What if he didn’t want to do that? What if he thought it was undignified and that he had as much right as anyone else to undress in front of others? Hypothetical of course, since he’s not here to speak for himself and he might not feel that way.
But now we’re back to asking about the personal liberty and civil rights of those who share the locker room with the transgendered person!
You can’t declare that only the transgendered have rights. You can’t declare that they are the only ones entitled to comfort in a restroom or locker room. And saying that doesn’t mean I, or anyone in the restroom or locker room, hates transgenders. Just as I don’t hate women but I don’t want to share a public restroom with women. All I’m saying is this is not such a cut-and-dried issue that neatly fits with other civil rights issues.
I’m sorry I can’t answer all your responses now. Maybe later.
The entire issue is about self-identification. If he(she) identifies as female, then yes, it is entirely different. That’s the whole thing.
It’s still possible he(she) would be lying, but that’s an entirely separate issue from a man demanding the right to undress in a woman’s bathroom.
What are the odds he blames The Pope?
They did find that cross.
Trump confuses Barack Obama for Ben Carson
Easy mistake. They both wear coats and ties, right?
Regarding the bathroom issue:
Given what I’ve heard of what goes on in women’s rest rooms (discussions of female health issues, frank evaluations/grading of their male coworkers, etc.), I’d think that the women could certainly get him out of there pretty fast, via either intimidation or embarrassment. And most places I’ve worked, there are some strong-willed women who would have no trouble doing that. Just a loud remark in the company cafeteria like “Well, I was in the ladies’ when he came in yesterday, and he might as well be using that – he’s certainly not carrying enough to be needing a mens room!”
And, really, aren’t most European rest rooms common ones used by both sexes? Mostly you’re in a private cubicle for the undressed part, and washing your hands, combing hair, etc. could be done just fine with someone of another gender at the next sink.
As a lurker who likes (masochistically) reading about dumb things republicans do… could perhaps a thread regarding bathrooms and genders be created instead? Just throwin’ it out there.
Golly.
That’s a very long and heavy response to my juvenile attempt at genital-based humor.
Also, that’s a heck of a lot of questions.
I feel obliged to give some response, but I think it’s time to get the train back on track.
It certainly is a delicate and tricky issue, and one worthy of discussion, but perhaps in a different forum.
By all means, go ahead and start a new thread in GD or IMHO and I’ll stop by to throw my half-penny into it.
Heck, I might even agree with you once I can see your opinions, and not just a bunch of questions.
My opinion of the guy in question is that he’s a jerk and/or a creep.
“Discordian*ist”? *fnord fnord!
fnord fnord *fnord *fnord fnord
If he really wants the Discordianistic votes from Discordianisticals, he should get up to a mic and say “fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord” in an appropriately mumbly voice. fnord fnord fnord *fnord *
Bill creating 2 marriage licenses clears Kentucky Senate. With bonus idiocy!
So in addition to being a right-wing dolt, you’re as nasty as an infected rectum. Got it.
Wow, are we supposed to be impressed with this condescension? Even the Youtube-educated Hyperlibertarians know that much about real-world economics.
It must really give you cognitive discord to view statistics about voting by education. (Pollsters don’t ask about IQ, so let’s use education as a proxy.) The only group far off the norm are post-graduates who vote overwhelmingly with the “libtards.” 
You jest, and I’m only half serious, but what should really fry your noddle is that there is more evidence that Discordians killed Kennedy rather than all the crazy conspiracy theories out there.
But that connection is still IMHO only a factor, madness was more the issue with Oswald. Still that madness, I think, had some “guidance”. The point here (and not a very serious one, but one that does give me pause) is that besides ignorance among the American public a good number of Americans do look forward to see bad things happening or to see how people will react to the apple of discord tossed in a modern setting.
When I look at the kind of voter that is giving their votes to Trump I notice many that are just looking forward to see shit happen if Trump becomes president. Or they do want to see how the Republicans go down in flames.
Who am I to doubt your expertise delving into rectums. Infected or otherwise.
I wonder how that would break down by usefulness of major. A women’s studies major 200k in debt working at Burger World is not really any proxy for intellect. Not having the sense to manage one’s own life doesn’t lend any credibility that that piece of paper gives one a greater insight into running a nation.
We have plenty of nuts over here in Republicanville. I just happen to like left wing nuts a little less. Primary factor though? I don’t like concentrated state power. You fools whine about police shooting someone in the back. Who does it? Agents of the state. Yet who is your deity? The government.
I assume someone who was overly focused on the “usefulness” of their major wouldn’t be able to understand why people would mock him for sentences like this.
I’m sorry your focus on pragmatics left you with underdeveloped critical thinking skills.
Government is not an entity, it has no qualities inherent in its nature. Government is just or unjust, generous or forbidding, progressive or reactionary, according to the nature of its participants. There is no guarantee that government of the people, for the people and by the people is certain to be an improvement.
We of the left, broadly speaking, would like to see that tried. What the heck, give it a shot, right?
Oh no! A grammar nazi. If I only cared about your approval. That said, critical thinking and writing are two different skills.
And for 200+ years that has been the trend. But as pointed out centuries ago power corrupts so keeping in place constraints on power is wise to prevent the institution from being hijacked. Abuse of the regulating interstate commerce clause is an interesting example of interpreting words to get a seemingly desired outcome while generating a terrible precedent.
On the subject of “we the people” would you prefer a pure democracy over a constitutional republic?
What a fascinating offer to change the subject! With all due awe, I will pass.
That’s no fun. 
If we had a pure democracy you could be compelled to participate.
Ted Cruz vows to give away Nevada’s public land to locals if elected.
And they say it’s Democrats who get elected by promising free stuff.