This Bathroom Law Confusion

Now a stomachache on top of the headache. When I add things to the list of problems I'm not intending to eliminate the other problems that may be more "substantial." Why should women have to put up with the bad habits of strange men when it's enough of a pain to deal with it at home? It's all a big pain. The point is there is NOTHING GOOD about unisex public bathrooms. If they "work fine" it's only for the young who have been brainwashed by the Left into accepting the Progressive rationale and not noticing the problems.And THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM. It's all the offspring of the PC Progressive Leftist crackpot egalitarian project.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The discussion about the seat situation is in the context of the CO-ED DORM BATHROOMS which was inaugurated by Stile many many posts ago. It was just a minor point I made in passing, which of course had to be made into a major issue by you.The subject transitioned from the LGBT issues to the general issue of unisex public bathrooms. How on earth it got extended to such a length is ... well, unfortunately typical of EvC side issues.I'VE SAID A MILLION TIMES ON THIS THREAD THAT I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH TRANSGENDER MEN IN THE WOMEN"S ROOM. Maybe I should, many others do, maybe I'll see it differently later, but at the moment I don't. THE SEAT ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As so often happens I have NO idea what you are talking about. Never thought WHAT made any difference?Never mind, I'm sure I'll regret finding out.

Sigh. I'm not going to explain again, enough is enough.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe privacy that separates the sexes is standard and rational and you don't. I made the best case I could so I think this subtopic discussion is over.

What about the solution anglagard suggested, of totally private single-person facilities? Which I proposed wouldn't need to completely replace existing facilities but be added to them. Keeping all freaked-out parties from freaking out?I realize this couldn't happen immediately, but even if laws get passed favoring transgenders I don't see how the freaked-out opponents are going to be silenced by that, because the sight of a clearly male man in women's clothes is just going to ...freak them out. My thinking there shouldn't be a problem isn't going to stop them from freaking out and your opinion isn't going to stop them either.By the way, if it's a medical problem, how about curing it instead of indulging it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Please continue to read the posts related to that topic.

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.

I guess I can't expect you to have read the whole thread but all that has been discussed to death already. I have said umpteen jillion times that I'm against the biological definition because it misses the point and the people who are insisting on it aren't recognizing the actual situation. The actual situation being what you are trying to prove to me as if I didn't already know it a million times over.The fact that I've ALSO said I can understand some of the concerns of the opposition seems to so overshadow what I've said above it's as if I hadn't said it. I can understand the opposing view up to a point but have nevertheless said I think it's based on not recognizing the actuality of the situation. I've also said maybe there are other issues I haven't yet appreciated. It doesn't pay to be too nuanced on a thread does it?

You can prove I did this, right? Please do so.