Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by bernie14, Apr 24, 2021.
Really? So there are pre existing laws about who can pee where? Just weird.
Good on you for acknowledging your reading comprehension is utterly rubbish, hope you can work on that one day, but until then please try to avoid mentioning me unless i directly quote you, I dont' want my name in your mouth, you dig?
I don't think that such urinals even exist here - nor should they, imo. Then again, at least the US has a different culture regarding being (partly or totally) naked in public (showers for totally, this type of urinal for partly). Maybe it is not a bad thing, I mean in ancient Greece you had to be naked in the gymnasium (the term comes from there, after all).
Urinals designed for women are very rare, women using men urinals are also rare, but it happens sometimes generally at crowded and "alternative" events.
They popped up due to Victorian attitudes towards women. While I sympathise with how female bathrooms can be a refuge for women the truth is that gender segregated bathrooms emerged due to sexist cultural norms.
This is what is happening. Everything else is a hypothetical.
Zero, because there is a gulf of difference between “store voluntarily puts a sign up saying they are welcoming of trans patrons” and “stores are obligated to identify themselves as trans friendly so Alt-Right mobs can firebomb them later”.
In the past, there were few, if any, laws that specifically dealt with "who can pee where". It was usually applied under trespass or disorderly conduct, if for example, a man went into a women's bathroom for no good reason.
That really plays no bearing on what alt right morons do, in the situation you put forth. The person that will firebomb a place for being trans friendly is going to go find them. For example, black churches don't need to put "we're black" sign up. The sort of person that cares enough to be a terrorist figures that minor detail out. They won't like signs normalizing things though. You are right about that.
I do not know about others, but 99% of the instances of the "wrong" person using a restroom that I experience are women using the sit down cubicles in the gents when there is a queue for the ladies. The idea that that should be criminalised just sounds stupid.
If I am understanding your point correctly this simply isn’t true. Many non-binary people identify between male and female or some mix of the two but others identify outside of that binary all-together
I have limited understanding of the nuances of this issue but having three options for gender (male, female and nonbinary) seems like a good first step here. Take my opinion on this one with a massive grain of salt.
The overwhelming majority of nonbinary people think that male and female are real things, I can guarentee this. The amount of people who genuinely think that male and female doesn’t exist is so insignificant its not worth talking about.
If you are instead talking about people who think that male and female are immutable things assigned at birth well then they are wrong and they should stop being wrong.
Genuinely unsure what you are trying to say here.
There hasn’t been any real problems with lesbians in locker rooms, shouldn’t be with transwomen either.
One can only hope this **** will get shot down by the courts.
Lord Xenu did.
That LGBT people only exist, suffer and die to make cishets into better people.
Asking questions completely unrelated to the topic at hand is fun.
It doesn’t. You know it doesn’t. It does the opposite.
Gay was regularly used as a slur when I was in high-school. If you can’t remember gay being used as a slur you should seriously seek medical attention was that was less than twenty years ago.
Don’t listen to anything that Berzerker has to say about this is a good first step.
Acknowledging transpeople existence can be good or bad depending on what you mean. Legal recognition and straightforward mechanisms for changing gender that doesn’t involve expensive surgery that not everyone wants = good. Laws that are designed to denigrate transpeople = bad.
The Tennessee bill mandates that, by default, transwomen must go into the men’s toilet and transmen must go into the women’s toilet and that non-binary people must go into the toilet of the sex assigned at birth or they will be breaking the law (presumably cis men and women going into the wrong toilet will be breaking the law also). If any businesses have policies that are contrary to this they must warn patrons by placing warning signs at their entrances. The bill is designed to humiliate transpeople and business owners who support them.
I don’t know what cheugy means so that was probably very cheugy.
I remember hearing gay as an insult a couple times in grade school, but then it went way from like 4th grade until I went to university and got re-exposed to it through the more cosmopolitan world. Then it was everywhere as an insult in the early aughts, disappearing again from tolerable company in that usage sometime around 2010? There are legit sheltered people, especially pre-internet youth.
These signs don’t normalise things though. They’re just painting targets on pro-trans businesses. You are being wildly optimistic to think that this situation will resolve as neatly as you think it will.
I don't think it will be "neat" at all. If it's neat, nothing will have been gained.
The chains have to be won.
But what do I know? Bear it in mind, I'm just strategizing over what seems to have worked and how.
Gay was a slur in school when I was in school in the 80's to early 90's. Bi not so much. Not that being Bi was acceptable, but being Bi would just be lumped in as being gay. Bi was just a word not being used because many kids probably just weren't aware of it, and why would a bully use Bi when they can use gay?
Berzerker is older, so went to school in the 70's? 60's? And I'm not sure where, Kansas? If gay wasn't a slur back then, it wasn't because they were accepting of gays but lack of awareness of gays. Bullies probably called the weaker boys girls instead of gay.
As far as I can tell the bill doesn't mandate who or what can use which facilities at all, but leaves that decision up to the businesses/establishments. It "just" requires that they put up a sign if they have an open peeing policy. So I don't think it would be correct to say anyone would be breaking the law by going into the "wrong" toilet, since the law isn't dictating that. It's the businesses who would be breaking the law if they didn't put up the signs, but that seems to be the only opportunity for anybody to be breaking any laws in regard to this bill.
As I noted before, this is the whole point. It doesn't have to penalize any individual to be effective. The problem right now isn't that I will get fined for walking into the wrong bathroom, the problem is that I'll get clocked and harassed by another patron. This means that when I go out, I need to either make sure I'm not going to be out for so long that having to go to the bathroom will be a problem, or else that I will be able to make a pitstop at a place that's simpático or has single-occupancy toilets, or else that I need to be presenting masculine while I'm out, or else that I just don't go out at all. None of that thought process has anything to do with what the state might do or what the cops might do, and everything to do with what some stranger might to a femme-presenting person in a men's room, or a trans woman in a woman's room. What the Tennessee bill does, without having to impose any penalties on me personally, is force simpático places to put up garish signs that signal to the public: "ALERT ALERT TRANS PEOPLE MAY BE ON THE PREMISES. BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR ANY TRANSES ENTERING YOUR BATHROOMS," which serves to concentrate the level of scrutiny I might receive in simpático places such that what might previously have been a simpático place is no longer such. And secondarily, while it may not impose legal penalties on me personally, now it offloads policing responsibilities onto private business owners. Whereas before an owner might not have been able to kick me out of a store or deny me privacy in using a bathroom, now they not only have a legal pretext, but a legal responsibility to harass or police me and my bathroom usage. In both cases, without having to actually criminalize me personally, the bill makes it significantly harder and more dangerous for me to be out in public for any length of time greater than a few hours. Which is, of course, the actual objective of the bill.
You don't get it and you never will until they start targetting you.
This is such a good explanation but i fear it'll be ignored.
Meanwhile in Florida
Separate names with a comma.