Gender revolution continues in the public bathroom

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    City, Ut

    You 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 mess)

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Feb. 25, 2014 3:15 a.m.

    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?)

  • Sore loser tampa, fl
    Feb. 23, 2014 1:03 a.m.

    Why cannot they start building a 3rd type of bathroom for those of a special gender. Problem solved.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 21, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Man in the Mirror Layton, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    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.

  • desnewsreader Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Feb. 21, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 21, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    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 stupidity."

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    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.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:15 a.m.

    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?

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 10:51 p.m.

    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 value here.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    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 all?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    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.

  • push-n-day-zees Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    For once I agree with Chris B.

  • Danny Chipman Lehi, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    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 this subject.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    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?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    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.