Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This Bathroom Law Confusion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 166 (783121)
05-03-2016 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by AZPaul3
05-03-2016 5:23 PM


If that was true there would be no need for this discussion or for anybody getting freaked out when they see a man in women's clothing in the women's room because that would not occur. But it does, and THAT's the situation we're trying to address.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2016 5:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2016 7:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 108 by jar, posted 05-03-2016 9:54 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 127 by Stile, posted 05-04-2016 10:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(5)
Message 107 of 166 (783125)
05-03-2016 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
05-03-2016 5:43 PM


You mean like these men in women's clothing? What do you think a transwoman looks like?
Again, just what do you think a transwoman looks like?
This is EXACTLY what the Republicans in NC are talking about. Keeping these men out of the women's room.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 5:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:16 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 108 of 166 (783152)
05-03-2016 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
05-03-2016 5:43 PM


Faith writes:
If that was true there would be no need for this discussion or for anybody getting freaked out when they see a man in women's clothing in the women's room because that would not occur. But it does, and THAT's the situation we're trying to address.
No, it doesn't occur. You gotta stop just believing folk making unsupported claims. It's not the situation you are trying to address because it simply doesn't happen.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 5:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 166 (783158)
05-03-2016 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AZPaul3
05-03-2016 7:56 PM


We've already discussed those that are believable as women. They don't need a law since they don't raise eyebrows. The problem is those that aren't believable as women, one of which Hyroglyphx mentioned back there in Message 54.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2016 7:56 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AZPaul3, posted 05-04-2016 12:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 123 by AZPaul3, posted 05-04-2016 1:20 AM Faith has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 110 of 166 (783160)
05-03-2016 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
05-02-2016 8:58 AM


Re: Waiting?
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I haven't said anything about losing any rights.
Did you or did you not write the following in Message 39:
You refuse to consider the rights of the majority or of society at large, like all on the Left merely accusing them all of hateful attitudes, and I'm objecting to that.
What right are you talking about here, Faith? What is lost by writing into the law that trans people are allowed to use the bathroom in peace?
Did you or did you not write the following in Message 36
When I first heard about the proposed law in Texas to make restrooms a matter of personal choice I was also freaked out: What destructive dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now?
[emphasis in the original]
Exactly why would you possibly think that something destructive or dangerous was going to happen unless you were certain that your rights were about to be violated?
So if you’re going to disingenuously insist that you didn’t mean rights here, I’ll rephrase:
What were you afraid of losing by writing into the law that trans people are allowed to use the bathroom in peace?
quote:
If you've read my posts you should see that I don't object to making accommodations to transgender people
But I have read your posts and that statement isn’t exactly true, now is it? Did you or did you not write the following:
Message 5
I certainly understand people not wanting all this gender confusion being imposed on us, and I don't think that's bigotry
What confusion is going on if you don’t have any problems with trans people peeing in peace?
Message 27
As for fears that are likely not reasonable, what's the point of accusing people of bigotry when they just need to be better informed about the actual situation? There are a lot of people who have no experience of these things AT ALL, you can't suddenly impose a completely unfamiliar situation on them, change their familiar experiences into something that sounds strange and dangerous, and demand that they conform to your understanding, especially in this militant strident accusatory tone that is in itself threatening.
Thus it’s the trans people’s fault for not coddling the bigots, right? They brought it on themselves, right?
Message 28
I'd really like to see more understanding of the perspective of ordinary people who are freaked out by militant campaigns to change their familiar experiences.
Trans people aren’t ordinary? And once again, it’s apparently the fault of trans people that cis people are making things difficult. If only they could have been nicer and not used the law to enforce their right to pee in peace.
And lest there be any confusion about what you mean, from the same message:
I think the general peace of society would be better served by backing off this one.
How can you claim you don’t have a problem trans people peeing in peace if you want to make it impossible for them to do so by insisting they back off?
Same message:
But people who have no experience of these things do experience it as having something strange and dangerous imposed on them out of the blue.
So trans people should just put up with being discriminated against until the majority of people don’t feel like discriminating against them anymore at which time they won’t be discriminated against? They shouldn’t dare make a fuss or point out the problems or demand the law treat them well?
Message 39
I'm trying to come up with a reasonable solution to a tricky problem.
What tricky problem? If you truly don’t think there’s anything to worry about, how is it tricky? Let the trans people pee in peace. They were already doing so. Anti-discrimination laws merely ensure that the busybody who can’t handle the idea of another woman being in the women’s bathroom can’t make their lives a living hell.
Which they never had the right to do in the first place.
So in what possible way can this be considered tricky? It’s the same question: What right has been lost by writing into the law that trans people are allowed to use the bathroom in peace?
We can read your words, Faith. We are not stupid. We can see you trying desperately to present yourself as somehow without animosity while desperately trying to cling to the idea that it’s OK for to behave badly and it’s all the other side’s fault for stirring up trouble.
quote:
I really have no idea why you've been in such a snit.
Because you’re trying to justify the unjustifiable. You’re trying to say that it’s the fault of people demanding equality that there’s a problem rather than the people seeking to oppress others.
You want to let the bigot save face. That merely guarantees the lesson is not learned.
quote:
(I did stop reading through all your posts because of that)
Then what have you learned by that? When you refuse to pay attention, do you gain any insight?
quote:
But I'm also responding to those who do feel there is a problem.
Why do we care about them? If you agree that no rights have been lost by letting trans people pee in peace, why do we have to coddle those who insist they have lost something?
Why do they get to save face?
quote:
I think it's mostly not recognizing the actuality that's involved, but it's such a strongly held position I also wonder if I'm missing something. I may very well be.
It’s called bigotry, Faith.
You’re trying to absolve them of their bigotry:
Message 5
I certainly understand people not wanting all this gender confusion being imposed on us, and I don't think that's bigotry
Message 19
I don't think it's bigotry that promotes the laws against the LGBT
Message 27
As for fears that are likely not reasonable, what's the point of accusing people of bigotry when they just need to be better informed about the actual situation?
Message 28
I don't think it's about hate and bigotry, I think it's about feeling forced to accept something totally strange that seems threatening.
...
When all we hear is that there is a law proposed that wants to change who can use what restroom, and have no understanding of what that would entail in reality, and nobody is bothering to try to explain it, just getting all accusatory about bigotry and hate and discrimination, you ought to recognize that a lot of people are likely to freak out and for good reason.
...
Well, mount a campaign to clarify all this and stop calling people who don't understand such things bigots and haters.
Again, Faith, we can see your words. We are not stupid. We know exactly what you’re doing. You’re trying to allow yourself to engage in despicable behavior and pass it off as rational.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 8:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:33 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 111 of 166 (783161)
05-03-2016 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
05-02-2016 9:05 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
quote:
I think mixing the sexes in bathrooms is barbaric. Families don't allow that. Sisters together, brothers together but not the two sexes together.
And exactly how does that work with only one bathroom? My sister and I shared a bathroom.
It's called a "door." When it was shut, it meant someone was in there and you didn't go in.
And the powder room downstairs was shared by everybody in the house. Same rule: If the door was shut, you didn't go in.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 9:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:39 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 112 of 166 (783162)
05-03-2016 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rrhain
05-03-2016 10:26 PM


Re: Waiting?
I cannot read such a long post, sorry.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that someone can see both sides of an issue. I nevertheless CONCLUDED that I see no problem with allowing transgenders to choose whatever bathroom they want. I also mentioned my FIRST take on the law in Texas, and immediately followed it with my corrected viewpoint, which you seem to have ignored.
What "rights" are involved you ask? OK, I guess for those on the right who are upset about it that would be a right to feel safe in a public restroom. That's what they feel they would lose.
Would it be possible to stop badgering me about this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 10:26 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 10:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 166 (783163)
05-03-2016 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rrhain
05-03-2016 10:29 PM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
What is this ridiculous thing you're all doing with confusing the point about unisex bathrooms? If a woman can't wash at the sink bare from the waist up that is one of the things that shows the privacy problem as I said. But you all act as if there's no problem with the sexes mingling in that part of the bathroom just because the stalls have doors on them.
But again, there is no NEED for unisex bathrooms, and it's all pure political correctness with no practical use except to pretend to an equality between the sexes that doesn't exist. We're different.
Again, you all emphasize how there IS privacy, on stalls etc., which proves my point that privacy matters. So why not do it right, the way it's always been done, and have separate facilities for the sexes which is a far better way to ensure privacy?
Only for the sake of political correctness.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 10:29 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 11:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 114 of 166 (783164)
05-03-2016 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
05-02-2016 11:03 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
quote:
Are there urinals in this co-ed bathroom?
OSHA Regulations
1915.88(d)(1)(ii)(B)
The employer does not have to provide separate toilet facilities for each sex when they will not be occupied by more than one employee at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one toilet.
1915.88(d)(2)
Minimum number of toilets.
Number of employees of each sex Minimum number of toilets per sex
1 to 15 1
16 to 35 2
36 to 55 3
56 to 80 4
81 to 110 5
111 to 150 6
Over 150 1 additional toilet for each additional 40 employees.
Note to Table F-2 of 1915.88: When toilets will only be used by men, urinals may be provided instead of toilets, except that the number of toilets in such cases shall not be reduced to less than two-thirds of the minimum specified.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 11:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:43 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 166 (783165)
05-03-2016 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rrhain
05-03-2016 10:39 PM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Please continue to read the posts related to that topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 10:39 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 11:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 116 of 166 (783166)
05-03-2016 10:51 PM


Meanwhile over in Europe they have public urinals outdoors on some sidewalks....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 117 of 166 (783167)
05-03-2016 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
05-03-2016 10:33 PM


Re: Waiting?
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I cannot read such a long post, sorry.
Then what makes you think you are in any position to respond to it?
Besides, Faith, it's mostly your words. You can't read your own words?
quote:
It doesn't seem to occur to you that someone can see both sides of an issue.
And that's what you get for not reading the post you're responding to. Go back and read it this time and see if you still agree with your assertion.
You're trying to let the bigot save face, Faith. Why?
quote:
I also mentioned my FIRST take on the law in Texas, and immediately followed it with my corrected viewpoint, which you seem to have ignored.
Faith, you know I have no qualms in quoting back your entire posting history. Do you really want me to to do so again? All so that you can say it was too long and you didn't read it?
You continued to say that it wasn't bigotry, that it was just a misunderstanding. That isn't true.
You're trying to let the bigot save face. Why?
quote:
OK, I guess for those on the right who are upset about it that would be a right to feel safe in a public restroom.
You don't have that right.
You're making the Bully's Retort, Faith: But I always took the other kids' lunch money! You're bullying me by making me stop!
Bigots don't have the right to make other people's lives miserable just so that they can feel good. No matter how often we let them get away with it in the past, they never had the right to do it.
Indeed, the bully no longer gets to bully people. And that's something to be concerned about? That is a "side" that you can "see"? It is "rational" to consider the psychic harm done to a bully who is no longer allowed to bully?
quote:
That's what they feel they would lose.
You can't lose what you never had. Do you honestly believe you have the right to tell someone else they can't use the bathroom because you're afraid of them?
Instead, if you are uncomfortable sharing the bathroom with someone else, you are free to wait until they are done using it.
quote:
Would it be possible to stop badgering me about this?
No. So long as you continue to try to let the bigot save face, you will be called on it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 118 of 166 (783169)
05-03-2016 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-03-2016 10:39 PM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith responds to me:
quote:
What is this ridiculous thing you're all doing with confusing the point about unisex bathrooms?
You mean you can't remember your own words?
Message 68
I think mixing the sexes in bathrooms is barbaric. Families don't allow that. Sisters together, brothers together but not the two sexes together.
Exactly how is pointing out that my sister and I shared a bathroom "confusing the point"? You're the one who brought up families. You're the one who brought up that sisters and brothers should have separate bathrooms.
Are you saying that you're the one who confused them? Then why are you upset at people calling you out on your confusion?
Do you honestly not remember that we can see your past posts, Faith?
quote:
If a woman can't wash at the sink bare from the waist up that is one of the things that shows the privacy problem as I said.
If a person is concerned about privacy in a place where they are in direct view of other people, then the onus is on them to not display anything they don't want others to see.
quote:
But again, there is no NEED for unisex bathrooms, and it's all pure political correctness with no practical use except to pretend to an equality between the sexes that doesn't exist. We're different.
And you wonder why I say that your protestations that you don't have any problems with trans people being allowed to pee in peace don't ring true.
quote:
Again, you all emphasize how there IS privacy, on stalls etc., which proves my point that privacy matters.
Exactly how is there privacy if you can be seen? You seem to want to be able to display your body to a selected subset of the public but insist that you have privacy.
You don't get to have it both ways. If you are concerned that you will be seen, then it is your burden to do what it takes to not be seen.
For all your ranting and raving about political correctness, you are the most PC of all, Faith. Your have your position not because you actually understand it but merely so that you can maintain the political cachet you think it brings you. Witness your continued ranting and raving about "the Left."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 11:14 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 166 (783170)
05-03-2016 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
05-03-2016 10:43 PM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith responds to me:
quote:
Please continue to read the posts related to that topic.
Did you read to the end of mine? You've already admitted that you don't.
Might you thus consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you missed something and thus aren't in a position to make a rational contribution to the discussion due to your willful ignorance of what was said?
Pay attention to what was said. According to OSHA, when can urinals be used?
Might you understand why they would make that regulation?
Note that if you are segregating the bathrooms based upon sex, you still need to provide enough toilets to accommodate the people you have. You can't say that you have 20 people and thus can get away with a single toilet for the women and a single toilet for the men if the breakdown is 19 women and 1 man.
So if the designation of sex segregation were to be lifted and a multi-toilet facility were allowed for both sexes, do you think urinals would be OK? Or might there be a dearth of toilets available to the number of women due to the replacement of toilets with urinals?
Remember, there's only so much space for the bathroom.
This is what you get for not reading what you're replying to.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 166 (783171)
05-03-2016 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Rrhain
05-03-2016 11:05 PM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
I was not considering unisex bathrooms in relation to the transgender issue, just in relation to the university dorm example. But of course since I reject the idea I don't consider it a solution to the problem this thread is addressing. No, I don't want that solution for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the transgender situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 11:05 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024