TOILETS Male or Female Simple choice well not anymore

[marki]

Watching TV for what passes for news here in NYC, this subject is right up there with the stupidity of saying that Hilary Clinton was responsible for her husband's philandering.

Along with ZIKA preparedness

 

[drron]

Then there is the statement of the American college of Paediatricians-
Gender Ideology Harms Children | American College of Pediatricians

 

[Princess Fiona]

Then there is the statement of the American college of Paediatricians-
Gender Ideology Harms Children | American College of Pediatricians

They are a small group of social conservatives who do not officially represent the vast majority of Paediatricians in the USA who are represented by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). They were founded in 2002 due to the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples. Any statement produced by them should be viewed in that regard.

 

[dfcatch]

Yes, woman could definitely feel uncomfortable seeing him in the ladies bathroom. Thats why I think its crazy that people want it that way.

I think you've misunderstood the concerns of those who are hesitant to embrace the "gender identity" position.

They have the SAME concern as you (just switched slightly).

For example - a biological male, who gender identifies as a female using the female bathroom.

Now - if said gender-female was dressed and appearing as a female - no-one is likely to have any issue, nor even notice TBH.

BUT - if said gender-female was dressed more 'tomboy-style' (ie. looking like a dude, which they biologically are), then you could see women feeling uncomfortable about having a man (biologically and in appearance) in the female bathroom.

It's exactly the same concern that you agreed with in the Michael Hughes example.

Really - the issue here (as far as comfort/discomfort for bystanders) is in the "appearance" of the person, not their biological nor gender identity. Regardless of whether you pick biological or gender identity as the deciding-principle, appearance will be the variable that causes others to be uncomfortable.

Let's not forget that many bathroom are more than just urinals and stalls, and prominently feature change rooms and showers, such as the gym or yoga studio for example.

Whilst there are clearly extremist non-tolerant folks on the fringe of the debate... there's a lot of folks in the middle who see it as a little more complicated than you suggest.

For the record - I couldn't care less.

 

[Denali]

I don't support unisex toilets but I have no issue with someone that identifies themselves as female using the female toilets.

<redacted>, We have doors on our toilets so except for seeing someone wash their hands and primp themselves a bit in front of a mirror, whats the big deal?

 

[Denali]

....
BUT - if said gender-female was dressed more 'tomboy-style' (ie. looking like a dude, which they biologically are), then you could see women feeling uncomfortable about having a man (biologically and in appearance) in the female bathroom. ......

There are people in my office building and one of our factories that look "tomboy-style" that use the female toilets. Do they have or had penises is something I have never once considered or cared about. They may or may not, but again - ladies toilets have doors and I don't care what is going on beyond that door.

 

[Moindardt]

How does letting a gay couple get married take away anyone's freedom or Liberty??

Because most religious people view the term "marriage" to be a religious term. It is generally regarded as payback for the various religious not condoning homosexuality, ie it is religious persecution. Very few religious people have an issue with civil unions or de facto situations which confer all the same rights, it is the corruption of "marriage" which is the holiest of acts, that is the issue. But let's not consider that.

I believe it's because the religious right has lost the gay marriage debate, so they are moving on to vilify another group.

They haven't lost the debate, they are just sick of being vilified and the religious persecution if they don't agree, and they have more important things to do. You will not see any comment in opposition that isn't closely followed by the term bigot. This is the standard form of discussion these days. If it doesn't conform with certain left wing views, it is attacked, not just the comment or ideology, so often the person and their families. There are many stories of people who have had all sorts of retribution for not agreeing with the new status quo. Was it Stalin who reacted similar ways to people who don't agree with the State approved answer?

I know a very highly regarded reporter/columnist who will not even touch on these topics. In not so many words, they have been warned if they do not agree, their careers are over.

 

[Pushka]

I don't support unisex toilets but I have no issue with someone that identifies themselves as female using the female toilets.

FFS, We have doors on our toilets so except for seeing someone wash their hands and primp themselves a bit in front of a mirror, whats the big deal?

So why not embrace unisex toilets? I think its a simple solution. The urinals can be separated by walls etc.
As someone posted a while ago, just clean your own mess and all is good.

 

[Moindardt]

I don't care who uses what toilets but prefer women keep to their own. I'll keep short lines and a urinal anyday

However, once again, everyone is looking at it from one side. I will never let the boys go to a public toilet without being able to see their stall. If it is only me with the girls, we use the family room or disabled. I don't trust anyone in a public room with my kids, period. It feels awkward doing that in a guys toilet, imagine how awkward it would be in a unisex. I would be very concerned about a guy watching the stalls in a girls toilet for perfectly good reasons. Does this mean a guy can use the toilet at an all girls school? Where are the boundaries? Where is the "for the greater good"?

The bigger question is what damage we might cause to the majority for a very very very small minority. What does this do to potential rape or child sexual assault? Are all the proponents going to wipe their hands clean when a child commits suicide because they were molested in a situation caused by this? Is it going to be justified by saying that is stops committing suicide (as if the toilet is the only issue)?

The more enlightened people on here might feel totally comfortable, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Are you quite happy to sacrifice 10 or 100 or 10000 people for the one? If a reasonable solution can be found, go for it.

 

[Moody]

I don't care who uses what toilets but prefer women keep to their own. I'll keep short lines and a urinal anyday

However, once again, everyone is looking at it from one side. I will never let the boys go to a public toilet without being able to see their stall. If it is only me with the girls, we use the family room or disabled. I don't trust anyone in a public room with my kids, period. It feels awkward doing that in a guys toilet, imagine how awkward it would be in a unisex. I would be very concerned about a guy watching the stalls in a girls toilet for perfectly good reasons. Does this mean a guy can use the toilet at an all girls school? Where are the boundaries? Where is the "for the greater good"?

The bigger question is what damage we might cause to the majority for a very very very small minority. What does this do to potential rape or child sexual assault? Are all the proponents going to wipe their hands clean when a child commits suicide because they were molested in a situation caused by this? Is it going to be justified by saying that is stops committing suicide (as if the toilet is the only issue)?

The more enlightened people on here might feel totally comfortable, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Are you quite happy to sacrifice 10 or 100 or 10000 people for the one? If a reasonable solution can be found, go for it.

This is so very, very sad.

 

[Hvr]

Because most religious people view the term "marriage" to be a religious term. <snip>

Why should religious people be able to define any word?

 

[Denali]

So why not embrace unisex toilets? I think its a simple solution. The urinals can be separated by walls etc.
As someone posted a while ago, just clean your own mess and all is good.

Because having seen a few mens toilets over the years, I find them generally unclean in comparison to female toilets.

If people did clean up properly, it wouldn't be an issue but sadly - a lot of people are pigs if they think someone else is going to clean up after them.

 

[straitman]

I believe it's because the religious right has lost the gay marriage debate, so they are moving on to vilify another group.

Way off the mark IMHO.

 

[Moindardt]

Why should religious people be able to define any word?

So the fact that the majority of people for thousands of years has identified as religious and that the word has had significant meaning in that context have no meaning but in gay marriage it should. I can already see how this is going down the exact path I said it would and is exactly why people who don't agree with the term "gay marriage" don't speak up. As usual, only the people who don't agree are bigots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

 

[Pushka]

As I get older I have realised that people should be able to whatever works for them as long as they do not enforce their beliefs, whatever they may be, on me. If two men/women want to marry, then let them. How on earth does this impact on me and my marriage?

 

[Moindardt]

As I get older I have realised that people should be able to whatever works for them as long as they do not enforce their beliefs, whatever they may be, on me. If two men/women want to marry, then let them. How on earth does this impact on me and my marriage?

The single biggest issue is that they insist on it being a "marriage" and that they will be treated as second class citizens if it is a civil union and not entitled to all the rights and remedies, despite the fact defacto have all the same benefits as married people. If it is resolved legally that civil unions are the same in terms of rights, then it should be a fait accompli.

So if you remove the legal issue, it becomes purely a reason to upset the church, which is where the issues are. Why is it ok to discriminate against religion, purely for the sake of retaliation for "perceived" discrimination. The argument then goes on to perceived discrimination and that argument completely ignores all forms of religious freedom. So to prove discrimination, you have to support discrimination against religion. The whole purpose of this exercise is to perpetrate hatred against the church, so of it perceived, so of it very valid. I am just constantly surprised by the fact the people who campaign against discrimination and bigotry are usually the worst offenders.

And yes there are idiots at both ends of the spectrum. Can't everyone just find some middle ground and move on. I have my hand up for civil unions.

 

[james4321]

If it is resolved legally that civil unions are the same in terms of rights, then it should be a fait accompli.

So then do you think it would be fine if there were no longer any "marriages" so that everybody - same sex or different sex - enters into a "civil union"?

 

[Hvr]

One of the issues I find in these types of arguments is that there is always a cry for freedom of religion yet never any acknowledgement we need freedom from religion.

 

[james4321]

One of the issues I find in these types of arguments is that there is always a cry for freedom of religion yet never any acknowledgement we need freedom from religion.

100% right!!!!!

 

[Quickstatus]

I dont care so long as certain rules are followed:

just leave the toilet seat UP!!

no talking to other people in the toilets