I’ve explicitly said that I’m fine with keeping gendered bathrooms. I’m fine with it being a convention. It’s stressful enough trying to act cool around women when my pants are up, I don’t need the constant stress of trying to look cool while triple checking my zipper.
But if a woman came into a men’s room, I’m not fine with people flipping the fuck out and calling management. I think it should just be, “Oh, that’s unusual, but OK.”
Dogs generally aren’t good at containing themselves if they aren’t a) trained or b) naturally chill. An uncontrollable dog isn’t usually uncontrollable in spots. It’s not like a human where he’s fine until he drinks too much.
But even with service animals, a misbehaving dog can be ejected. You can have all the certification you want, if that dog is making a fuss(and it isn’t about you having a seizure or something) then the dog goes.
And as I said before, children actually pose bigger problems if you’re worried about noise or health issues.
I can indeed say that, in fact I just did. Why don’t you link the article you were discussing in that thread so we can see what went on? Or will looking at the article show that the cross dressing person actually did something besides just pee in the bathroom?
If I was ‘just asking questions’ about my idea that black people should carry around a letter from the court saying that they hadn’t been convicted of any crime, and that they should present it on demand to come into a store with expensive items, people would say that I’m arguing for a racist position, even if I was ‘just asking questions’ and ‘not arguing anything at all’.
Making a ‘papers, please’ requirement for trans people to operate in public offers a great avenue to hurt them, and no protection to them whatsoever. Don’t forget that trans people are frequently killed simply for being trans. Also, if it’s really such a neutral, non-threatening idea, why don’t you require a doctor’s note for everyone using restrooms in public, instead of just trans people?
It’s just as legitimate as “I was raped by a black person and now I’m alone in a place that’s supposed to be safe for me with a black person” is a justification for ‘whites only’ spaces. I don’t believe that a person’t bigotry should be supported by the law at all. It’s also an absurd example since none of the proposals would actually result in a penis-free space, as a trans man would still be able to use the women’s restroom based on his gender at birth.
That’s a good word to use. A convention. But not a legal requirement.
But you said you think anyone who objects to someone using bathrooms that aren’t of their gender are wrong to object.
Which is it?
But then what’s the point of gendered bathrooms at all? This essentially creates two unisex bathrooms, both with people of both genders in them. What’s the point?
And what about your daughter? What do you tell her when strange men are in the lady’s room even though she refused to go in the men’s room?
I think society would disagree with you on that point. For better or worse, it is perfectly okay for women to view all men as potential threats. And their experience has more than justified such caution, however unfair it may be to the majority of dudes who aren’t evil.
So I have to wait until the dog shits on my carpet before knowing it’s a misbehaving dog and should be ejected?
As for children, I don’t know about that, but that’s too bad - I’m human and my business is for humans.
You asked questions, and I answered, but I’d be happy to expand on any you’d like.
You don’t. It’s impossible to be certain of what’s going on inside someone’s mind. So I’m not going to expend too much worry on it.
Then they can use that bathroom.
You wouldn’t, unless you did an in-depth investigation on their day to day life, medical history, psych history, etc.
You’re imagining a future that’s not in evidence. We currently have gendered bathrooms with very little enforcement of who goes where, and by and large people segregate based on gender. If we come out with a law that says store owners, employers, and others aren’t allowed to control who goes into which bathroom, why do you think both rooms would suddenly become unisex free-for-alls? They almost certainly wouldn’t. Very little would change.
I doubt it would ever come up, but I’d tell her that if it bothered her then it would perfectly be within her rights to wait outside until the man (or men) left the bathroom. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually, the law doesn’t allow for ejection if a dog has an accident. But the owner is responsible for cleanup. All damage caused by a service dog is the owners’ financial responsibility.
No. I wouldn’t say you are a racist. I would understand that you are simply exploring an issue. Ever hear of “devil’s advocate?”
I agree that it could hurt them - and that’s part of my concern. But if we don’t, and others abuse the law, this could lead to political backlash and further personal shaming rather than less of it. It’s a dilemma, and that’s why I bring it up.
Well, yes, exactly - since you often can’t tell who is trans, that’s what would be needed to assure that only “real” trans people or real people of the actual sex use the right restroom. Unless you want to dictate that men and women dress, look and act a certain way, which is bizarre when you just said they don’t have to even have the “right” genitals to be a certain gender.
So tell us - is a desire by anyone to use a gendered bathroom - including by transgender people - indicate hatred for the other gender? Or bigotry? Do women who don’t want men in their restroom hate men? Do transgender women who don’t want to use the men’s room hate men?
I’m not talking about service dogs, I’m talking about the suggestion that all dogs be allowed, service or not. Someone said excluding dogs in general was an outdated policy.
But when a bathroom is mixed, even a little, it’s unisex. If only one person of the opposite sex is in there, it’s one too many to someone who doesn’t like it.
But you said anyone who objects to having only their own gender in the bathroom was wrong. Now you’re teaching your own daughter that it’s okay? Why is it okay for your daughter but not for anyone else?
That was me. I’m just going with the natural logic of allowing service animals. It is judged that they pose no health or safety or quality of life threat because of their training. Or at least no more than a human would. So rather than harassing the disabled, we could just be more liberal about allowing dogs.
And BTW, I’m not calling for requiring businesses to allow all dogs. I’m calling for allowing business owners who don’t care to not have to worry about fallout from government officials. A lot of these folks are between a rock and a hard place on the service dog issue. If they let the dog in and it’s not a service dog, they can receive a health code violation. If they refuse the dog, they can be sued. Remove that half of the equation and it makes everyones lives a little easier. Because in my experience most business owners or managers don’t really care about your dog. They care about getting in trouble because of your dog.
So when I went into the bathroom at Target 3 years ago to turn off the faucet for my daughter, I permanently transformed it into a unisex bathroom? I had no idea my penis had such power.
It’s not OK for her. I just wouldn’t force her to go in. That’s also not OK.
Ah.
We don’t need to tolerate dogshit everywhere just to avoid “harassing” the disabled. We can simply require a certification that is worn by the dog or on its leash, much like a simple handicapped placard on a car. Problem solved.
That’s a bit presumptuous. I think plenty of business owners want to keep dogs out for good reasons. But in any event, my certification idea would fix that problem too.
Well, yes - you were in there with her.
If you get rid of the narrow exception of “only dads turning off faucets for the young kids” to “anyone can use any restroom any time they want,” you’d have unisex restrooms, by definition.
But you WOULD force her. If you are willing to allow men in the women’s room, she’d be forced to be in the bathroom with men even if she chose the women’s room.
This doesn’t apply to the bathroom issue, unless you’re willing to treat people like dogs, and I’m certainly not.
I don’t see any possible solution to this (incredibly minor, in my view, since any abuse will be incredibly rare) problem that doesn’t cause far, far more indignity and inconvenience to transgender people then the rare abuse would cause to anyone.
The reason certification isn’t required is because few if any governments have bothered to set any such system up and none really have the desire.
Well, if I’m allowed to use any bathroom I want then I’m satisfied about transgendereds using the bathroom they want. Not that I cared a lot in the first place, so much as the concept of special rights violate my admittedly flawed logic circuits.
But on this service dog thing, I’m still going to have to fight with Lance.