Transgender 'agenda' fought by unlikely alliance...

Y-e-s, YES and yes, I know the Washington Times is a connn-serv-ah-tive news source [[thus any word written must be dismissed).

However, I knew there was going to be conflict, cross purposes, and conflation here... saw it coming around the corner. And AS usual women are most impacted:

From article:

“I guess you would call it strange bedfellows, radical feminists and conservatives and religious people who are all just trying to protect women and girls,” said Emilie Kao, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at Heritage. “It’s that simple. It’s not a big mystery.”

Given that “politics is the art of coalition building,” the partnership shouldn’t come as a surprise, said Jennifer Braceras, director of the Independent Women’s Law Center.

“But I do think that there is something deeper here, and that is that some feminists and many women on the right share an essentialist view of what it means to be female,” Ms. Braceras said. “We share the view that sex — as opposed to gender — is biological, and we understand that men and women are different in some important ways that impact policy.”

Their priorities include opposing the Equality Act, passed by the House in May, which would amend federal civil-rights law to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Foes warn that it would outlaw sex-specific public accommodations such as restrooms, locker rooms and prisons, as well as women’s sports, which supporters deny.

Transgender agenda fought by unlikely alliance: Radical feminists and conservative women

Trans Athletes Are Posting Victories and Shaking Up Sports

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-children.html

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."
Albert Einstein

"You can't fix stupid"
Ron White

The international sports league has already proven that there is a 15% difference in competing men verses women,there is a reason men and women sports teams were in different categories.

Just like the woman who is trying to do the whole sex change process on her 6 year old son,I have a friend whose daughter is in high school where you are not cool unless you slept with another woman.

12 year olds sex texting.

Steroids are banned from sports because they place an unfair advantage in competition but yet it is okay for a man to be involved in woman's sports.

I think it is a contest on who can come up with the most ludicrous ideas.

It is coming down to in a first date scenario instead of asking what job one works, it is,can I take a peek down there to see if you have any extra equipment that I should know about?

Attachment 39202

This has simply gone too far... I was watching a news program on Youtube the other day that showed a high school girls track & field competition where 1st, 2nd and 3rd place were all transgender! They had also been breaking long standing school records, and the times were not even close.

These athletes had the muscle tone, build, facial features [[and athletic capability) of men, and I don't care what they wanted to be addressed as there was no doubt that they did not belong on that track competing against women. The most disturbing part was listening to the 4th or 5th place female athlete talk about losing not only the opportunity to place, but how it might affect her opportunities in track after high school.

Yep. In the interest of protecting one group, another group is now being marginalized. Tell me how this is fair or equitable?

Increasingly, even some of the radical feminists are starting divide and to bristle under the transgender agenda as it is being advanced [[sports, incarceration centers, locker rooms, etc.).

The sports disparity clearly speaks to biology and the crucial distinctions therein. Though to speak on such is to be transphobic.

But more women in general are breaking the NEW shackles to do so!

Women will be the voice of change here.

I kinda think it is cool that as a man I can now hang out in the woman’s locker room and if somebody calls me a perv I can sue them.

^^^Yep, men still come out on top [[if the reasoning is about equality--:rolleyes:--)

Very few men will complain if a transgendered/ female-to-male or any woman for that matter use their lavatories/ bathrooms!

But how's about the other way around?

So much for the progress.

More women are becoming WOKE to how this is eh' working out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

^^^Yep, men still come out on top [[if the reasoning is about equality--:rolleyes:--)

Very few men will complain if a transgendered/ female-to-male or any woman for that matter use their lavatories/ bathrooms!

But how's about the other way around?

So much for the progress.

More women are becoming WOKE to how this is eh' working out!

---

Setting aside the sports thing for a moment........

I don't really get the reasoning behind washrooms being sorted by sex in the first place.

In your home, presumably, mom, dad, brother, sister, husband/wife all use the same facilities.

Its easy enough to address privacy concerns by extending stall to the floor and having the come close enough to the ceiling that no one is poking their head or cell phone over for a peek.

People can wash their hands at the same sink fear of violence or moral calamity.

Its much more efficient to run unisex washrooms, that way you don't have complaints in workplaces or concert/sports venues when crowds skew towards one sex vs the other.

***

I should add, Toronto is inching in this direction, as of now, all new community recreation centres in Toronto have universal change rooms. [[no not showers); but changing areas are private for each person, and you're expected to be clothed/swimsuit in any common areas.

***

In respect of sports the difference in physical ability as it relates to higher muscle mass of males in particular [[along w/size/reach etc.0 is the reason for making the sexual distinction in sport.

Not all sports make meaningful distinctions.

[[Boxing/Wrestling use weight classes, but track and field makes no differentiation based on height/leg length)

That said, in general, where distinctions on sex are removed, it will severely limit female participation at the top levels.

I think how you address this is predicated on what you believe high-performance sport is about.

If its about encouraging participation and promoting physical fitness, there should be more distinctions [[weight class, height etc.) rather than fewer.

If its only about Higher, Stronger, Faster for humanity, then remove all the barriers and the consequence be damned.

I have an open mind on the subject, but expect most would prefer to maintain or increase distinctions rather than abolish them.

^^^ Well most men don't care who's in the bathroom/ showers with them.

But for example, when my daughter was young I wouldn't have relished the idea of her catching a glimpse of a mans anatomy [[or admixture therein) as he turned from a urinal - not full zipped! So open urinals would have to go, if we're doing open bathrooms. Stalls only?

But perhaps some feel and judge that their children or girls in particular don't really need such un-progressive eh' um, protection?

Yes sports FORCES objective thinking from the 'mind' on the subject while the bathroom remains arguably subjective!

Again, men [[per biology, even withstanding hormone treatments) will have an advantage against most women in sports. This needs be acknowledged [[as you do) without fear of reprisals before who against who is addressed.

But, as and since the world view proffered is that the sexes [[um, 'genders') are the same [[except for when it's expedient that they're not) we have a very, VERY long road towards equality.

Ironically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

I don't really get the reasoning behind washrooms being sorted by sex in the first place.

In your home, presumably, mom, dad, brother, sister, husband/wife all use the same facilities.

Its easy enough to address privacy concerns by extending stall to the floor and having the come close enough to the ceiling that no one is poking their head or cell phone over for a peek.

People can wash their hands at the same sink fear of violence or moral calamity.

Its much more efficient to run unisex washrooms, that way you don't have complaints in workplaces or concert/sports venues when crowds skew towards one sex vs the other.

---

The reasoning behind separate washrooms probably has a lot to do with the perceived safety of women. I wouldn't want my female relatives to go into some washrooms where there are all guys and no women hanging around even if they couldn't see into the stalls. Imagine women doing things they do in front of mirrors with some guys leering. That's another thing. If I just want to rinse my hands and get out, I don't want women blocking the sinks preening themselves.

There are situations where separate facilities make no sense. My former mechanic in Rapid City, MI built a car repair shop. He griped that the building code required a men's and women's bathroom as there was seldom more than himself in the building. At large outdoor festivities, port-a-potties are lined up and no one thinks too much about who used them previously unless some guy didn't lift up the seat.

As you mentioned, crowds do skew to one sex or the other. That problem could partially be handled wth a middle section that could be opened to either the men's or women's side as needed. Highway rest stops often have restroom overflow areas so one part of a bathroom can be cleaned.

"Family" bathroom in big department stores make a lot of sense too. They are kind of a catch all for parents with multiple children, an overflow for overcrowded or bathrooms being cleansed, and a place for those who might be uncomfortable with there only being two sexes.

In France, after paying to use a bathroom, sometimes there were female cleaners mopping in the common area behind guys using the urinals. Somehow, that was considered normal but men and women used separate bathrooms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

But for example, when my daughter was young I wouldn't have relished the idea of her catching a glimpse of a mans anatomy [[or admixture therein) as he turned from a urinal - not full zipped! So open urinals would have to go, if we're doing open bathrooms. Stalls only?

---

I would say first that I see no issue w/shifting urinals into stalls, or ditching them; or considering the 1/2 partitions you sometimes see that block 'side views'.

Whatever, shrug.

In respect of kids seeing the anatomy of the opposite sex, in a non-sexual context......I'm also a shrugger.

Kids when young often share a bath or shower with a parent, sometimes of the opposite sex; in fact that's damned near universal outside North America where we can be fussier because water is much cheaper.

Its what a body looks like, big deal. Now if someone is trying to get in your personal space w/their junking hanging out, that's a problem. [[for a kid) [[or anyone non-consensually).

But I digress, because the point of universal design minimizes that risk.

Still, all beaches in Ontario permit toplessness and Toronto has an all-ages nude beach on the islands; the world didn't and doesn't end because 'boobs!' LOL....or a penis....moving on.

****

On the specific issue of security, the thing about universal washrooms is they receive more total traffic [[witnesses); and are easily patrolled by cleaning staff or security of either sex.

When washrooms are single-sex; one set will often be under-served in those respects, at least in smaller buildings, because its a hassle if you have only one guard or one cleaner on duty.

I would argue mixed-sex or unisex washrooms are likely to be safer, rather than less so.

****

On sports and the broader issue of equality; I think there is a need to differentiate in the public mind between equality and identicality [[sameness).

People of opposite sex [[or intersex) or any gender identity can be equal, as in equally important, of equal value, with equal rights; but not be the same.

Treatment that is equally fair or comparable may not appear the same.

A great example is medications.

This is an area women have been historically disadvantage in, in that that most medications were historically tested only on men, and differences in dosing for women were a simple body-mass guess.

One could accept that the intention of excluding women as test subjects was a generous one, rather than sexist, but the effect is that medications which react differently based on sex may not have been correctly evaluated putting women's health at risk.

The point in the example being that giving a woman the same dose of the same medicine for the same condition might be equal, but cause irreparable harm.

Equality here ought to mean best attempt at equivalent outcome; which may in turn require treating a condition differently between the sexes.

This is nuanced thinking that applies to many things from the serious to the trivial.

For what purpose do we have 'women's sports'?

I think straight-forwardly, the answer is to provide women the opportunities to participate in high-performance sport, both for the physical benefits, but also for the connections/comradeship than men enjoy, particularly in team sports.

In, the U.S. uniquely, there is also the issue of athletic scholarships. I must confess, something I don't support at all, as I think universities are suppose to be academic institutions and sport at that level should be supporting quality of life, particularly for resident students; I don't think they should be given a place of special import as grounds for admissions or aid.

That said, if one accepts the above as reasons for women's sports, blurring the line of who can participate based on gender identity does not serve that objective.

^^^ Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Interesting point about medicines tested on men vs. women.

Indeed there is alot here, not initially considered. That now must be.

I'm glad we're having dialogue here where usually any push-back or questions are summed up as transphobia -- with silence the refuge for those not desiring such accusation.

And yes, while occasionally seeing parents bodies in a shared household is not uncommon, I'd ABSOLUTELY not want my child [[dare I say boy or girl) seeing strangers genitalia in public settings.

NOPE.

I certainly don't think I'd be alone in that! Or a have to be republican.

It is interesting how when it comes to climate change everybody is a moron for not listening to the scientific “proof” but when it comes to the science of there are two genders,male and female,it is a normal form of subjective thought.

The “free the nipple” freethenipple.org has won in a few cites across the country,the right for women to go topless in public but yet they are not en mass running about topless given the opportunity.

Maybe it is because they feel uncomfortable in doing so,so is the answer to force them?

There are also topless or nude beaches in Florida and across the country,those who wish to choose to participate can by thier own freedom.

In the military and other settings men shower in the presence of other men,women do not shower with the men.

This is all about conformity and removing an individuals thoughts and feelings under the guise of equality and forcing others on the beliefs of a few,we are not robots and or drones,we are individuals that have the right to our individuality.

On the sports aspect,a man becomes a woman and joins the woman’s sports team with a proven advantage,so what are the women allowed to do in order to level the playing field?

How come you do not see women becoming men and joining the teams on a professional level?

Maybe because they know there is a difference and they would have no advantage in doing so.

We have a level of morals and beliefs as individuals and the laws and rules of the land have been established in those.

That group of “American” Mormons that were attacked in Mexico was a shoot off of the Morman branch that moved to Mexico in order to continue the practice of multiple wife’s and the age limits of marriage.

We as a country have decided that it was not acceptable to have multiple wives and marry 12 year olds.

So should we also change that?

Everybody is not equal so why try and force everybody to be equal?

Single-occupant, lockable restrooms?

¯\_[[ツ)_/¯

^ sure,do the numbers on the cost to implement single occupant rest rooms,each with its own plumbing system,it would be in the millions for places like stadiums and movie theaters,let alone the line that one would have to stand in.

It is cool to see that you actually have input outside of what a link tells you how to think,makes me think that there is hope for humanity after all.

Let alone the massive outcry against the male population for failing to put the seat down when they leave.

Men [[the ones with that little extra thing),go in the men’s room,women go in the women’s room,it is not that complicated.

I could post pictures that show the difference between men and women because some seem confused,but this is a family site so I proably should refrain from doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Single-occupant, lockable restrooms?

¯\_[[ツ)_/¯

---

Sure, spend many billions of dollars to totally remodel and rebuild millions of public restrooms to accommodate the personal preferences of some transgender users. Sounds like an excellent plan!

Even ignoring the huge costs and square footage requirements. In areas where they're not heavily monitored lockable, single user public restrooms bring along an entirely new set of problems. The least of which would be illegal drug use and of course the rest area and truck stop perverts that would routinely ignore the "single-occupant" designation.

So much contrived indignity, so few solutions.

Stir 'em up s'more, boys! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Sure, spend many billions of dollars to totally remodel and rebuild millions of public restrooms to accommodate the personal preferences of some transgender users. Sounds like an excellent plan!

---

huh?

This is not expensive or complicated. Its replacing existing stalls with full height except for 1/8 inch gap at the top for air circulation.

You can leave the 2 washrooms in a pair side by side as separate rooms for the time being in any simplistic reno.

Later when due for large-scale renos, you simply create a single-point of entry door, blocking off the one you won't want to use anymore, and poke a single hole through the wall at some point that allows an internal door for circulation between the formerly discrete places.

Its not complicated or expensive. There are lots of facilities like this all over the world already.

I can't speak for Detroit's nightclubs, but its damned near the norm in Toronto's.

And the benefits of change are far greater than any one person or small group's comfort, that's a nice side benefit.

Unisex, washrooms with single-occupant stalls are much more cost-efficient, better at meeting capacity needs when a sex-imbalance occurs at a given location, and are safer rather than less safe.

Quote:

---

In areas where they're not heavily monitored lockable, single user public restrooms bring along an entirely new set of problems. The least of which would be illegal drug use and of course the rest area and truck stop perverts that would routinely ignore the "single-occupant" designation.

---

And this is not a problem right now, in sex-specific washrooms?

Really?

Which restroom should this person use?

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d7/1f/79/d...5d78857d81.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

So much contrived indignity, so few solutions.

Stir 'em up s'more, boys! ;)

---

What would Thom Hartman say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

What would Thom Hartman say?

---

Cha-Ching!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Which restroom should this person use?


https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d7/1f/79/d...5d78857d81.jpg

---

For a moment I thought that was Wildthing

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cj26UoKQDQQ

Something to somehow tie the questioning of the transgendered agenda solely to the right wing and or Donald Trump.

When clearly that is not the case per the articles etc referenced! HAH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

What would Thom Hartman say?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

huh?

This is not expensive or complicated. Its replacing existing stalls with full height except for 1/8 inch gap at the top for air circulation.

---

What you're describing is not a single user, lockable restroom. The expense of converting public restrooms into single user, lockable restrooms would be absolutely enormous! In most buildings it would involve a massive amount of demolition work and moving plumbing that has been planned far in advance and set in concrete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

And this is not a problem right now, in sex-specific washrooms?

Really?

---

Of course it's a problem in sex-specific washrooms, but again with single user restrooms it would be much worse. When I lived in Sarasota, Florida I worked in a warehouse facility that had multiple single user unisex restrooms that were accessed from outside as they were shared by multiple tenants. You needed a key to use them, but the local homeless population somehow found a way around that. Working the night shift I would routinely find the restroom doors locked from the inside for long periods of time with no response from those using them. Finding soiled clothing and drug paraphernalia was a fairly regular occurrence. Since they knew no one could walk in on them, people would also use the sinks to bath and even the floors as beds to escape the weather.

Look, I'm not opposed to unisex bathrooms. When properly designed they can be a godsend to those with opposite sex young children or disabled dependents. That said, the idea that the fix for this issue is to gut, redesign and remodel all public restrooms to accommodate those that refuse to use the facility that aligns with their sex is preposterous.

Canadian Visitor, I Googled "single sex bathrooms Canada" to verify your mention that single sex bathroom renovations were common in Toronto. The first two linked articles listed were -

Canadian malls add gender-neutral washrooms to promote inclusivity

and
Gender-neutral bathrooms gaining popularity across Canada

Canada is indeed pushing this more than the U.S.. The beneficiaries seem to be the LGBT mini-crowd who advocate it and property owners who can save money by forcing everyone into the same bathroom in the name of being progressive. I also saw a claim that parents could go into bathrooms with opposite sex kids. However, parents do that now with their small children.

The shopping mall article mentions one mall that has one same sex bathroom as well as seven sets of single sex bathrooms. That seems a reasonable response to political imperatives. Some low profit margin restaurants cited expense problems were they to renovate.

The second article is more about why all this is going on in Canada from the perspective of the LGBT community. "Michael Bach, CEO of the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion, said Bill C16, which was passed last summer, means every public facility, including elementary schools, needs to conform and accommodate the LGBTQ2 community." Canada is ahead of the U.S., if "ahead" is the proper term", in terms of legislating this progressive agenda item.

Scrolling way down to the comments on this second article, I can't find one bit of support for single sex bathrooms from real women. The first comment begins, "Not one woman in my circle of family and friends wants this". Maybe there is a disconnect between the progressive agenda and what women want on this point.

I'm more ambivalent although I prefer single sex facilities. Port-a-potties, family restrooms and other common restrooms aren't a big deal but I don't like having a common area between the stalls and wash basins with a door to the hallway. I would suggest more of an open wall instead of a door separating single sex bathrooms from the hall. That way, women wouldn't have to go into a big room where men might be hanging around to get to a locked toilet. Glancing in from the hall, one might see people washing their hands but I think it would remove the worry about women having to walk into a potentially scary situation.

I remember that the former Chicago Greyhound station used to have a women only sitting area. It always had a lot of women in it. Their choice but now progressives have prioritized the wishes of the political trans community over the choices of women.

^ CCDI

CCDI believes that effectively managing diversity and inclusion, and human rights and equity is a strategic imperative for all Canadian organizations that wish to remain relevant and competitive.

In other words if you do not believe as we do and follow our agenda,we will make sure that you no longer remain relevant or competitive.

Another great Canadian “non profit” designed to push the socialist agenda of conform or we will make sure you do not exist.

Where do they get thier funding?

I cannot get the 'reply with Quote' option to work [[for some reason) so I'll have to manage cut and paste... in part Oladub post #27 said:

The first comment begins, "Not one woman in my circle of family and friends wants this". Maybe there is a disconnect between the progressive agenda and what women want on this point.

Yep, the comment section of many articles is where real truth is found. Most women do not want this. We know intuitively if not politically that this is all heading down a bad path. But to tow the progressive agenda many went along... especially in the gay community initially. That is changing.

'Glancing in from the hall, one might see people washing their hands but I think it would remove the worry about women having to walk into a potentially scary situation.

I remember that the former Chicago Greyhound station used to have a women only sitting area. It always had a lot of women in it. Their choice but now progressives have prioritized the wishes of the political trans community over the choices of women.'

Yes, the thread starts of conveying that women of varied strata and political leanings are questioning the trans agenda.

In the quest for equality and protection of one group, another is having theres removed. The whole bathroom thing for example only works if women cead their desire to not share EVERY space, with every gender or sex variance at any time.

Thus we get the confusion, cross purposes and conflation. Obviously so as some of the same women initially championed gender fluidity etc. So we've got some back-tracking to attend to here.

Further, I personally, do not find our brave new progressive world so neatly constrained and mindful that inappropriate sexual trespass will not be an issue impacting children in these new bathroom configurations.

The culture clearly shows more sexual depravity, not less. You don't have to be Mrs. Grundy to see this. I'm not buying that removing sex distinctions resolves this. Nope.

And NO child of mine would not be part of the trial-run.

Again the cross purposes and out workings: Ask women how they would feel about having transgendered men serving prison time side by side. Most would not desire such.

And as I said women will be the voice of challenge in this.

I may not be a feminist but I fully champion women [[and men) who are speaking out!

I cannot edit or revised what I wrote above on any level. Meant to italicize Oladub's comments below for distinction from what I wrote [[thanks):

'Glancing in from the hall, one might see people washing their hands but I think it would remove the worry about women having to walk into a potentially scary situation.

I remember that the former Chicago Greyhound station used to have a women only sitting area. It always had a lot of women in it. Their choice but now progressives have prioritized the wishes of the political trans community over the choices of women.'

OK, quoting ability has resumed. Good...

IMO, the rub is that the construct of 'inclusion' is too often presented as a standard of value stand-alone.

What's forgotten in the wave of progress is the judgement as to WHAT is included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

^ CCDI

CCDI believes that effectively managing diversity and inclusion, and human rights and equity is a strategic imperative for all Canadian organizations that wish to remain relevant and competitive.

In other words if you do not believe as we do and follow our agenda,we will make sure that you no longer remain relevant or competitive.

Another great Canadian “non profit” designed to push the socialist agenda of conform or we will make sure you do not exist.

Where do they get thier funding?

---

I see the problem w/the quote response continues......

***

In respect of Oladub's links to reports......note what the activist had to say on the subject..........

“The best practice would be don’t bother with urinals. Have stalls that have floor to ceiling walls and doors so that people can’t look in. A private space with locks, they do their business, and come out to wash their hands and it’s no big deal,” said Bach.

This is more or less what I'm advocatingIn respect of how the washroom entrance is organized, most major public washrooms [[malls, arenas, no longer have doors in Canada, then have an open entrance that goes around a corner)

An example below is from alamy.com [[stock image) of a Toronto mall washroom.

https://www.alamy.com/entrance-to-a-...e66388602.html

I really don't get the safety concerns, as if a man dressed as a man can't just walk into a woman's washroom today or vice versa. There's no guard at the door [[in most buildings).

As with the one-time custom of having men and women have different entrances to bars and separate sitting areas, and boys and girls having separate entrances to schools, the times have changed.

I'm by not means an ideologue about this; the status quo doesn't affect me any; but neither does changing it.

As to 'sexual depravity' I have my own preferences, as we all do; but I would reserve the word depravity as with criminality to refer to non-consensual sex; or that involving legal minors for said purposes.

After that....what you're into with another consenting adult is really none of my business.

In the context of a restroom, kindly allow the space to be used for its intended purpose and keep things hygienic [[and legal); after that, shrug.

But lets be clear, as someone who spent sometime as a cinema usher back in my college days; single-sex washrooms, used more or less as intended, are often far less than pristine. They are also often used for sexual purposes; though not as often as some fear; but more often than the naive know.

But hell, never mind the washroom....LOL

I caught more than one amorous couple when locking up at night, right in the cinema........

I'm curious about some here feel about other, arguably related changes, which I'm assuming are also present in the U.S. [[its been a couple of years since my last visit, and I confess to not paying close attention for them either..)

Breastfeeding.

In Canada, increasingly occurs in public, on park benches, in restaurants [[at the table) etc etc.

To be clear, its not happening everywhere all the time, or anything close, but its certainly not particularly hidden.

Most women are somewhat discrete, but some not so much.

Breastfeeding rooms are increasingly standard in most large Canadian malls as well.

Babychange stations are now ubiquitous in men's and women's washrooms; and often outside any stalled area; though may sometimes be found in the accessible stall.

Its just part of a shift in culture from everything is private/dirty/hidden to more of a shrug, its part of life, getting on with it.

I thought I was clear re. sexual depravity as applied to children in my last post. And, non-consensual behaviors/ action upon whoever where it could occur.

That reserve, more to the point those actions still leave us with quite a bit to question.

Sexual preference is a separate issue. Your business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

As to 'sexual depravity' I have my own preferences, as we all do; but I would reserve the word depravity as with criminality to refer to non-consensual sex; or that involving legal minors for said purposes.

---

With respect, I do not view the support of open-bathrooms as merely the happy shrugging off of more stodgy-old-remnants of victorian views.

No. To argue from that position is a straw man set up. And I've noticed this form or argument is often used in this context.

The 'getting on with it' option ain't working out so well as we see women of disparate groups uniting to push back as per the early article of this thread.

Again, I don't see broad or specific evidence per the breaking down of socialization/ increasing psychosis etc. that inappropriate sexual trespass could NOT impact children in these new facilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Its just part of a shift in culture from everything is private/dirty/hidden to more of a shrug, its part of life, getting on with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

The 'getting on with it' option ain't working out so well as we see women of disparate groups uniting to push back as per the early links of this thread.

---

Doubtless there are some who oppose this change; but its well underway here in Ontario and I have yet to hear of a protest or a large number of objections........

[[at this point the changes here are entirely voluntary, there are no code requirements....yet)

Quote:

---

Again, I don't see broad or specific evidence per the breaking down of socialization/ increasing psychosis etc. that inappropriate sexual trespass could NOT impact children in these new facilities.

---

I just don't see any evidence of increased risk.

You and I would entirely agree that children should not be sexually trespassed.

I'm simply suggesting I see no evidence that changing the way washrooms are designed/operated will have any negative effect in this regard.

You realize its not merely Canada where this is increasingly common, its been a thing in Europe for awhile.

There is no evidence, so far as I'm aware of increasing rates of child sexual assault.

As such I find the argument problematic.

^^^ Ah yes, Europe!

Ok. If you don't see the risk, you don't/ wont.

As for me and mine, where we can, we WILL avoid.

Nobody has answered the question in post 21.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Nobody has answered the question in post 21.

---

Your post reinforces the fact that one's sex may not always correspond with their physical appearance. That said, how masculine/feminine someone appears should have nothing to do with what restroom they should be using.

I had some old Polish great-aunts that if they were not wearing dresses and babushkas you would have sworn that they were 75 year old fat men [[And many still would have questioned it when they were wearing them) :) What restroom should they have been using? :cool:

Looking more closely at the new disparity in sports when transgenders compete with girls/ women:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...ral-complaint/

Girls say Connecticut’s transgender athlete policy violates Title IX, file federal complaint

From article:

The athletes who filed the complaint include Selina Soule, a junior at Glastonbury High who has been vocal about her thoughts on competing against transgender athletes, and two others whose names and schools were not disclosed for fear of retaliation.

“The girls repeatedly emphasize they have friends who are transgender; they have nothing against these individuals as individuals," said Holcomb, the attorney. "They just want fairness in sports, and biology is what matters in the sporting context, not a person’s identity.”