Oh and since they are not OLD enough to buy contraception, please tell provide ME with statistics of whether not they bother to even procure any bit of contraception.
Whether and how a minor can obtain contraceptives depends on the state. I'm not aware of any state which prohibits the purchase of condoms by minors (and you can certainly purchase condoms online). 21 states explicitly permit minors to get contraception prescriptions and contraceptive services without the consent of a parent. 25 allow minors to get the prescriptions and services under some but not all circumstances (either being married or getting parental permission for a non-married minor are generally included). The remaining four states are silent on the subject, and an individual physician may decide to permit the minor to get the prescription/service without parental consent.
Also, while they are not a majority of the student body, there are many high school students who have reached the age of 18.
Here is the reality: Until this law, it wasn't actually illegal to use either restroom. That means, somehow, despite never being illegal, the incidence of public restroom-related crime have remained low for all of history. But all of a sudden we're concerned about it now? No, the 'safety' concerns are absolute nonsense.
Yes. I can waltz right into the woman's bathroom at a movie theater after a film ended and not have anyone seriously question what I'm doing or get accosted for my actions.
You know what's illegal? The illegal things everyone is so worried about happening. When a creep goes into the women's room, he gets charged with the creeptastic actions he undertakes, not simply being there. The actual crimes are all that should be illegal, and it'll still be illegal even if trans people are allowed to keep their dignity when going to the toilet.
I think this is like saying since robbery is a crime, robbery won't occur.
1) The higher chance of something, the more likely it is to occur.
2)Heterosexual sex has a chance of causing pregnancy.
3)Higher libido leads to higher desire for sex.
4)Puberty causes a high libido to those going through it, which is especially difficult, due to them never having a libido before in their lives.
5)Sex requires uncovered pelvises.
6)You must uncover your genitals to use the toilet and the majority of installed toilets( in public schools are in bathrooms.
7)Allowing pubescent boys and girls in the same unsupervised room with exposed genitals and curiosity can lead to experimentation
8)Said experimentation in 7 can lead to sex. See 2.
9)Bathrooms require exposed genitals.
10)The first glory hole I saw was in a school.
11)Most school bathrooms are unsupervised (meaning there is not a supervisor constantly in there, nor are their cameras set up INSIDE the actual bathrooms).
12)Not only are men and women sneaking in to airplane bathrooms to have sex with each other, but heterosexual high schoolers and middle schoolers are sneaking into their school bathrooms (well, only one has to do the sneaking) to have sex. See the ABC link from my last post and then 2.
13)Coed bathrooms would eliminate the sneaking element.
14)Making something easier to do typically makes more people want to do it more often.
These fourteen points of data aren't opinions, they are facts. From these facts we can assume thusly:
Since it is easier to have sex in bathrooms, kids will have sex more often. Please see 2.
There is my data. You assumed that because the OP posted this only in regards to transsexuals that it was the only facet of the argument. Just because I am against Co-ed bathrooms does NOT mean I am against transsexuals (if that was not made clear with my last post, yes I do donate monthly to the HRC for equality).
Please look at this, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The basic need given by bathrooms is providing a place to empty one's bowels. Reproduction is a basic need as it fulfills the need to continue the species. My argument falls at the safety (as far as rape) and basic (as far as teen pregnancy due to the medical needs of the female and the possible survival of the child, should it be brought to term). The transsexual aspect of the coed bathrooms hits at social and esteem needs. Taking out the bottom of the pyramid makes it collapse. Self realization matters later if one doesn't have the other portions to keep it stabilized.
You also seem to magically assume that coed bathrooms will instantly make everyone accept transsexuals as equals. That's like assuming that the South after the American civil war accepted their ex-slaves as equals when they actually saw them as slaves. That's like assuming that after Seneca Falls that women would instantly earn the same amount of money as a man would for the same job when that still is not true the majority of places. Like assuming that there would be no more homophobia in the United States after gay marriage was legalized all over the country when it is still very much present (just check /b/). Again as I said in my last post, the public needs to be educated, as education lessens the fear which is the premise for phobias (example: homophobia).
You know what's illegal? The illegal things everyone is so worried about happening. When a creep goes into the women's room, he gets charged with the creeptastic actions he undertakes, not simply being there. The actual crimes are all that should be illegal, and it'll still be illegal even if trans people are allowed to keep their dignity when going to the toilet.
I think this is like saying since robbery is a crime, robbery won't occur.
That's not what he is saying. At all.
What he is saying is that the rate of crimes involving the restroom was extremely low before, and allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice isn't going to increase that at all. Unless of course you are implying that transgender people are rapists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
1) The higher chance of something, the more likely it is to occur.
2)Heterosexual sex has a chance of causing pregnancy.
3)Higher libido leads to higher desire for sex.
4)Puberty causes a high libido to those going through it, which is especially difficult, due to them never having a libido before in their lives.
5)Sex requires uncovered pelvises.
6)You must uncover your genitals to use the toilet and the majority of installed toilets( in public schools are in bathrooms.
7)Allowing pubescent boys and girls in the same unsupervised room with exposed genitals and curiosity can lead to experimentation
8)Said experimentation in 7 can lead to sex. See 2.
9)Bathrooms require exposed genitals.
10)The first glory hole I saw was in a school.
11)Most school bathrooms are unsupervised (meaning there is not a supervisor constantly in there, nor are their cameras set up INSIDE the actual bathrooms).
12)Not only are men and women sneaking in to airplane bathrooms to have sex with each other, but heterosexual high schoolers and middle schoolers are sneaking into their school bathrooms (well, only one has to do the sneaking) to have sex. See the ABC link from my last post and then 2.
13)Coed bathrooms would eliminate the sneaking element.
14)Making something easier to do typically makes more people want to do it more often.
These fourteen points of data aren't opinions, they are facts. From these facts we can assume thusly:
Since it is easier to have sex in bathrooms, kids will have sex more often. Please see 2.
There is my data. You assumed that because the OP posted this only in regards to transsexuals that it was the only facet of the argument. Just because I am against Co-ed bathrooms does NOT mean I am against transsexuals (if that was not made clear with my last post, yes I do donate monthly to the HRC for equality).
Please look at this, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The basic need given by bathrooms is providing a place to empty one's bowels. Reproduction is a basic need as it fulfills the need to continue the species. My argument falls at the safety (as far as rape) and basic (as far as teen pregnancy due to the medical needs of the female and the possible survival of the child, should it be brought to term). The transsexual aspect of the coed bathrooms hits at social and esteem needs. Taking out the bottom of the pyramid makes it collapse. Self realization matters later if one doesn't have the other portions to keep it stabilized.
You also seem to magically assume that coed bathrooms will instantly make everyone accept transsexuals as equals. That's like assuming that the South after the American civil war accepted their ex-slaves as equals when they actually saw them as slaves. That's like assuming that after Seneca Falls that women would instantly earn the same amount of money as a man would for the same job when that still is not true the majority of places. Like assuming that there would be no more homophobia in the United States after gay marriage was legalized all over the country when it is still very much present (just check /b/). Again as I said in my last post, the public needs to be educated, as education lessens the fear which is the premise for phobias (example: homophobia).
Wow you put a lot of words in my mouth. I didn't assume anything about the OP. I actually have no opinion on the matter but I don't believe that teen pregnancy involves bathrooms (coed or not) at a statistically relevant rate. All I want if you you to base your argument on data instead of assumptions. You cite the mile high club for your argument, how often do you think people are having sex in airplane bathrooms? Do you honestly think that is something that happens often? If you want to use sex in bathrooms in your argument then back it up go back to the drawing board. That is not too much to ask, is it?
Seriously where do you get on telling me what I assume when all I ask is that you prove your argument is not based on assumptions?
Because Dox, you are calling my platform irrelevant. You request for data is like looking for is not something easily found. In order to gather this data, I would need access to either police databases (because sex occurring in a public place is technically a crime: public indecency) or school records (which are either in paper or things very much kept out of the public eye typically, considering that juvenile records are sealed once someone becomes an adult). I would either have to go to the police station or the locale middle school to ask about "sex in bathroom" statistics. I am not currently a journalist by my trade, thus I don't even have the badge to wave around for them to have any reason for them to give me anything other than suspicion that I am possibly a pervert. ASSUMING MAGICALLY that the middle school lets me look at their students records, I would then have the extensive task of pouring through folder after folder, because student records are sorted by name, not by offense. Even worse: assuming I found ANYTHING, it would only be really recent, because five hundred kids means five hundred folders and that adds up year to year and fills up a filing cabinet too quickly.
I'm not getting paid to do this, thus I'm not going to jump through those hoops just to prove a point on this forum (if it was a more prominent forum known for action, maybe that would change). I would ask you to prove that making all bathrooms gender neutral in Mississippi would at least cut the persecution of transsexuals in half, even just in that state alone, but I know you could not even begin to round up "sufficient data" because it is simply not there.
Does that means that making all public bathrooms gender neutral will do nothing positive for the treatment of transsexuals? No. It probably would help a little, but opens up the whole increased teen pregnancy at schools (for starters, since increasing the chance of rape at man-on-woman-rape at rest stops apparently concerns no one).
I already gave you 14 points you cannot bring down. So let us looks at this:
1)Kids ARE smoking weed. I had one kid removed from my geometry class and had class with three others that not only admitted to it, but had the smell about them to back it up.
2)If weed is legalized it will be easier to for kids to smoke weed, since their parents having it in their households will no longer be a problem.
More kids will smoke weed if weed is legalized, just like all the kids still smoking cigarettes on school property, just like all the kids that smuggle alcohol to school in their water bottles (like the few I knew of that did so in band class), because if kids aren't supposed to do it, but can sneak it, they will still do it. This is why Juvenile Hall exists: kids think they found gaps of surveillance and do things and then get caught. Making a boy allowed in the same bathroom as his girlfriend makes it that much easier to slip into the stall and do the nasty, since the bathroom and the stall are both unsupervised.
Teens are already having sex in bathrooms and sex leads to pregnancy. Teens=A, Sex=B, Pregnancy=C. A->B->C. Ergo A->C, Teens having sex leads to teen pregnancy.
By enabling man junk and women junk to be bare in an unsupervised area it is that much more easier to have sex. More chance of teen sex, means more chance of teen pregnancy.
I'm not sure how you don't get this yet, Dox. Maybe if you were a parent you would understand.
I am only asking that you support your argument with evidence not assumptions, is that really too much to ask? The fact that the data is not easily obtained does not change the fact that your argument falls apart without it. So all I am suggesting is that you find some data then come back.
And please stop making assumptions about me/ my personal life/ my personal opinions when that information has not been given.
Let's suppose, just for fun, we grant every one of those 14 points. Your claim was that "Teen pregnancies would skyrocket!". None of those 14 points back up that claim. Even if we grant that teen pregnancies will increase, and increase is not the same as skyrocketing. If you want to back up your claim, you have to provide some evidence about the magnitude of the increase, not just argue that some increase, possibly of negligible size, might exist.
No Dox, I gave you 14 points of data. 14 points of logic, not opinions or assumptions. Prove one of them false.
Let me ask you this. Since you only work in anecdotal evidence, how many students go to the school where you teach and how many students at the school where you teach are pregnant? Follow up question how many of those students do you think became pregnant in a school bathroom?
You're right; a better analogy would have been "I think this is like saying since robbery is a crime, we don't need to put video cameras in plain view in stores and such and signs saying that you're being video-taped".
What he is saying is that the rate of crimes involving the restroom was extremely low before, and allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice isn't going to increase that at all. Unless of course you are implying that transgender people are rapists.
I believe that allowing transgender people into bathrooms that match their gender identity means that you cannot maintain a gender-divided bathroom system, and so gender-neutral bathrooms are the only thing that can exist. I've explained my reasoning for this in an earlier post.
And my gut feeling tells me that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to increased incidences of voyeurism and related crimes.
I believe that allowing transgender people into bathrooms that match their gender identity means that you cannot maintain a gender-divided bathroom system, and so gender-neutral bathrooms are the only thing that can exist. I've explained my reasoning for this in an earlier post.
And my gut feeling tells me that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to increased incidences of voyeurism and related crimes.
I think you mean "allowing transgender people into any bathrooms".
Teens are already having sex in bathrooms and sex leads to pregnancy. Teens=A, Sex=B, Pregnancy=C. A->B->C. Ergo A->C, Teens having sex leads to teen pregnancy.
By enabling man junk and women junk to be bare in an unsupervised area it is that much more easier to have sex. More chance of teen sex, means more chance of teen pregnancy.
I'm not sure how you don't get this yet, Dox. Maybe if you were a parent you would understand.
Do you think that there would actually be more sex if bathrooms were gender-neutral? To put it another way, assume gender-neutral bathrooms were in place, and teenagers were having sex in them, and then bathrooms became segregated. Do you think that the teenagers would have less sex overall? Or do you think they would have sex in the next most convenient place? Because I would have thought the latter to be the case, and that the total amount of sex would remain approximately constant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I teach at a private high school. The school became co-ed in the 80s (used to be only a boy's school). As a result, all of the bathrooms had walls installed to cut them in half, and so they are very small. The first question I asked myself when I saw this was: "Why not just have unisex bathrooms?"
I have since informed myself about these types of accommodations, and it really doesn't seem all that strange to me. There are many restaurants in my area (relatively classy ones) that only have large unisex bathrooms, and no one makes a fuss about it as far as I know. There is still a relative amount of privacy to be had in a bathroom stall within a unisex bathroom. Heck, if a bathroom has a camera in it that views everything in the room except inside the stalls, is it really impeding on our privacy? I don't think it does, and it could make people feel much safer I guess.
I think a good case could be made to not have urinals in a unisex bathroom, but again, that really depends on the way you built the place.
Yes. I can waltz right into the woman's bathroom at a movie theater after a film ended and not have anyone seriously question what I'm doing or get accosted for my actions.
I can do the same at a public gym too!
Yup.
Illegal =/= Unquestioned. You'd be questioned, and the business might even ask you to leave, but if you didn't do anything illegal, you wouldn't be arrested.
Obviously, walking into a public changing area vs a bathroom where people are using private stalls is a big difference. This is a hugely disingenuous argument. You walk into the women's room, duck into a stall and pee, then leave, that's one thing. You walk in to the women's room and start peeking through stalls, that's an entirely different thing.
With idiotic laws making it illegal on the books, every androgynous person out there is suddenly treated like a criminal because they don't look woman enough.
You're right; a better analogy would have been "I think this is like saying since robbery is a crime, we don't need to put video cameras in plain view in stores and such and signs saying that you're being video-taped".
It's more like saying "We shouldn't make hanging around alleys illegal for black people, just because it makes some people uncomfortable."
I believe that allowing transgender people into bathrooms that match their gender identity means that you cannot maintain a gender-divided bathroom system, and so gender-neutral bathrooms are the only thing that can exist. I've explained my reasoning for this in an earlier post.
This is only true if you believe that trans people aren't the gender they identify with. If you do, it's still a gender divided bathroom system.
And my gut feeling tells me that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to increased incidences of voyeurism and related crimes.
Pardon me if I don't take your gut at it's word, especially since this hasn't been a problem at quite a few universities where they've been the norm for a while - and college campuses being in general some of the riskiest places for sexual assault.
I'm not actually for unisex bathrooms. But gender-divided bathrooms aren't there for safety (or they'd, you know, have a lock or something that only women knew the combination to), they're there to maintain dignity, for the most part, which is what you're denying trans people by suddenly making laws in regards to bathroom use that haven't existed since jim crow.
Also, you don't seem to have factored in same-sex perverts into your argument. Should your logical conclusion be ONLY private restrooms?
Illegal =/= Unquestioned. You'd be questioned, and the business might even ask you to leave, but if you didn't do anything illegal, you wouldn't be arrested.
Obviously, walking into a public changing area vs a bathroom where people are using private stalls is a big difference. This is a hugely disingenuous argument. You walk into the women's room, duck into a stall and pee, then leave, that's one thing. You walk in to the women's room and start peeking through stalls, that's an entirely different thing.
What's the difference between walking into a changing area vs a bathroom where people use private stalls besides the level of social barriers/conventions you're up against?
I don't know if there is one besides the level of social convention you're willing to break.
Or is it actually illegal to go into the opposite gender's changing room?
It's more like saying "We shouldn't make hanging around alleys illegal for black people, just because it makes some people uncomfortable."
Well, given that the thing I want to analogize is the premise that since voyeurism/related and rape is already illegal, it's not strictly necessarily to put up more barriers to prevent them from happening, not the supposed intent of the N.C. law.
This is only true if you believe that trans people aren't the gender they identify with. If you do, it's still a gender divided bathroom system.
Read the reasoning I posted earlier in the thread. Basically, how is a random man/woman supposed to know that the person who looks like a woman/man who walked into the stall is a transgender individual?
They can't without asking and I believe that this would be a level of intrusion that most people will not tolerate. Ergo, you can't actually go around checking that every woman who walked into the men's room is a transgender male and vice versa.
Ergo, there can be no reasonable social convention preventing me from walking into the woman's bathroom.
So you're just left with a silly sign on bathroom doors that don't really mean anything if a legislature passes a law that specifically states that transgender individuals can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
Pardon me if I don't take your gut at it's word, especially since this hasn't been a problem at quite a few universities where they've been the norm for a while - and college campuses being in general some of the riskiest places for sexual assault.
Uh... So apparently a quarter of all women who go to college are raped and all that...
For all I know no one has ever bothered to do a thorough check of the bathrooms for voyeurs =P
I'm not actually for unisex bathrooms. But gender-divided bathrooms aren't there for safety (or they'd, you know, have a lock or something that only women knew the combination to), they're there to maintain dignity, for the most part, which is what you're denying trans people by suddenly making laws in regards to bathroom use that haven't existed since jim crow.
Also, you don't seem to have factored in same-sex perverts into your argument. Should your logical conclusion be ONLY private restrooms?
I don't actually know why we have gender-divided bathrooms. It's one of those things that we just have that I never gave a thought towards.
But the use of dignity here is interesting.
I have a hypothetical- A transgender man who hasn't fully transitioned, and evidently doesn't want to go through a full transition, wants to be able to use the men's changing room in the public gym. Should he be allowed to?
As for the comment regarding LGBT- I never actually said that I'm against any of these laws, even if my gut feeling tells me that there will be an uptick in voyeurism/related crimes. I am more interested in the practical implications of all these changing views and laws.
A. More toilets for women's bathrooms in large recreational facilities and other similar establishments that develop the "long lines" you see.
B. Respecting gender rights, especially if the person is intersexed or transitioning. I would say that for the most part, if I'm ignorant of your health as a person then I resort the right to respect your decisions to use a bathroom within reason. However, there needs to be communication in the community that works to protect the rights of all. Especially there are perverts in the world.
C. Small children with their opposite sex parent do use the other gender's bathroom, this is the simplest form to have "gender neutral" places for families with handicapped children and so forth without having to deal with someone taking offense or some other issue. There are times having redundant bathrooms for people with health problems and closer to certain areas as well helps to alleviate congestion. It's enough to warrant it in new constructions.
I'm not really hip to all the issues with trans and intersexed persons. However, families with small children and children that have to be watched at times it makes sense for parents or caregiver's who do not match their/the child's gender to be able to monitor activities when necessary.
I'm not always privy to every issue, but for something that can be very complicated as going to the bathroom. Setting up some comfort values and extra space to help people out is worth a few extra thousand dollars. Not everywhere, but being very private.
This is similar to lactation rights for women with women about breastfeeding not being indecent exposure.
We're seeing the pendulum move from prudish to some really dicey areas requiring compromise and places where compromise needs not to exist.
I feel that, especially for transgenders, that being patient and calm about somethings we in the mainstream do not understand in total capacity requires patience and communication. This is something you ask "What do you need?" and then begin a dialogue. The North Carolina law is stupid. We make exemptions all the time when they are grounded in a needs based environment. And to be honest, people with Gender Identity Syndrome are very rare.
I would say in part that the rarity and the nature of the fundamental changes and different degrees to people deal with their GIS and other identity peoples. We must contemplate a factor and that is education. This is like writing a gay or trans character and requires that the people in the LBGT community set up places where information accessible and written articles that explain in detail like any other human predicament.
The better something is understood, the better it is respected about range. I would go even farther that the younger a person knows about trans issues, the better to deal with the issue whenever a person comes into contact with the issue can make a better informed decision on how to approach the topic. We're still negotiating norms and rules in this society to appeal to the masses and the people who are the exception to the norm. This requires constant dialogue about necessary information and debate.
And Christian conservatives need to get over the Bible, it is written within the Bible itself that you need to understand your times. Not hard. Just ask for strong reference materials, take the time, sit down, and learn.
Uh... So apparently a quarter of all women who go to college are raped and all that...
For all I know no one has ever bothered to do a thorough check of the bathrooms for voyeurs =P
Mostly people get sexually assaulted by people they already know and think they can trust.
A lot of men have also been subjected to sexual assault as well and would probably sound realistically for everyone to be 1/4 or at least 1/5. I think most of it is probably sexual harassment and groping level not rape. The "rape culture" people are just stupid and looking at the wrong picture. However, that is a conversation you need to have with your children about "good touch, bad touch." And we still have issues with women calling each other fat and anorexia. It's really stupid and a waste of time.
To take a larger issue, I have seen inappropriate touching by both genders in overt manners. I'm talking men grabbing a woman's bust, a woman grabbing a man's crotch as an unwarranted advance for just two examples. That and the name calling and so forth. I feel that we need to really have more of a talk about "do's and don't," but understand that flirting and sexual attraction is a huge deal in young people and talk about the stages a relationship goes in stages and progress as people grow to trust each other more and more. But we don't discuss sex and attraction with young people. Some people have "game" others do not.
Teenagers probably have the most warped view of sexual attraction and what constitute bad habits later in life. Men and women, both. That's a parental issue, and a big sex ed issue. Some of the newer sexual education materials are better talking about issues, but bad policy implementation.
It's called a ***** and a ******, get over it, it's how we all got here. As a conservative, I find one of the biggest things to talk to people about having great relationships is communication, communication, communication. If the foundation to a religion is prayer, a form of communication, faith and works. Then the maintenance about teaching that in greater society in a structure that appeals across generations and cultures is rather easy to achieve through the basics. That you need to have faith in the person you are having sex with is responsible. You need to work at the relationship to keep everyone safe. And communication to talk about preferences and scaling up to the point at which a person does have intercourse.
For LBGT this is more complex, because the "ideal" is male-female binary post marriage with two virgins. Period.
Reality? Totally different, in part because we do not talk about how a person who does have multiple sex partners should properly communicate to decrease disease and spread good information about sexually transmitted disease. Most people have 4-5 sexual partners in their lives, and most end up with genital warts by their elderly years.
If we have teenagers able to practice good habits to be respectful of other people and in their adult years be responsible with their sexual parts then we decrease problems. Furthermore, with being more accepting of LBGT people and having them be able to not "closet themselves" to be encumbered by demagogues is a waste of time.
Do you want your wife to have cervical cancer?
Do you want your child to come home and say they were grabbed by some boy or girl on the bus on the way home?
Do we need a smart, young musician jumping off a bridge after being video taped in his dorm room having relations with another man?
It's not about right or wrong, it's about building a country where communities can thrive. Freedom from disease. Freedom from harassment. Freedom is the right of every sentient being.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
There's not much I can add to this so I'm just going to post part of it here. tldr: Representative Jeremy Durham has apparently been accused of more sexual harassment than all the transgender people in Tennessee put together. [link]
Considering proponents of the bill claim that it’s necessary to protect women and children, one of its other sponsors, Rep. Jeremy Durham (R), has ironically been exiled from various House offices because of accusations of recurring sexual harassment. House Speaker Beth Harwell (R) announced last week that she was moving his office and limiting his access to committee rooms and the House chamber because of a “pattern of conduct” toward women that allegedly includes sexual comments and inappropriate physical contact.
The move follows an investigation of Durham’s conduct by Attorney General Slatery. “Representative Durham’s alleged behavior may pose a continuing risk to unsuspecting women who are employed by or interact with the Legislature,” said in his memo to Harwell. Durham denies any wrong-doing.
Though there continue to be zero cases of transgender women abusing their access to women’s restrooms to harm others, 34 women have expressed complaints about Durham’s behavior. Durham does not identify as transgender.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
As someone who has helped to put on multiple years of Gender Neutral Bathroom Week at my university (Washington State University - Vancouver) there are some things that need to get put out there that have been understandably missed so far (and FD4, you know you can always PM questions about what us libruls are doing
1. Trans people need more protection in the bathroom, not less.
For all the talk in North Carolina about protecting women by introducing superfluous legislation, they aren't the ones at risk when it comes to bathroom violence relating to a trans individual. The person in risk is the transgender one. The odds of someone getting attacks for not looking like they belong is significantly higher than the odds than a trans person is just trying to creep and as has been said, people creep anyway and we already have laws against creeping.
2. Even without direct violence, trans people suffer when it comes to using the restroom.
One of the first things after a particular incident happened at WSUV, we publicly showed the documentary Toilet Training. TL;DR is that there are a ton of problems trans people face in the bathroom because of social issues. The problem in question that happened on WSUV was that a F2M person was trying to go into the mens room and was rebuked. They were told to use their own restroom, the womens one. This individual, dejected, walked the few feet across the hall to the womens restroom and was rebuked.
Like many Trans people, this person just held it. Fun fact, being trans increases your risk of bladder cancer. Turns out holding it in until you get home is bad for your health, and yet, because of discrimination in restrooms those people have a shortened lifespan.
3. In 5 years of GNBW, the university had no complaints
Other than people complaining because, unlike FD4, they were still worked up over it. We had a shock jock in Portland freak out, for some reason. People said we were going to have tons of problems and... nothing happened. People peed next to someone with different genitals and... the world carried on. I washed my hands next to a lady. I was fine.
Oh, I think our bathrooms got a little cleaner because people didn't like looking like a slob next to people they were attracted to so... +1 for unisex restrooms!
Does their identity hinge on which toilet they're allowed to use? I think the solution's simple - you had your surgery, you use the appropriate bathroom. If you haven't, keep using the old one until you've had it
Does their identity hinge on which toilet they're allowed to use? I think the solution's simple - you had your surgery, you use the appropriate bathroom. If you haven't, keep using the old one until you've had it
Not every transgender person will ever have surgery, and enforcing a rule that differentiates them on whether they have had it is definitely unfairly intrusive.
But does their identity hinge on a trip to the restroom? If so, they may have more problems than the restroom ruckus that was, frankly, a non-issue until Carolina decided to waste time and money on their law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, while they are not a majority of the student body, there are many high school students who have reached the age of 18.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Yes. I can waltz right into the woman's bathroom at a movie theater after a film ended and not have anyone seriously question what I'm doing or get accosted for my actions.
I can do the same at a public gym too!
Yup.
I think this is like saying since robbery is a crime, robbery won't occur.
If the goal was to wage war against black people, then I'd say they failed miserably too.
Hippies on the other hand...
Seriously though, I think my point still stands.
2)Heterosexual sex has a chance of causing pregnancy.
3)Higher libido leads to higher desire for sex.
4)Puberty causes a high libido to those going through it, which is especially difficult, due to them never having a libido before in their lives.
5)Sex requires uncovered pelvises.
6)You must uncover your genitals to use the toilet and the majority of installed toilets( in public schools are in bathrooms.
7)Allowing pubescent boys and girls in the same unsupervised room with exposed genitals and curiosity can lead to experimentation
8)Said experimentation in 7 can lead to sex. See 2.
9)Bathrooms require exposed genitals.
10)The first glory hole I saw was in a school.
11)Most school bathrooms are unsupervised (meaning there is not a supervisor constantly in there, nor are their cameras set up INSIDE the actual bathrooms).
12)Not only are men and women sneaking in to airplane bathrooms to have sex with each other, but heterosexual high schoolers and middle schoolers are sneaking into their school bathrooms (well, only one has to do the sneaking) to have sex. See the ABC link from my last post and then 2.
13)Coed bathrooms would eliminate the sneaking element.
14)Making something easier to do typically makes more people want to do it more often.
These fourteen points of data aren't opinions, they are facts. From these facts we can assume thusly:
Since it is easier to have sex in bathrooms, kids will have sex more often. Please see 2.
There is my data. You assumed that because the OP posted this only in regards to transsexuals that it was the only facet of the argument. Just because I am against Co-ed bathrooms does NOT mean I am against transsexuals (if that was not made clear with my last post, yes I do donate monthly to the HRC for equality).
Please look at this, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The basic need given by bathrooms is providing a place to empty one's bowels. Reproduction is a basic need as it fulfills the need to continue the species. My argument falls at the safety (as far as rape) and basic (as far as teen pregnancy due to the medical needs of the female and the possible survival of the child, should it be brought to term). The transsexual aspect of the coed bathrooms hits at social and esteem needs. Taking out the bottom of the pyramid makes it collapse. Self realization matters later if one doesn't have the other portions to keep it stabilized.
You also seem to magically assume that coed bathrooms will instantly make everyone accept transsexuals as equals. That's like assuming that the South after the American civil war accepted their ex-slaves as equals when they actually saw them as slaves. That's like assuming that after Seneca Falls that women would instantly earn the same amount of money as a man would for the same job when that still is not true the majority of places. Like assuming that there would be no more homophobia in the United States after gay marriage was legalized all over the country when it is still very much present (just check /b/). Again as I said in my last post, the public needs to be educated, as education lessens the fear which is the premise for phobias (example: homophobia).
That's not what he is saying. At all.
What he is saying is that the rate of crimes involving the restroom was extremely low before, and allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice isn't going to increase that at all. Unless of course you are implying that transgender people are rapists.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Seriously where do you get on telling me what I assume when all I ask is that you prove your argument is not based on assumptions?
I'm not getting paid to do this, thus I'm not going to jump through those hoops just to prove a point on this forum (if it was a more prominent forum known for action, maybe that would change). I would ask you to prove that making all bathrooms gender neutral in Mississippi would at least cut the persecution of transsexuals in half, even just in that state alone, but I know you could not even begin to round up "sufficient data" because it is simply not there.
Does that means that making all public bathrooms gender neutral will do nothing positive for the treatment of transsexuals? No. It probably would help a little, but opens up the whole increased teen pregnancy at schools (for starters, since increasing the chance of rape at man-on-woman-rape at rest stops apparently concerns no one).
I already gave you 14 points you cannot bring down. So let us looks at this:
1)Kids ARE smoking weed. I had one kid removed from my geometry class and had class with three others that not only admitted to it, but had the smell about them to back it up.
2)If weed is legalized it will be easier to for kids to smoke weed, since their parents having it in their households will no longer be a problem.
More kids will smoke weed if weed is legalized, just like all the kids still smoking cigarettes on school property, just like all the kids that smuggle alcohol to school in their water bottles (like the few I knew of that did so in band class), because if kids aren't supposed to do it, but can sneak it, they will still do it. This is why Juvenile Hall exists: kids think they found gaps of surveillance and do things and then get caught. Making a boy allowed in the same bathroom as his girlfriend makes it that much easier to slip into the stall and do the nasty, since the bathroom and the stall are both unsupervised.
Teens are already having sex in bathrooms and sex leads to pregnancy. Teens=A, Sex=B, Pregnancy=C. A->B->C. Ergo A->C, Teens having sex leads to teen pregnancy.
By enabling man junk and women junk to be bare in an unsupervised area it is that much more easier to have sex. More chance of teen sex, means more chance of teen pregnancy.
I'm not sure how you don't get this yet, Dox. Maybe if you were a parent you would understand.
And please stop making assumptions about me/ my personal life/ my personal opinions when that information has not been given.
You're right; a better analogy would have been "I think this is like saying since robbery is a crime, we don't need to put video cameras in plain view in stores and such and signs saying that you're being video-taped".
I believe that allowing transgender people into bathrooms that match their gender identity means that you cannot maintain a gender-divided bathroom system, and so gender-neutral bathrooms are the only thing that can exist. I've explained my reasoning for this in an earlier post.
And my gut feeling tells me that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to increased incidences of voyeurism and related crimes.
I think you mean "allowing transgender people into any bathrooms".
I have since informed myself about these types of accommodations, and it really doesn't seem all that strange to me. There are many restaurants in my area (relatively classy ones) that only have large unisex bathrooms, and no one makes a fuss about it as far as I know. There is still a relative amount of privacy to be had in a bathroom stall within a unisex bathroom. Heck, if a bathroom has a camera in it that views everything in the room except inside the stalls, is it really impeding on our privacy? I don't think it does, and it could make people feel much safer I guess.
I think a good case could be made to not have urinals in a unisex bathroom, but again, that really depends on the way you built the place.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
Obviously, walking into a public changing area vs a bathroom where people are using private stalls is a big difference. This is a hugely disingenuous argument. You walk into the women's room, duck into a stall and pee, then leave, that's one thing. You walk in to the women's room and start peeking through stalls, that's an entirely different thing.
With idiotic laws making it illegal on the books, every androgynous person out there is suddenly treated like a criminal because they don't look woman enough.
It's more like saying "We shouldn't make hanging around alleys illegal for black people, just because it makes some people uncomfortable."
This is only true if you believe that trans people aren't the gender they identify with. If you do, it's still a gender divided bathroom system.
Pardon me if I don't take your gut at it's word, especially since this hasn't been a problem at quite a few universities where they've been the norm for a while - and college campuses being in general some of the riskiest places for sexual assault.
I'm not actually for unisex bathrooms. But gender-divided bathrooms aren't there for safety (or they'd, you know, have a lock or something that only women knew the combination to), they're there to maintain dignity, for the most part, which is what you're denying trans people by suddenly making laws in regards to bathroom use that haven't existed since jim crow.
Also, you don't seem to have factored in same-sex perverts into your argument. Should your logical conclusion be ONLY private restrooms?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
What's the difference between walking into a changing area vs a bathroom where people use private stalls besides the level of social barriers/conventions you're up against?
I don't know if there is one besides the level of social convention you're willing to break.
Or is it actually illegal to go into the opposite gender's changing room?
Well, given that the thing I want to analogize is the premise that since voyeurism/related and rape is already illegal, it's not strictly necessarily to put up more barriers to prevent them from happening, not the supposed intent of the N.C. law.
Read the reasoning I posted earlier in the thread. Basically, how is a random man/woman supposed to know that the person who looks like a woman/man who walked into the stall is a transgender individual?
They can't without asking and I believe that this would be a level of intrusion that most people will not tolerate. Ergo, you can't actually go around checking that every woman who walked into the men's room is a transgender male and vice versa.
Ergo, there can be no reasonable social convention preventing me from walking into the woman's bathroom.
So you're just left with a silly sign on bathroom doors that don't really mean anything if a legislature passes a law that specifically states that transgender individuals can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
Uh... So apparently a quarter of all women who go to college are raped and all that...
For all I know no one has ever bothered to do a thorough check of the bathrooms for voyeurs =P
I don't actually know why we have gender-divided bathrooms. It's one of those things that we just have that I never gave a thought towards.
But the use of dignity here is interesting.
I have a hypothetical- A transgender man who hasn't fully transitioned, and evidently doesn't want to go through a full transition, wants to be able to use the men's changing room in the public gym. Should he be allowed to?
As for the comment regarding LGBT- I never actually said that I'm against any of these laws, even if my gut feeling tells me that there will be an uptick in voyeurism/related crimes. I am more interested in the practical implications of all these changing views and laws.
A. More toilets for women's bathrooms in large recreational facilities and other similar establishments that develop the "long lines" you see.
B. Respecting gender rights, especially if the person is intersexed or transitioning. I would say that for the most part, if I'm ignorant of your health as a person then I resort the right to respect your decisions to use a bathroom within reason. However, there needs to be communication in the community that works to protect the rights of all. Especially there are perverts in the world.
C. Small children with their opposite sex parent do use the other gender's bathroom, this is the simplest form to have "gender neutral" places for families with handicapped children and so forth without having to deal with someone taking offense or some other issue. There are times having redundant bathrooms for people with health problems and closer to certain areas as well helps to alleviate congestion. It's enough to warrant it in new constructions.
I'm not really hip to all the issues with trans and intersexed persons. However, families with small children and children that have to be watched at times it makes sense for parents or caregiver's who do not match their/the child's gender to be able to monitor activities when necessary.
I'm not always privy to every issue, but for something that can be very complicated as going to the bathroom. Setting up some comfort values and extra space to help people out is worth a few extra thousand dollars. Not everywhere, but being very private.
This is similar to lactation rights for women with women about breastfeeding not being indecent exposure.
We're seeing the pendulum move from prudish to some really dicey areas requiring compromise and places where compromise needs not to exist.
I feel that, especially for transgenders, that being patient and calm about somethings we in the mainstream do not understand in total capacity requires patience and communication. This is something you ask "What do you need?" and then begin a dialogue. The North Carolina law is stupid. We make exemptions all the time when they are grounded in a needs based environment. And to be honest, people with Gender Identity Syndrome are very rare.
I would say in part that the rarity and the nature of the fundamental changes and different degrees to people deal with their GIS and other identity peoples. We must contemplate a factor and that is education. This is like writing a gay or trans character and requires that the people in the LBGT community set up places where information accessible and written articles that explain in detail like any other human predicament.
The better something is understood, the better it is respected about range. I would go even farther that the younger a person knows about trans issues, the better to deal with the issue whenever a person comes into contact with the issue can make a better informed decision on how to approach the topic. We're still negotiating norms and rules in this society to appeal to the masses and the people who are the exception to the norm. This requires constant dialogue about necessary information and debate.
And Christian conservatives need to get over the Bible, it is written within the Bible itself that you need to understand your times. Not hard. Just ask for strong reference materials, take the time, sit down, and learn.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Mostly transgender people don't like being called that. It's a small thing, but...
Yeah, it's not just women that get sexually assaulted.
Art is life itself.
A lot of men have also been subjected to sexual assault as well and would probably sound realistically for everyone to be 1/4 or at least 1/5. I think most of it is probably sexual harassment and groping level not rape. The "rape culture" people are just stupid and looking at the wrong picture. However, that is a conversation you need to have with your children about "good touch, bad touch." And we still have issues with women calling each other fat and anorexia. It's really stupid and a waste of time.
To take a larger issue, I have seen inappropriate touching by both genders in overt manners. I'm talking men grabbing a woman's bust, a woman grabbing a man's crotch as an unwarranted advance for just two examples. That and the name calling and so forth. I feel that we need to really have more of a talk about "do's and don't," but understand that flirting and sexual attraction is a huge deal in young people and talk about the stages a relationship goes in stages and progress as people grow to trust each other more and more. But we don't discuss sex and attraction with young people. Some people have "game" others do not.
Teenagers probably have the most warped view of sexual attraction and what constitute bad habits later in life. Men and women, both. That's a parental issue, and a big sex ed issue. Some of the newer sexual education materials are better talking about issues, but bad policy implementation.
It's called a ***** and a ******, get over it, it's how we all got here. As a conservative, I find one of the biggest things to talk to people about having great relationships is communication, communication, communication. If the foundation to a religion is prayer, a form of communication, faith and works. Then the maintenance about teaching that in greater society in a structure that appeals across generations and cultures is rather easy to achieve through the basics. That you need to have faith in the person you are having sex with is responsible. You need to work at the relationship to keep everyone safe. And communication to talk about preferences and scaling up to the point at which a person does have intercourse.
For LBGT this is more complex, because the "ideal" is male-female binary post marriage with two virgins. Period.
Reality? Totally different, in part because we do not talk about how a person who does have multiple sex partners should properly communicate to decrease disease and spread good information about sexually transmitted disease. Most people have 4-5 sexual partners in their lives, and most end up with genital warts by their elderly years.
If we have teenagers able to practice good habits to be respectful of other people and in their adult years be responsible with their sexual parts then we decrease problems. Furthermore, with being more accepting of LBGT people and having them be able to not "closet themselves" to be encumbered by demagogues is a waste of time.
Do you want your wife to have cervical cancer?
Do you want your child to come home and say they were grabbed by some boy or girl on the bus on the way home?
Do we need a smart, young musician jumping off a bridge after being video taped in his dorm room having relations with another man?
It's not about right or wrong, it's about building a country where communities can thrive. Freedom from disease. Freedom from harassment. Freedom is the right of every sentient being.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Art is life itself.
1. Trans people need more protection in the bathroom, not less.
For all the talk in North Carolina about protecting women by introducing superfluous legislation, they aren't the ones at risk when it comes to bathroom violence relating to a trans individual. The person in risk is the transgender one. The odds of someone getting attacks for not looking like they belong is significantly higher than the odds than a trans person is just trying to creep and as has been said, people creep anyway and we already have laws against creeping.
2. Even without direct violence, trans people suffer when it comes to using the restroom.
One of the first things after a particular incident happened at WSUV, we publicly showed the documentary Toilet Training. TL;DR is that there are a ton of problems trans people face in the bathroom because of social issues. The problem in question that happened on WSUV was that a F2M person was trying to go into the mens room and was rebuked. They were told to use their own restroom, the womens one. This individual, dejected, walked the few feet across the hall to the womens restroom and was rebuked.
Like many Trans people, this person just held it. Fun fact, being trans increases your risk of bladder cancer. Turns out holding it in until you get home is bad for your health, and yet, because of discrimination in restrooms those people have a shortened lifespan.
3. In 5 years of GNBW, the university had no complaints
Other than people complaining because, unlike FD4, they were still worked up over it. We had a shock jock in Portland freak out, for some reason. People said we were going to have tons of problems and... nothing happened. People peed next to someone with different genitals and... the world carried on. I washed my hands next to a lady. I was fine.
Oh, I think our bathrooms got a little cleaner because people didn't like looking like a slob next to people they were attracted to so... +1 for unisex restrooms!
Not every transgender person will ever have surgery, and enforcing a rule that differentiates them on whether they have had it is definitely unfairly intrusive.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice