If you're born with a woo-woo, it's sex. If you identify, it's simply a choice. Now pick your bathroom to dump in. (1 Viewer)

[Kal El]

They don't bother me either, now if my 10yr old daughter was in the bathroom and one went in..... No chance I'd be happy. Sure they might be legit, but too many perverts nowadays. No way in todays society

:facepalm:

ETA: I don't give a flying fig what's PC when it comes to kids. I'm not letting my kid get hurt, not taking that chance and I don't care what people think.

I have to agree, I don't care what people identify as, but I will not put my children into a dangerous situation if it can be avoided.

 

[Van Dyman]

I have to agree, I don't care what people identify as, but I will not put my children into a dangerous situation if it can be avoided.

What about people who have boys.  Perhaps they want to protect their boys by sending the perverts over to the girls bathroom.  Are the girls more worthy of protection?

Maybe the answer is to create one bathroom for perverts and one for everyone else.

 

[Henry Ford]

They don't bother me either, now if my 10yr old daughter was in the bathroom and one went in..... No chance I'd be happy. Sure they might be legit, but too many perverts nowadays. No way in todays society

:facepalm:

ETA: I don't give a flying fig what's PC when it comes to kids. I'm not letting my kid get hurt, not taking that chance and I don't care what people think.

I'm not familiar with any crimes against children happening that this bill would prevent. Do you have examples of what has happened due to trans people being allowed to use restrooms?

 

[sho nuff]

Trannies are now just perverts?

 

[Henry Ford]

I think this is well thought-out. Also, lesbians hitting on women in the women's room is very common if you ask my not-even-that-straight female friends. One has a particular problem with it. 

I also agree about the criminalization of penises. How do you feel about campus due process with respect to sexual assault? Are you more Gillibrand or IOJ?   

I'll hang up and listen.  

You'll have to unpack the Gillibrand v IOJ question, but happy to answer.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Trannies are now just perverts?

Reading comprehension, not your strong suit, huh?

 

[Mr.Pack]

I'm not familiar with any crimes against children happening that this bill would prevent. Do you have examples of what has happened due to trans people being allowed to use restrooms?

Point missed. But that's ok.

Carry on.

 

[sho nuff]

Reading comprehension, not your strong suit, huh?

Its just fine...did I quote you?

You do realize others have mentioned perverts right?

 

[GoFishTN]

Gay rights could easily be framed as not harming anyone else. Allowing men in the women's room can't be framed that way and is a much tougher sell. Good luck.

 

[rockaction]

You'll have to unpack the Gillibrand v IOJ question, but happy to answer.

I think Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has been arguing for a lower standard of due process for those accused of sexual assaults on campus. Others (I would remove IOJ from the post as I am not totally sure of their position -- I use them as proxy because I am not sure of their actual position) have argued that full due process rights should be given before revoking a right to attend college. 

It's become a cause on both the left and the right. The feminist left argues for lower due process on campus, the right argues to revoke campus authority altogether and get the police involved, where process is a bit more stringent. I was just curious how "criminalizing" penises fits in with respect to your worldview. 

My position is to remove state universities from proceedings and leave it to the police. My position is also to let private universities that don't receive federal funding do what they want. I think the argument is actually proceeding along TItle IX lines these days. That's the best I can suss it out right now.  

 

[Henry Ford]

I think Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has been arguing for a lower standard of due process for those accused of sexual assaults on campus. Others (I would remove IOJ from the post as I am not totally sure of their position -- I use them as proxy because I am not sure of their actual position) have argued that full due process rights should be given before revoking a right to attend college. 

It's become a cause on both the left and the right. The feminist left argues for lower due process on campus, the right argues to revoke campus authority altogether and get the police involved, where process is a bit more stringent. I was just curious how "criminalizing" penises fits in with respect to your worldview. 

My position is to remove state universities from proceedings and leave it to the police. My position is also to let private universities that don't receive federal funding do what they want. I think the argument is actually proceeding along TItle IX lines these days. That's the best I can suss it out right now.  

I fully agree it should be a matter for the police.  But traditionally universities have, frankly, failed to allow that to proceed properly and requested to deal with it on campus, often impeding investigations from the outside.

If that continues to happen, yes, there should be a lower burden on accusers who aren't asking for criminal penalties, and are only asking for expulsion.  Primarily because there's no police force investigating for the accused, and because there's no loss of freedom.

But yes, sexual assault is a crime and should be dealt with by the police.  In my opinion.  If it is dealt with in a place that has more of a civil response (loss of property, not freedom) then traditionally we treat that as a civil burden of proof - preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a worker was accused of sexually assaulting a co-worker, there wouldn't be a high burden of proof before firing the accused.  I don't think it should be that low, but if there's no police force backing the accuser and no jail time involved, it would be difficult to justify a criminal burden of proof.

 

[Rove!]

I'm going to have to disagree on the lowering the burden of proof.  Just becuase the potential risk is lower, it doesn't logically inform a decision of guilt.  Even without prison time, a negative action would have lifelong consequences for the accused.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm going to have to disagree on the lowering the burden of proof.  Just becuase the potential risk is lower, it doesn't logically inform a decision of guilt.  Even without prison time, a negative action would have lifelong consequences for the accused.

So would a civil suit for rape, but you wouldn't have a reasonable doubt burden there, either.

 

[cstu]

Gay rights could easily be framed as not harming anyone else. Allowing men in the women's room can't be framed that way and is a much tougher sell. Good luck.

Who is getting harmed by someone taking a ####?

 

[cstu]

What about people who have boys.  Perhaps they want to protect their boys by sending the perverts over to the girls bathroom.  Are the girls more worthy of protection?

Maybe the answer is to create one bathroom for perverts and one for everyone else.

If men are allowed in women's bathrooms then you could go in with her.

 

[cstu]

 I don't think anyone reasonably believes that genitalia-based bathrooms are going to deter perpetrators of physical sexual violence.

"I was going to rape her but she went into the women's bathroom.  Do you know how they treat bathroom law violators in prison?"

 

[GoFishTN]

Who is getting harmed by someone taking a ####?

Women who don't want to be in a bathroom with a man? But I guess their rights and feelings aren't relevant, right?