Post New

snip
'Washington judge orders female-only spa with compulsory nudity to admit transgender women with penises, after owner said facility was for 'biological women only' and pre-op trans activist complained'
snip
'Olympus Spa is not the first Korean spa in the United States to come into the crosshairs of the gender ideology debate over the past two years.

In 2021, a Korean spa in California made international headlines after a trans-identified sex offender was granted access to the women's facilities in accordance with California state law.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12176407/...

Methinks the straight women should fashion wiener knife necklaces, wear them, and six or eight straight women surround the penis tran, engage in polite female conversation while fondling their wiener knife necklaces. Do no harm, just scare the ding-dong out of the penis trans female and maybe s/he will go away and start up their own spa.

Looking forward to the Board libs defending the penis trans and heap on their name calling.
😂🤣😆

Looking forward to the Board libs defending the penis trans and heap on their name calling.

Not sure why you think "defending" is necessary. She was discriminated against by a local business in violation of the law, justifiably and accurately filed a complaint with the enforcement board (as she had every right to do), and the business was ordered to stop discriminating. You haven't provided any argument that she did anything wrong.

As for this:

Methinks the straight women should fashion wiener knife necklaces, wear them, and six or eight straight women surround the penis tran, engage in polite female conversation while fondling their wiener knife necklaces. Do no harm, just scare the ding-dong out of the penis trans female and maybe s/he will go away and start up their own spa.

I'm not sure what a "wiener knife" is, but what you're describing is pretty much the textbook definition of assault. Which is a deliberate action that is intended to cause fear or apprehension of physical violence in another person. A group of people who "fondle" knives in such a way that would actually "scare the ding-dong" out of their victim would definitely be committing assault.

Which, I suppose, is why you anticipated that you might receive some name-calling. Saying that people should respond with violent crimes against an innocent woman who has done nothing more than accurately report a business for discrimination is....not a great look. Especially since trans people are already more likely to be the victims of violent crimes, which is why these types of anti-discrimination laws get adopted in the first place.

No.

They can't.

They won't.

Not sure why you think "defending" is necessary.

Which, I suppose, is why you anticipated that you might receive some name-calling.

Please stop it with the analyzing lawyer talk with me.

Part of what I said was in jest.
It is well known libs will start with their twisted name calling etc, I'm not all inclusive,
hateful and so on.

If a wo/man makes the decision to become a trans, it is all right with me.
Live and let live.
Just don't trample on the rights or intrude where they most certainly will create an uncomfortable situation as noted in the examples of the OP.

Sorry, to be blunt, I don't want a penis trans exposing themselves while I am in a ladies bathroom or a spa because they now think they have the right to do so.
The silly notion, well, there are stalls with doors in the ladies bathroom still does not make it comfortable or acceptable to most all girls/ladies.

Trans or not, be respectable and considerate of each other's 'space'.
Follow the Golden Rule.

Part of what I said was in jest.

Of course. But making "jokes" that an appropriate response to a trans woman in this situation is to surround her and threaten her with violence to a sufficient level of credibility that she would be afraid to return to a place that she has a legal right to be is....well, again, that's not a great joke. It goes a long way towards explaining why when you find yourself in conversations with trans people, you might feel there's things that you can't say, even though you want to. Because those kinds of "jokes" are so self-evidently dismissive of the humanity of the person you're talking about that they're going to be hurtful and cruel to the person you're talking to.

Joking about physical violence towards an already-disfavored minority isn't a "live and let live" type of thing, and it's certainly not living up to the Golden Rule. It's cruel, and not something that someone who genuinely supported the equal treatment of that minority would ever do.

Just don't trample on the rights or intrude where they most certainly will create an uncomfortable situation as noted in the examples of the OP.

Ummm...you've got it entirely backwards on the "rights" part. It's not trampling on the rights of others to go to a place where you absolutely have the right to go, and they don't have the right to exclude you. It's the opposite. The owners of this facility were trampling on the rights of the transwoman. She has the legal right to use their establishment.

As for the "uncomfortable" situation, there's a long history of people using the argument that the presence of a disfavored minority makes them feel "uncomfortable" as a way of justifying continuing to discriminate against them. People have historically expressed being "uncomfortable" around certain racial minorities, religious minorities, the disabled - even women being in positions of authority or responsibility. You name it. It's not the trans woman's responsibility to constrict her life activities to make other people feel less uncomfortable if she has a legal right to use those facilities.

Again, "live and let live" doesn't mean shaming, shunning, or (worse) scaring transwomen into staying out of places they have every right to go. Nor the Golden Rule.

Again, "live and let live" doesn't mean shaming, shunning, or (worse) scaring transwomen into staying out of places they have every right to go. Nor the Golden Rule.

I'm talking about Trans females with their penis hanging out and want to be accepted among females and trans females at a spa or what have you. They can go find their own place to 'hang out' at. Don't like it, I don't care.

So shrug, 'Us' normal people know where I am coming from, so I'll leave it at that.

I'm talking about Trans females with their penis hanging out and want to be accepted among females and trans females at a spa or what have you. They can go find their own place to 'hang out' at. Don't like it, I don't care.

I can tell you don't care. But you can certainly see why they care that you have that attitude - and why many normal people disagree with you.

A majority telling a disfavored minority that they should go find their own place to hang out, rather than being allowed in the places where other people are allowed to hang out, has a long history in this country - and it's not a very pleasant or admirable one. We've had centuries of majorities telling members of racial, national, and religious minorities that they don't deserve to be accepted in established places ("No blacks, no Irish, no Jews"). Ironically, women too were often excluded from many places they wanted to be, and castigated for wanting to be accepted in male spaces (like country clubs or corporate boardrooms) instead of finding their own place to "hang out" at.

Why can't they just leave men alone? Why can't they just leave white people alone? Why can't they just leave Protestants alone? Why is it that all these women, blacks, and Catholics insist that they should be allowed to participate in the same spaces as other people, instead of having the decency to confine themselves to other places?

I mean, you asked the question. It's your thread title. "They" (which in this case would include the state legislature, and not just trans women) aren't leaving "women" alone for the same reason that "they" didn't let prior majority groups use discrimination to exclude minorities they didn't want to have around - to support the dignity and humanity of the minority group. To grant them the right to participate on equal footing with other people, even other people that might be uncomfortable with the idea of having to interact with the disfavored minority.

To grant them the right to participate on equal footing with other people, even other people that might be uncomfortable with the idea of having to interact with the disfavored minority. - albaby

----------------------

Would you apply that same reasoning to the skinheads, nazi's or biker gang that wants to frequent your favorite swimming pool. Maybe you don't have a right to prevent them, but certainly have a right to not like it and holding that opinion does not make you a bad or intolerant person.

Would you apply that same reasoning to the skinheads, nazi's or biker gang that wants to frequent your favorite swimming pool.

Not as to the first two (I have nothing against people who ride motorcycles). I despise Nazis, and my understanding of what it means to be a "skinhead" (as opposed to just a bald person) is that they are Nazi supporters or sympathizers. I am willing to commit - quite publicly - that people who are Nazis are bad people. And there is a very good argument as to why they are bad people. One absolutely has a right to not like interacting with bad people. That doesn't make you a bad person.

Notice the difference there. With Nazis, you're not being repulsed by who they are, but by they fact that they support a genocidal ideology. That makes them bad people. Trans men and women are not bad people. They're not Nazis. They have no attributes that are analogous to supporting the genocidal extermination of minorities. There's no moral dimension to justify being made uncomfortable by trans people's presence. That's generally what we mean when we refer - colloquially - to being "intolerant" in these types of situation. It's wanting to diminish or reject people without having a reason. That's why someone who hates black people is a bigot but someone who hates mass murderers is not, and why we would commonly refer to the first person as "intolerant" but not the latter person.

Albaby

I can tell you don't care. But you can certainly see why they care that you have that attitude - and why many normal people disagree with you.

Tell me how comfortable you are escorting your young son to a public
mens room and there is a half naked lady who claims to be a trans man washing up at the sink?

Tell me how comfortable you are escorting your young son to a public
mens room and there is a half naked lady who claims to be a trans man washing up at the sink?

Ummmm...what do you think happens in mens' rooms? No one's "half naked" at the sink. If there's a trans man washing at the sink, he's going to look like any other man washing up at the sink. Chances are overwhelming that neither my son or I would notice. Since I live in a major metropolitan area with a sizable LGBTQ population, I'm sure it's already happened more than once, and we were both unawares.

Of course, if we forced trans women to use the men's room - and there's someone at the sink wearing a dress and heels and make-up who looks no different than any other woman - my son would have lots of questions. Far more questions than if there were trans men there.

Ummmm...what do you think happens in mens' rooms? No one's "half naked" at the sink

With the insistence of trans rights you can no longer be sure of it.

Don't be naive it will not happen in a men's bathroom where a women who claims to be a trans is wanting to freshen up, say at a rest stop or gas station after driving all night or what have you.

Why can't they just leave men alone? Why can't they just leave white people alone? Why can't they just leave Protestants alone? Why is it that all these women, blacks, and Catholics insist that they should be allowed to participate in the same spaces as other people, instead of having the decency to confine themselves to other places?

The flaw with this analogy is that we are talking about spaces that are voluntarily segregated (by sex) without any intention of discrimination.

Why are adults forbidden from attending elementary school? Is that age discrimination? No.

Why are men barred from women's locker rooms? If you allow a cross dresser in there, why not allow a man dressed like a man?

If transgender whatevers can participate in women's sports, why can't normal men?

Notice the difference there. With Nazis, you're not being repulsed by who they are, but by they fact that they support a genocidal ideology. That makes them bad people.

There is a biological determinism in your categorical thinking. Not to defend nazis, because I agree with your ethical stance on nazis, but the distinction you are making hinges on identity as an expression of will versus the expression of some inherent nature. There is a tradition in psychology that would naturalize fascism as a consequence of authoritarian personality, and that this personality type has genetic origins (https://www.sdu.dk/-/media/files/om_sdu/institutte...). If we accept the natural determination of authoritarian personality traits then our ethical stance on nazis, as well as how to engage with them, becomes a lot more problematic. Nazis, in this context, are no different than trans people. They are compelled by some internal force to express their nature. In order to maintain the distinction you are making you need to claim that will is absent in the case of trans people and present in the case of nazis.

The flaw with this analogy is that we are talking about spaces that are voluntarily segregated (by sex) without any intention of discrimination.

Yeah, no. Nothing voluntary about the landscape of gender. Is it voluntary that women pray behind men in the mosque, or that women are nuns and only men are priests in the Catholic Church? Johns Hopkins University voluntarily admitted women in 1971. Of course that had nothing to do with centuries of women struggling for equal access to education. Gender is a boundary construct that is written in the landscape and rituals of human relationships. It's linked to power and is voluntary in the same way that standing and removing my hat before a baseball game is voluntary.

Why are adults forbidden from attending elementary school? Is that age discrimination? No.

Exactly - but we also do not discriminate between children based upon what their bodies are like. If a child is suffering from a progeria syndrome (where their bodies age super-fast), we don't prohibit them from going to elementary school because their body has mostly the attributes of an adult. If a child were in a coma for several years, we don't keep them out of elementary school because their body is "too old." If a girl (it's usually a girl) undergoes and completes puberty preternaturally early, and has the body of a 17-year-old while still in fourth grade, we don't kick her out of elementary school. Because we limit attendance to people with child brains - not their bodies.

The majority psychological conception of transgenderism is that the person has a mental model of their gender that is different than what their physical body has. Basically, a "man's brain in a woman's body" or vice-versa. If that's difficult to conceptualize, imagine a far-fetched scenario where someone kidnaps you and forces you to undergo involuntary sex reassignment surgery and all the hormones that go with it. I assume from your nick that you're a male. In this ludicrous hypothetical, though, your body would have been changed to be that of a woman. You would still think of yourself as male. You wouldn't start thinking of yourself as female, and being forced to always use female-gendered spaces (like bathrooms) might be very uncomfortable for you.

That the difference between transgender and drag. A male drag queen will put on women's clothing for performance - they still internally regard themselves as male. A transgender woman wears women's clothing because their internal sense of their identity is as a woman. They are entirely different. Transgender people actually and completely have a conception of themselves as being a different gender as their body; drag queens do not, and are wearing clothes of the "wrong" gender for the purposes of performance, not because they identify as that "wrong" gender. Monty Python vs. Laverne Cox.

Note that this conception of transgender people is inconsistent with some groups' theory of gender. Conservative folks, who are very concerned about gendered bodies from a perspective of sexual purity and cleanliness, reject the idea that an actual discrepancy between "brain" and "body" has any bearing on gender. From their perspective, one of the most important purposes of societal attitudes towards gender is to avoid having people's sexual parts being used in ways that are immoral, sinful, impure, or otherwise violative of their conception of the good - "gender" is inextricably defined by the body.

Unlikely allies in opposing this conception of gender are certain progressive feminists, who entirely reject the idea that a brain can intrinsically have a gender. To them, gender is entirely a social construct, based entirely on social and cultural attitudes/biases grounded in the different bodies that gender-neutral brains are in. If brains actually did have gender orientation independent of their physical bodies and culture, that would be an enormous empirical contradiction to their theory of gender - so they vigorously reject that idea. I'm vastly oversimplifying this, of course. Many of PhoolishPhilip's points have been grounded in these arguments, so they can probably explain more thoroughly, if you're interested.

Tying it all back in, advocates for an expansive view of trans rights believe that (like elementary school) gender separation should be based on the brains of the people involved, not their bodies. People with a "male brain" should be allowed to use the male restroom, just like a child that happens to have the body of an adult (due to disease or unnaturally-early puberty) is still allowed to go to elementary school.

Yeah, no. Nothing voluntary about the landscape of gender. Is it voluntary that women pray behind men in the mosque, or that women are nuns and only men are priests in the Catholic Church? Johns Hopkins University voluntarily admitted women in 1971. Of course that had nothing to do with centuries of women struggling for equal access to education. Gender is a boundary construct that is written in the landscape and rituals of human relationships. It's linked to power and is voluntary in the same way that standing and removing my hat before a baseball game is voluntary.

My context in this conversation is/was/has been United States of America in the year of our Lord 2023. Not 1971 or Middle East or the War of 1812. Context matters.

Today - in sports, bathrooms, locker rooms and prisons. Talk about segregation by sex there.

Because we limit attendance to people with child brains - not their bodies.

Au contraire, we limit it by AGE. A precocious child may have adult brainpower but we won't refuse them entry to school.
What your objective characteristics are, should influence what you can do in social contexts. Like age, or genitalia.

Tying it all back in, advocates for an expansive view of trans rights believe that (like elementary school) gender separation should be based on the brains of the people involved, not their bodies.

This is not an either-or. Trans advocates are saying that ONLY brains (psychology) should matter, observable reality (physiology) should not.

BTW I do admire your patience, notwithstanding our differences in opinions.

Like I said I don't know, and don't particularly care, about alternative sexuality (or genderness, whatever). I understand male/female, gay/straight/bisexual. Maybe asexual. That's as complicated as my tiny brain can grasp. But you mentioned that drag queens are men who think of themselves as men but dress in (traditional) women's clothes. I think most people would be uneasy to let such drag queens view their young daughters' bodies in locker room. What objective test can you apply to separate them from trans "women" (men who think themselves as women)?

BTW it is so mainstream for women to wear men's clothes, we don't even have a name for it. Is Hillary Clinton in a pantsuit a Drag King?

And are all Drag Queens queens or are there princesses, maids, peasants too?

Me stupid, me no understand any of this carp.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

OK, so trans-folks are likely among us with us being none-the-wiser. We've likely shared bathrooms and been completely oblivious because their psychology causes them to dress their gender identity (is "trans" indicative of having had actual surgery, or is it just a psychological state?). I see room for abuse (not sexual...abusing the system) similar to "emotional support animals". How do we prevent people from going into a locker room (where there is no doubt what plumbing they have) just to get their jollies while claiming they belong there?

Airlines are starting to clamp down on the emotional support animals, or at least I read that within the past few months, because people are abusing that system without having an actual need. They just want to bring Fluffy or Fido or mini-Mr-Ed with them.

Au contraire, we limit it by AGE. A precocious child may have adult brainpower but we won't refuse them entry to school.

But we don't limit it by age. As noted above, a child that spent a few years in a coma between 2nd and 3rd grade would be allowed to go to third grade - even though by age, they should be out of elementary school. The same is true of children with significant developmental disabilities, who will be placed in elementary school grades even though they might be chronologically older. And your own example goes against your point, not for it - just in reverse. We typically don't let nine-year-olds go to high school, but if they're sufficiently precocious, we ignore their chronological age and let them go:

https://www.insider.com/pennsylvania-boy-9-earned-...

This is not an either-or. Trans advocates are saying that ONLY brains (psychology) should matter, observable reality (physiology) should not.

Within each context, it's usually either-or. For example, a trans person has to be able to use public bathrooms. In some facilities, there will be no gender-neutral bathrooms. You have to decide what the rule is going to be: whether they get to use the bathroom that aligns with their psychology or not. It's certainly possible that one might reach different policy conclusions in different contexts. It's theoretically possible that a state might let trans people use the bathrooms that align with their psychology but refuse to allow trans athletes to compete in sports on the same basis. Those kinds of splits are not likely to be too common, though, because there's just not all that much gradation between them.

But you mentioned that drag queens are men who think of themselves as men but dress in (traditional) women's clothes. I think most people would be uneasy to let such drag queens view their young daughters' bodies in locker room. What objective test can you apply to separate them from trans "women" (men who think themselves as women)?

The same objective tests we use to differentiate people who suffer from schizophrenia and claim eligibility for treatment, or who assert that they are Jewish and claim employer accommodations for their religion. You can look at the totality of the circumstances and make a reasonable assessment of how likely it is that this person is, in fact, schizophrenic or Jewish.

It's not really complicated. You don't really have situations where it's actually hard to figure out whether someone claiming to be a trans person is genuinely trans, or is just putting on an act for some reason. Typically trans folks will have been in treatment with therapists, have confided their trans status in close friends or certain relatives, and have engaged in behaviors consistent with their trans identities for long periods of time. If a man gets caught peeping in the women's room and tries to claim, "No, it wasn't illegal because I'm actually trans," it's going to be really really easy for prosecutors to prove that's a lie - because they won't have "the receipts" to back that up.

And if Ru Paul has taught me anything, it's that most drag queens are going to be relatively uninterested in looking at girls' bodies in the locker room.

Albaby

How do we prevent people from going into a locker room (where there is no doubt what plumbing they have) just to get their jollies while claiming they belong there?

Repeating what I mentioned in my prior post - by looking at whether the person actually has done anything to support their claim that they're trans. Have they asked their close confidants to call them by a different name or pronouns? Have they spent some period of time adopting the outward appearance of their identified gender? Have they spoken to a therapist or counselor about their gender dysmorphia? Etc. Someone who has never ever done a single thing consistent with transitioning isn't going to be able to convince a court that they're actually trans - so all you need to keep them out of the locker room is to maintain the same sanctions that apply when you go into the locker room of the opposite sex to get your jollies. Whatever works to keep men out of the women's locker room today is still going to work in a world where trans people have rights.

But that requires a court. Which means a complaint is filed somewhere. Lawyers ($$$$) get involved. And if the person is legit-trans, they're OK. But they had to expend significant time and money to establish that. So that isn't fair to the legit-trans person.

(Same reason I won't touch a person in distress. I'll call 911, but I won't touch them. Good Samaritan laws don't protect you from being sued, they just protect you from losing the suit. You still have to lawyer-up and show up in court. And good lawyers are not cheap.)

But that requires a court. Which means a complaint is filed somewhere. Lawyers ($$$$) get involved. And if the person is legit-trans, they're OK. But they had to expend significant time and money to establish that. So that isn't fair to the legit-trans person.

It's insanely unlikely that the trans woman is ending up in court. If you're a cis man with no history of any indication of transitioning, putting on a dress so you can very traceably and provably head into a ladies locker room is a phenomenally stupid way of getting your jollies. You're certain to go to jail if you get caught. And you'll be found out with even the most casual investigation - even if someone just asks to see your driver's license as you sign up for whatever gym or sports club you're enrolling in, it's going to have all the cis male indicia that can get you flagged in their system. A legit trans woman will have little problem documenting that they have, in fact, been transitioning.

A legit trans woman will have little problem documenting that they have, in fact, been transitioning.

Sure. My point was that they would have to document it, which implies legal proceedings, which cost the trans-person money. It's as if you or I had to demonstrate we were male using the male bathroom. Yes, we can do it. But when lawyers and courts get involved, even if a just decision is rendered, it cost money and isn't fair to us who didn't do anything wrong. Same for the trans-person. Yes, they can provide the documentation. But that's a process that will cost money to get adjudicated. That was my point.

My point was that they would have to document it, which implies legal proceedings, which cost the trans-person money.

I don't think that implication is sound. It's not going to get to legal proceedings except when the person is faking. If the cops get called, they'll just ask a few people that know the person in question - "Does this person really go by their new trans name? Do they act in a way consistent with being a woman outside the gym locker?" - etc. They might ask the person if they are seeing a therapist or counselor who can confirm that they've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Etc.

A trans person will be able to resolve that quickly and easily. A cis person who's just trying to see naked people will not.

Airlines are starting to clamp down on the emotional support animals, or at least I read that within the past few months, because people are abusing that system without having an actual need. They just want to bring Fluffy or Fido or mini-Mr-Ed with them. - 1pg

---------------------

That is a good analogy. However there is significantly greater outrage and mental anguish from the trans person.

Given a choice, would you as a father want your wife or daughter setting next to an airline passenger with an emotional support lizard or having her seeing a big old penis and hairy balls flopping around in the women's locker room. And that outrage is the same regardless of whether the trans is a genuine trans or just a gamer.

Despite how eloquently albaby argues for the poor downtrodden trans community, biological women have rights too that should be acknowledged, respected and protected.

It's not really complicated. You don't really have situations where it's actually hard to figure out whether someone claiming to be a trans person is genuinely trans, or is just putting on an act for some reason. Typically trans folks will have been in treatment with therapists, have confided their trans status in close friends or certain relatives, and have engaged in behaviors consistent with their trans identities for long periods of time.

---------------

And if you are the manager of a gym, and have women complaining about a man in their locker room, how exactly do you have access to the medical treatments and close friends and family you suggest would support this "un-complicated" determination?

You're certain to go to jail if you get caught. And you'll be found out with even the most casual investigation - even if someone just asks to see your driver's license as you sign up for whatever gym or sports club you're enrolling in, it's going to have all the cis male indicia that can get you flagged in their system.

----------------

"cis male indica"? No so much anymore, as our government travels down the slippery slope of wokeness.

I am seeing official government forms with "other" as a check box in the sex question. AFAIK, no one audits your selection. I personally filed a Homeland Security form with that option in order to get a security clearance for behind the scenes work at the Superbowl when it was held in Houston.

FWIW, I just checked the US Passport Application. It is a widely accepted form of identification. It lists three choices for Gender: M, F, and X.

Despite how eloquently albaby argues for the poor downtrodden trans community, biological women have rights too that should be acknowledged, respected and protected.

Absolutely! That is the point albaby does not understand.

And if you are the manager of a gym, and have women complaining about a man in their locker room, how exactly do you have access to the medical treatments and close friends and family you suggest would support this "un-complicated" determination?

Oh, you wouldn't. But that's not really the point I was making. Rather, I was pointing out that claiming to be trans when you're not won't hold up to after-the-fact scrutiny, because people leave a pretty obvious "trail" of what they really believe about their gender. As you pointed out, in many jurisdictions (and all trans-tolerant jurisdictions) people are given lots of choices in how to identify in government paperwork, application forms, and a host of other contexts. It's a simple matter to figure out after the fact if someone's pretending to be trans to "get their jollies" in a locker room.

Which is what makes it really unlikely that anyone would do that. It's the same theory behind security cameras. Security cameras (typically) don't interrupt misdeeds and crimes while they're happening. But they make it so much easier to prove up those misdeeds and crimes after the fact that they have a deterrent effect.

As for this:

Despite how eloquently albaby argues for the poor downtrodden trans community, biological women have rights too that should be acknowledged, respected and protected.

I appreciate that you think I'm eloquent - and I certainly acknowledge that cis women also have rights. Indeed, the specific situation we've been talking about - communal nudity in locker rooms - is one of the tougher situations. There's a conflict of rights (or interests, if you will) among different groups. Some cis women want to be free from the possibility of seeing a penis. Trans women want to be free from the increased risk of assault that comes from having to use the men's locker room.

One obvious solution, of course, is to stop having communal nudity. And I think that's where we'll end up moving towards. Communal nudity in athletic facilities is actually really exclusionary, even apart from trans issues. There's many, many people who have shied away from athletics because they didn't want to be seen naked - especially in school-age situations. I suspect far more people have been made uncomfortable by being seen naked than by seeing something they didn't want to. Phasing out communal nudity is probably a great step towards making these facilities more accessible for everyone.

But that will take a long time. In the meantime, you have to balance two competing claims. Cis women are concerned about the possibility of seeing a penis (and presumably some cis men don't want to see female parts); trans women are concerned about being at greater risk of assault if forced to use the mens' room. Both have merit. That makes for a tough policy decision - which is why advocates for both groups will typically use the language of "rights" as a way of asserting their claim is inarguable.

"I think most people would be uneasy to let such drag queens view their young daughters' bodies in locker room."

You mean like Donald Trump did at the teen Miss USA pageant?

"I think most people would be uneasy to let such drag queens view their young daughters' bodies in locker room."

You mean like Donald Trump did at the teen Miss USA pageant? - flightdoc

-------------------

Yes, but I am not sure of any value your comment adds to the discussion underway.

Despite how eloquently albaby argues for the poor downtrodden trans community, biological women have rights too that should be acknowledged, respected and protected.

Albaby is eloquent, and always makes you think. In your example, we really have TWO downtrodden communities. The trans community, and women. Both receive discrimination, and both are trying to achieve equality and fairness (women have been seeking that for a lot longer). I once read that just by being a woman you are acutely aware than about half the population (men) could pose a threat to you. As a male I can't really relate, but they are generally less physical and are usually the victims (as opposed to the perps) when a crime occurs between males and females. So, yes, we want them to feel secure and safe, and having a physical male (regardless of their inner psychology) in a locker room could affect that. Unlike bathrooms that have stalls, lockers rooms are generally open. That poses a different challenge.

I know 1poorlady would leave. I think 1poorkid wouldn't really care as long as the person was minding their own business. She is sympathetic to the downtrodden. Assuming she knew that the person in question was trans, of course. If it was just some random set of testicles she didn't know, she would probably report it to a manager. Which would then get into the legal hassles I described up-thread (calling cops, cops interviewing people to ascertain the person is genuinely trans, etc).

"You mean like Donald Trump did at the teen Miss USA pageant? - flightdoc
-------------------
Yes, but I am not sure of any value your comment adds to the discussion underway.-BHM"

Sometimes a post is only intended to cause thoughtful folks to pause and consider.....

If the thought of a trans-person in a girl's 'undressing room' is too much to bear, why is a rapey pervert like Trump acceptable as an elected official?

Despite how eloquently albaby argues for the poor downtrodden trans community, biological women have rights too that should be acknowledged, respected and protected.

Absolutely! That is the point albaby does not understand.

This problem doesn't seem to occur often enough to be discussed in expat groups in the Philippines and Thailand. I did start spending more time on the history boards because that piqued my interest, but I still frequented the boards and I think they discussed everything ad nauseum. Suffice it to say Ladyboys or bayot are numerous in the Philippines and Western males run into them quite a lot. 95% of the ladyboys you could tell by observation, but there were some who got the gender hormone therapy early and the results were sometimes spectacular and you couldn't tell. I discovered all expats and filipinos think they can tell 100% of the time who's a ladyboy because of the large number of bayots who never got hormone treatment or started late. You can't convince them otherwise.

I think the problems being discussed are imaginary, but I think it will be like trying to convince expats there are some Ladyboys where you can't tell by observation. BHM, Lurker Mom, fly over to Thailand and report back. ;)

As a gay woman who has known many trans, male to female, female to male, some with breasts removed, most not, some with hormone replacement some not, none of the males had their genitals removed or altered except for the binding and tucking to conceal them under clothing.

I don't want to be in a bathroom with men in there'..male to female trans, I don't want that male energy in a female space. There's the predatory aspect that comes from testosterone and those who would act on it. I don't feel safe, plain and simple. Men may have a different perspective on this if they haven't had any experience with fending off unwanted attention from either sex. Think of the rage killings by males who slept with a woman who turns out to be a male. Why the rage?

Yes, I'm all for accepting people as they are but I also know that people use a false front to act upon their darkest urges.

Single person bathrooms are more prevalent now to support the safety of their customers.

Lucky Dog

I don't want to be in a bathroom with men in there'..male to female trans, I don't want that male energy in a female space. There's the predatory aspect that comes from testosterone and those who would act on it. I don't feel safe, plain and simple. Men may have a different perspective on this if they haven't had any experience with fending off unwanted attention from either sex. Think of the rage killings by males who slept with a woman who turns out to be a male. Why the rage?

An excellent summary of the concerns that cis women have if trans women are allowed to use women's facilities. That "male energy" makes you feel uncomfortable, to be sure.

But then....how would you feel if you were forced to use the men's room?** Terrified....right?

After all, if the trans woman is forbidden from using the women's facilities, then she has to use the men's facilities. If having the 'male energy' of a trans woman in the ladies' room creates a feeling of unsafety, sending her into the men's locker room is a recipe for disaster. Having someone who has all of the external appearances of a woman, save for her genitalia, getting undressed or showering in a room full of men presents an enormously high risk to her.

That's the conflict of interests. It certainly can be uncomfortable for cis women to have a trans woman in the female facilities. But it is really, really dangerous to have the trans woman using the male facilities.

In that kind of conflict of interests, it's perfectly natural to more heavily weigh - and advocate for - the interests of your group. You're a cis woman, so it's not surprising that your elucidation of the interests involved will emphasize the interests of cis women. But policy-makers have to balance the interests of both groups - and the interests of public safety. If allowing trans women in the ladies locker room makes cis women uncomfortable but presents only a small risk of physical harm or violence, while forcing trans women into the mens locker room presents a much larger risk of physical harm or violence, it's easy to see why a legislature might decide the former is a better policy than the latter.

Albaby

**Sadly, this isn't as ridiculous a thought experiment as it should be. The Moms for Liberty folks would love it if they could keep lesbians out of female bathrooms and locker rooms, so that their daughters would be free from the gaze (and "grooming") of people who lusted over them. They're at least as afraid of "lesbian energy" in the ladies locker room than you are of the "male energy" of transwomen. There's no real practical way to implement such a requirement - but if they had their way, you'd be forced into the male locker rooms along with the trans women.

"I don't want to be in a bathroom with men in there"

Lucky Dog, what's your take on unisex bathrooms.

I've been in a few. There were people who appeared to be female and people who appeared to be male. Nobody was harassing anybody.

People came in, used the facilities, and left.

Took some googling, but I finally located a case where a TG woman was arrested for trying to use a women's bathroom in the Philippines. 2019 Unknown charges were dropped.


https://www.rappler.com/nation/237701-trans-woman-...

Man, I wish we had an edit function. He's more on that case. It's the only case I've seen. I've seen more cases on expats getting into trouble, sometimes doing horrific and inhuman things than any of the TGs.

https://www.philstar.com/nation/2019/08/15/1943412...

albaby1, what you say has the appearance of rationality. You mention "groups" and "balance the interests of both groups" as if those groups weights were the same. They are not. It's about a tiny minority making an overwhelmingly larger majority feel uncomfortable. It's about one trans woman in a female facility making an eventually much larger number of women there feel uncomfortable.

I think you are aware of that extreme number imbalance between the groups you mention, that it's about a few individuals versus a huge group. That number imbalance results in an extremely unbalanced scale, with much more weight on the scale's "women" side.

That your arguments side of the scale is rather light you try to balance with your safety argument, this way putting more weight to the minority's interests (a in your eyes rather "harmless" "feeling uncomfortable" versus a "really dangerous"), to kind of evenly balance the weights of the groups on the scale. But this is just a trick and highly debatable --- contrary to the hugely different numbers of those groups (even talking about "groups" I think is deceiving, as it distorts that it's about a huge group versus some individuals).

What do I want to say with that? That it's not about rationality, also not about "safety", that this is just a lawyer's way of arguing his side, that in truth it's about "Zeitgeist" (A German word but I think used in English too), about opinion, about how far a society goes to protect the interests of minorities. Historically it was always the same (if I am not mistaken - which I very well might be): About the interests of the majority. As smaller a minority was as less the majority did listen to them, as less the majority was willing to sacrifice the interests of many for the interests of a few.

This just changes***. Either this "Zeitgeist" changes or modern media make it appear so. The current trend is that the interests of a minority count as much as that of a majority. While this is so more and more minorities appear, claiming the same rights in their field as the majority. Maybe this is an effect of modern media which allow minorities to appear more visible and larger as they in fact are, so that there is less awareness about the true differences in size between those "groups".


***Please note: Of course I am aware that I will be condemned for this post as everyone standing behind this changed "Zeitgeist" will see it as an attack on it. But if you read it objectively you'll see that it's just my explanation of what's happening today, without telling you my opinion about it. Everything else is made up in your mind :-)

I think you are aware of that extreme number imbalance between the groups you mention, that it's about a few individuals versus a huge group. That number imbalance results in an extremely unbalanced scale, with much more weight on the scale's "women" side.

I am very much aware of the extreme number imbalance. There are only a very, very small number of trans women. But you're wrong that this results in an unbalanced scale.

There are only a certain number of trans women. If there are only a small number of trans women to be harmed, then there are only a small number of trans women to cause harm. Most cis women will never encounter a trans woman in a locker room. While there are many more cis women than trans women, cis women's interests are directly affected when encounter a trans woman in a locker room (or similar facility). The scarcity of trans women doesn't just reduce the weight on "their" side of the scale - it also reduces the weight on the "cis women" side, because there just isn't much likelihood of cis women actually running into a trans woman in the locker room.

You need a trans woman to be present for there to be an issue for cis women. The scarcity of trans women just means a scarcity of circumstances where this is an issue for cis women. Since fewer than 1% of the population is a trans woman, statistically speaking fewer than 1% of locker rooms will have a trans woman in them (though obviously that will not be evenly distributed geographically).

In that scenario - the infrequent times when there is actually a trans woman at the gym or similar facility - is the trans woman more likely to cause harm in a women's locker room or be harmed in a men's locker room? If trans women are no more or less likely to commit assault (sexual or otherwise) than any other person with "male energy," then the answer is pretty obvious - they're far more likely to be assaulted in the men's locker room than commit assault in the women's locker room. It's also worth noting that "discomfort" isn't going to be limited to women, either - plenty of men will be uncomfortable with a trans woman in the men's locker room as well.

Again, the legislature faces a balancing test of competing interests. Allowing trans women to use the women's locker rooms will certainly result in an increase in "discomfort" felt by women. But it will also certainly result in far fewer assaults and other violent crimes overall than if they are required to use the men's room (and result some small quantum of "discomfort" felt by men). And even though - again - there's probably more women that will feel "discomfort" than trans women who will get assaulted or rape, I think that it's completely reasonable for a legislature to weigh the severity of harm as well as the number of people being harmed. We frequently impose small discomforts on large numbers of people in order to avoid really severe harms to a smaller group.

Appeals to the "zeitgeist" don't really change that equation. "The majority should be able to impose their own preference against minorities because there's more of them" is certainly a cultural norm that has existed for millennia in lots and lots of societies. But it's not really an argument that's going to hold much weight in an actual discussion of the policy costs and benefits, especially when there's a sizable delta in the risk of physical violence to the minority. I actually don't think it will hold much weight (in the long run) even outside of that. At one time, it made a lot of people feel "squicky" to see an interracial couple or two women holding hands; that's faded over time.

It's a classic balancing of interests problem. The legislature faces a choice. They can reduce the incidence of violent assaults, at the cost of having a finite (and likely very small) percentage of cis women encounter a situation that makes them feel uncomfortable, with the side benefit of reducing a finite (and likely even smaller) percentage of cis men encountering a situation that makes them feel uncomfortable.

You need a trans woman to be present for there to be an issue for cis women. The scarcity of trans women just means a scarcity of circumstances where this is an issue for cis women. Since fewer than 1% of the population is a trans woman, statistically speaking fewer than 1% of locker rooms will have a trans woman in them (though obviously that will not be evenly distributed geographically).

That you simply invert my number argument sounds correct at first glance, but is a misuse of statistics, as it completely leaves out the fact that 1 trans in a female facility does not make 1 woman feel uncomfortable, but eventually a large number in there, depending on the type of facility. Just think about a sex segregated sauna with a dozen women in there, and a trans entering (This is an example, for illustration purposes. Because of lack of knowledge of those things I have no idea whether in the US or elsewhere that's possible now or in the future).

It's about a tiny minority making an overwhelmingly larger majority feel uncomfortable. It's about one trans woman in a female facility making an eventually much larger number of women there feel uncomfortable.

Men talking about women. The number of women who will be upset about this isn't as large as you think. And it may be more difficult for the more masculine men to do the transition easily. I think the more feminine men will be accepted readily.

Our country does have rhetoric in the past about the "tyranny of the majority" but in a different sense. We have 11 different cultures (at least), and more subcultures, plus rural vs. city. My guess is a trans will head to the city and denser urban areas, where they won't stand out. Some places in the country may take a very long time to transition toward acceptance. Germany is the size of Montana. The US is as big as Europe all the way to the Russian borders. Some of our cultures are less accepting than others. It's never easy.

Lucky Dog, what's your take on unisex bathrooms.

I've been in a few. There were people who appeared to be female and people who appeared to be male. Nobody was harassing anybody.

People came in, used the facilities, and left.

Not Lucky Dog, but...the place I work was hosting a camp a couple years ago, and the camp people (without authorization) changed a long-time men's room to a unisex bathroom. This resulted in a 50-year-old man alone in a bathroom with a 10-year-old girl. Not a good situation IMO.

That you simply invert my number argument sounds correct at first glance, but is a misuse of statistics, as it completely leaves out the fact that 1 trans in a female facility does not make 1 woman feel uncomfortable, but eventually a large number in there, depending on the type of facility. Just think about a sex segregated sauna with a dozen women in there, and a trans entering (This is an example, for illustration purposes. Because of lack of knowledge of those things I have no idea whether in the US or elsewhere that's possible now or in the future).

I discussed that in my post. The number of cis women made to feel uncomfortable is likely larger than the number of trans women. But it's not "all cis women," because there just aren't that many trans women out there.

Though I think you're making a statistical error. If you have a thousand such saunas, only one or two of them will have a trans woman in them. You've got more cis women than trans women in the one or two saunas where they do mix (let's assume 0.2%). But you also have multiple cis women in the saunas that don't have trans women. The number of cis women who are interacting with the trans women is still only about the same proportion as the number of trans women in the population. They're interacting in "clumps," so within each sauna room you have a 12:1 ratio of cis women to trans women - but because the "clumps" are still small relative to the overall population, the proportion of cis women interacting with a trans woman doesn't really change. It's still only about 0.2%.

And of course, if you force the trans women off to the mens' locker room, that means the trans men are coming to the ladies locker room. So it's not like the cis women are now free from discomfort. Roughly the same number of women who would have encountered the trans woman are now encountering a trans man. He won't necessarily have a penis (though he might!), but he's going to otherwise have a male appearance.

Balancing the interests involved doesn't dictate a single right answer. Again, the policy-makers have a choice - one policy (possibly) makes more people uncomfortable but materially reduces the incidence of violent assault, and the reverse policy has the reverse outcome. Which is the "right" policy? Depends on how you balance people feeling uncomfortable with people getting the tar beaten out of them, adjusted for the relative population sizes. But the population size for cis women isn't all cis women, because (again) there are so few trans women that most cis women just aren't going to have that interaction.

It's still only about 0.2%.

OCD: It's still only about 2%. Lawyer no math good.

OCD: It's still only about 2%. Lawyer no math good.

OCD: It's still only about 2%. Lawyer no format good.

In Europe saunas are co-ed. Was in one in Austria (top floor of the hotel), and people were just walking around nude. I wonder if they have these issues there regarding trans folks, or if it's just America's immature attitudes towards "sex" (i.e. nudity, sex, LGBTQ, and everything else related) that is the problem.

In Europe saunas are co-ed. Was in one in Austria (top floor of the hotel), and people were just walking around nude. I wonder if they have these issues there regarding trans folks, or if it's just America's immature attitudes towards "sex" (i.e. nudity, sex, LGBTQ, and everything else related) that is the problem.

Can we stick to the reality of 2023 US of A?
Maybe all Americans are backwards-thinking sexually repressed (and stupid fat lazy) - whatever. That is the landscape.
America is not Europe in many other ways either. Good and bad.

Can we stick to the reality of 2023 US of A?

The reality is that 10 years ago there was a significant stigma associated with being LGBTQ. They weren't (generally) allowed to get married, etc. For some reason attitudes changed after that, and there was a wave of acceptance nationwide. It happened amazingly quickly. We should perhaps figure out why, and apply it to this situation that is being discussed. While it is somewhat different, consider Jim Crow. White people were uncomfortable sharing facilities with black people. Attitudes were changed, and now it isn't a problem.

Because the only reasonable solution I saw proposed was individual stalls everywhere (locker rooms, bathrooms, etc). That would eliminate the problem, but would be very expensive and onerous for businesses to provide. Everything else that LuckyDog and albaby are discussing are going to adversely affect one group or another in ways those groups consider unacceptable. (Though I do think albaby's "danger" is overblown...I can't imagine anyone being attacked in any locker room I've ever been in.)

Though I do think albaby's "danger" is overblown...I can't imagine anyone being attacked in any locker room I've ever been in.

It's not just "my" danger. It's LuckyDog's as well. In her description of concerns about having trans women in the female facility, she expressed that she didn't feel safe sharing the space with someone who had that 'male energy':

I don't want that male energy in a female space. There's the predatory aspect that comes from testosterone and those who would act on it. I don't feel safe, plain and simple.

However, as a general matter trans people (and trans women in particular) have a much higher frequency of being the victims of violence (and sexual violence in particular) than the population as a whole. I'm glad that your experience in life has been such that you can't imagine it - unfortunately, it's all too real for trans folks:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news...

To the extent that there is a risk of assault present in locker rooms, bathrooms, or other gender-segregated spaces, that risk is going to be higher for the trans woman in the male space. Which has to be considered in weighting the policy impacts

albaby1 says: However as a general matter trans people (and trans women in particular) have a much higher frequency of being the victims of violence (and sexual violence in particular) than the population as a whole., quoting this:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news...

Let's have a closer look at the evidence presented therein:

Researchers looked at data from a survey of nearly 3,700 U.S. teens aged 13-17. The study found that 36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom or locker room access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, according to a May 6, 2019 CNN article. Of all students surveyed, 1 out of every 4, or 25.9%, reported being a victim of sexual assault in the past year.

Albaby1 also said this: Since fewer than 1% of the population is a trans woman

Let's say "fewer than 1% means 0.5%". If the survey is representative that's 0.5% of the study's sample size 3700 =18 trans/nonbinary students. 36% of them reported having been sexually assaulted in the last 12 months (Where? In the bathroom or locker indeed --- or simply elsewhere? Your link doesn't specify). 36% of 18 = 6 students.

Do you really think those numbers of that "study" have statistical significance? I mean in statistics as science, not the way journalists are (ab)using statistics.

What I should have added to make my point about that being statistically completely insignificant more clear: The "study" says

Of all students surveyed, 1 out of every 4, or 25.9%, reported being a victim of sexual assault in the past year.

Now imagine instead of 6 trans/nonbinary students just 1 less and therefore 5 would have said they were sexually assaulted in the last 12 months. 5 out of those 18 trans/nonbinary students, that's 27% of them.

Where exactly is the greater danger compared with the 25.9% of all students that said they were sexually assaulted in the last 12 months (Let's not even mention the now inverted percentages if just 2 less trans/nonbinary would have said.....).

Seems if anything then this "study" is evidence for the opposite.

Now imagine instead of 6 trans/nonbinary students just 1 less and therefore 5 would have said they were sexually assaulted in the last 12 months. 5 out of those 18 trans/nonbinary students, that's 27% of them.

You're misreading the data. The 25.9% wasn't the background rate of sexual assault for cisgender people. That was the background rate of sexual assault among the overall population of transgender and non-binary youth that responded to the survey. The background rate of sexual assault for cisgender youth is about 15% for cisgender girls and 4% for cisgender boys. The study was looking at the differential caused by restricted locker room access within transgender/non-binary respondents. The sample size and gap in violence reported is much larger comparing trans/non-binary against cisgender folks.

But admittedly, the article isn't as clear as the actual study, which can be found here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC88495...

If you like, the wiki entry on the topic also has links to several other studies that demonstrate that trans folks face a higher incidence of violence than their cis counterparts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_tra...

General response, not to anyone specifically.

Women-only spa's 'no male genitals' rule ignites transgender debate 2017 Toronto Canada

Controversy over a female-only spa's 'no male genitals' policy has reignited debate over the rights of transgender people to access traditionally gender-exclusive spaces, even as the federal government pushes stronger protections prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

The uproar over Toronto's Body Blitz Spa prompted a flurry of complaints on social media, with longtime regular Shelley Marshall among those vowing to boycott the luxurious retreat.
.....
But the whole flap has been disappointing to client and York University Prof. Sheila Cavanagh, who specializes in gender and sexuality studies.

She says that aside from violating provincial laws governing gender discrimination, such incidents highlight the difficulty in adhering to strictly binary definitions of gender.
.......
But Cavanagh says her research on violence in gendered bathrooms found no evidence of a trans woman assaulting a non-trans woman in a public space.

'The fear of violence against women is unfortunately used to justify trans-exclusion policies,' she says, noting that many women shelters have trans-positive policies.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2017/06/14/women-onl...

This resulted in a 50-year-old man alone in a bathroom with a 10-year-old girl. Not a good situation IMO.

...and...?

I'm a bit north of 50. There was a little girl next to me at the row of sinks in the unisex bathroom I mentioned. She seemed absolutely unfazed by the situation.

I'm a bit north of 50. There was a little girl next to me at the row of sinks in the unisex bathroom I mentioned. She seemed absolutely unfazed by the situation.

In the situation I was referring to, the girl was fazed. So was the guy. Neither was expecting the other.

But being "fazed" isn't exactly the reason why I was thinking a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl alone in a bathroom is not a good situation. There are much worse things that can happen. I wasn't thinking an explanation would be needed, but maybe it is? I'm glad nothing happened with you, but not everyone is you.

In the situation I was referring to, the girl was fazed. So was the guy.

You didn't include that in your post, nor the degree to which they were fazed.

There are much worse things that can happen.

Of course. The 10 yr old girl could be raped by a friend or relative in a no abortion state where there are no unisex heads.

Of course. The 10 yr old girl could be raped by a friend or relative in a no abortion state where there are no unisex heads.

I wasn't going to inject politics into the discussion, but if you insist, please know that my politics are quite liberal.

Nevertheless, I still don't think a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl in a bathroom together is a good thing. Bad things can indeed happen elsewhere, and a 10-year-old boy could get raped or "groomed" in a men's room. There is no perfect solution--human nature and our society being what it is, there is no shortage of bad things that can happen. But why create situations that lend themselves to making it easier for victimizing behaviors?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you support legislation to make it more difficult for people to acquire guns (so do I), even though most people aren't murderers and most gun owners don't do harm to others. Why is this different?

a 10-year-old boy could get raped or "groomed" in a men's room

..... or in the sacristy, or confessional booth.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you support legislation to make it more difficult for people to acquire guns (so do I), even though most people aren't murderers and most gun owners don't do harm to others. Why is this different?

I don't see where there's any analogy to discuss. Bathroom occupants and gun risk? Are you suggesting the little girl might shoot an old man in a stall or clobber him with a ceramic toilet lid.

Guns, people, bathrooms....?

Guns, people, bathrooms....?


Nein nein nein 😀 ( which was Herman Cain's campaign slogan IIRC. Dude was a true believer in Trump and died of Covid because he didn't take the vaccine while his fearless shameless conscienceless leader did. But that's neither here nor there.)

Pister is talking about how the actions of a small minority cause the authorities to react to place restrictions on a large majority. Like ah's commiting gun violence trigger gun laws that restrict responsible gun owners.

I don't see where there's any analogy to discuss. Bathroom occupants and gun risk? Are you suggesting the little girl might shoot an old man in a stall or clobber him with a ceramic toilet lid.

Guns, people, bathrooms....?

The analogy is:

"Why make guns more easily accessible to the bad actors?" is similar to "Why make innocent children more easily accessible to the bad actors?"

<<The analogy is: "Why make guns more easily accessible to the bad actors?"
is similar to "Why make innocent children more easily accessible to the bad actors?">>

Thank you, Finally an on topic post!

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can." ~Frank Zappa

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church: Over 1,900 Minors Abused in Illinois

A new report by the attorney general of Illinois covering decades names more than 450 credibly accused sexual abusers, including priests and lay religious brothers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-catholic-cle...

"most people aren't murderers and most gun owners don't do harm to others.......

Why make guns more easily accessible to the bad actors?" is similar to "Why make innocent children more easily accessible to the bad actors?"

Mmm, yeah, I don't see it.

We know the downside of guns because of the soaring number of shootings.

Can you provide data suggesting that an equivalent risk exists from the existence of unisex bathrooms, whether the risk is to a child?

We know there's a substantial risk to children posed by secular authority figures regardless of the parish protocols.

And an afterthought.... does your concern extend to little boys being abused in unisex bathroooms by old women?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.