@MayfairCity, UtYou make some really good points and yes I can
say Penn State (I just really hated to see Joe Paterno get taken down in the
My new concern is girls in middle school/high school in locker rooms with FEMALE
gym teachers who are Lesbians. This has been in the news more recently, even in
Utah. Looking back, I now know the reason for much weirdness on the
part of a gym teacher I had. Now, the butch hair and many other things about her
actions would be not only a tip-off but a dead giveaway. Then, we were just
puzzled and a little disturbed.So while I sure don't want men
who think they are women in restrooms, I also don't want my girls under the
care of a Lesbian, or boys under the care of a Gay. (Can you say Penn State?)
Why cannot they start building a 3rd type of bathroom for those of a special
gender. Problem solved.
The phrase "Common Sense isn't Very Common" rings so true with this
article and issue. Regardless of your mental state or awareness, we were all
born with certain physical characteristics. Keep it simple. As one comment from
above pointed out, we do have family restrooms in many places. These can work
for all. Let's don't try and confuse everyone on a simple issue of
which bathroom do I go to. Look down and you should be able to figure it out. As
another person pointed out, we are not in a restroom to watch a movie or eat
dinner. You have heard of the KISS principle. Apply it.
I see a lot of concern over "protecting women" from men in the
restrooms. Why aren't we concerned about protecting straight men from gay
men in the restroom (or perhaps more appropriately, protecting gay men from
potentially abusive straight men...)? No one goes to the bathroom for
protection, they go there to elminate waste.We have stalls. I never
look at the person next to me, regardless of sex and gender. If I did, I would
be a creep, regardless of sex and gender. I have used unisex bathrooms before
and my experience was remarkably similar to a segregated bathroom experience.Why are we sexualizing poop and pee? This is not about sex, gender,
sexual orientation, or sexuality in any way! It's about using the bathroom
in privacy, which is nothing new. We already have the right to poop in privacy!
Why does it matter which door we go through?Segregation holds
symbolic value for those who believe that pooping is sexual.
For those who are doubting whether this is already occurring, there are plenty
of reputable news sources reporting on the bill in California. I know DN
doesn't like hyperlinks, but google "california school transgender
bathroom law" and there will be several links, including on from NPR, hardly
a right-wing fear-mongering source. I agree with Danny Chipman's solution:
most public buildings already have a separate and private family/handicapped
restroom, which could easily be adapted to include the transgender community.
When people tell you that there are fifteen inches in a foot, you know something
is wrong. That's how obvious that fact is.When people tell you
that sex is irrelevant and that gender is completely arbitrary, unnecessary, and
flexible, you know something is wrong. That's how obvious that fact is.I don't understand why people who hate home schooling want to do
silly things like confounding public restrooms. It just gives people more
reason to home school their children.
This whole idea of opening up restrooms, locker rooms and showers to anyone who
is confused about their gender identity despite their obvious physical identity
is very troubling. Supposedly such actions to are to help prevent
"bullying" of a gender confused individual. Sadly, I fear that if gender
confused youth take advantage of these ill conceived laws, it may very well
result in the individual's actions being seen by his/her peers an affront
to their privacy and moral decency. This may have the unintended consequence of
that person being singled out, ridiculed and shunned which would be unfortunate
indeed. In Utah and in other States we have intelligent people who know better
and who can promote and support laws that protect privacy, decency and common
morality. Let the voice of moral people everywhere be heard in opposition to
these ridiculous and misguided laws that offend our logic, intelligence and our
sense of public responsibility.
This is not a 'conservative' vs 'liberal' issue. Just
because something is new, does not mean it is progress. Those who oppose
something new are not doing it simply because they are backwards or
conservative. Nazism in the 1930's was probably based on socialistic ideas
of progress and modernity."If you have a factory and you have
jobs for 40 people, but you hire 60, that is not socialism, that is
Lincoln asked, how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.This is yet another
aspect of an unreasoning trend for redefining traditional terms to solve a
non-existent problem. Presenting the naked truth uncovers the underlying
pretence of sophisticated sensitivity and objectivity. What these "gender
identity" arguments really represent is flat denial of physical reality.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. It never will.
I am now waiting for the first lawsuit where someone finds a man in a
woman's locker room. Other women are yelling at this person. Another man or
men run in and forcefully remove this individual from the locker room. The
individual takes everyone to court saying they are bigots and hate others. How
are we going to know who is gender confused in this situation and who is just
playing the game. Who are you going to support in this case?
The problem is there is no absolute definition for man and woman that every
falls under. There is a wide spectrum with every different anatomical and/or
genetic combination imaginable. We are thus discriminating against
people if we forced them to fit into a binary gender solution when they
don't. It is a very complicated issue.
The goal of either gender in the loo is the same. And here is a hint; ladies
have figured out how to manipulate the seat to their needs. Instead of trying to
attach value as to whom should go where, just go. Others are waiting. Time is
You hear a lot from the conservative crowd about unisex bathroom, showering and
locker room facilities, even that they’re already established in
California schools and coming soon to a school near you, courtesy of Obama and
the federal government.Frankly, the right has called wolf so often
and so wrongly nearly every time that I am distrustful of anything they say. On
the surface, the idea seems improbable—just another senseless,
truth-challenged right wing talking point.Could anyone free of
malice against the President authoritatively clarify this issue once and for
California's public schools already have addressed this issue. You get to
use the restroom that you feel like you want to use. I understand home schooling
has increased significantly in California.
For once I agree with Chris B.
I have kids, so this concept is not new to me. It's called a
"family" restroom.With showering facilities, though, I think
we are crossing into new territory. If we're wanting to accommodate
everyone and his (or her or whatever combination you want to invent) dog, then
why not do away with the "shower trough" and instead have individual
rooms with a shower and changing room that you can enter, fully clothed, and
leave, fully clothed. Everybody's happy.
Kalinra, you may not like the delivery of either the article or Chris B, but
they understand clearly the issues. Those who support the "rights" of
people to use whatever locker room they wish to focus solely on protecting the
"rights" of these gender-confused people and pretend as if the rights of
people who aren't gender-confused and wish to be in restrooms with only
same gender people need no protecting. I have a wife and a daughter. They
have the right to only have women in their locker rooms with them. If the left
refuses to protect those rights then the conversation can't even begin on
The article linked to misstates the laws and rulings to the point that there is
no credibility in anything stated. And Chris B., as well as the
author of the linked article, clearly misunderstand the issue at hand.
If liberals want to propose a new definition of what makes someone a man and
what makes someone a woman, I'm open to hearing it. But certainly it
can't be "whatever they say they are"We know that
saying something doesn't make it so. We also know believing something
doesn't make it so.What exactly is the reason men aren't
in womens locker rooms if that reason can be nullified by a man who THINKS it
shouldn't exist? If there are two people born male and
determined to be male by medical professionals, but one of them think/wishes he
were a woman.What exactly are we protecting a woman in a female
locker room from such that the man who knows he is a man wouldn't be
allowed but a man who thinks/wishes he were a female would be allowed?
Someone who is a man but thinks he is a woman is a man.Someone who
is a woman but thinks she is a man is a woman.Its really not that
confusing.Only men belong in male locker rooms.I am not
a flying purple dinosaur even if I say I am.I am not a flying purple
dinosuare even if I think I am.I am not a flying purple dinosaur
even if a doctors says I think I am.Similarly, a man is a man even
if a doctor acknowledges he THINKS he is a woman.Women deserve the
right of privacy to only have women in their locker rooms.When
competent medical professionals(typically at birth) use their medical training
to say whether someone is male or female, that holds more weight than the
beliefs or desires of someone later in life.