in men's facilities).
Quote:
You may want to refresh your knowledge every once in a while and look for updated information.
- MA signed a bill last year adding protections for gender expression/identity in public accommodations
- NY signed protections for gender identity in all respects into law in October 2015
- NH's mayor signed an EO on June 2016 prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in regards to state employment and programs. HB 478, a bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, was tabled earlier to today to review/amend language at a later meeting.
NY only has an EO. Not a law. EOs do not have the authority of law.
Quote:
I don't recall ever being in a locker room that lacked both private, curtained off changing space and private bathroom stalls.
I do. My schools, my kids' schools, several colleges/universities, park districts, state parks, private sector health clubs, etc., etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
