|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 20, 2024 16:11:35 GMT
You may not have noticed this, but the monuments at Mt Rushmore and at Stone Mountain are controversial today. But anyways, there's not reason for such a monumental project at the expense of tax payers that only benefits one person who more than likely is going to turn around and demand to use the bathroom with other females anyways. It's the technical feat that piques my interest. At the expense of tax payers? Are trans people not tax payers? At any rate, I don't disagree that a separate bathroom doesn't resolve the equity component. They might as well make the bathrooms gender inclusive. We can't give everything to everybody. Segregationists were tax payers too, and a much bigger block than trans people, but we outlawed it out of practicality. |
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Nov 20, 2024 16:16:28 GMT
Easy solution - convert the restrooms so each cubicle is a self-contained unit (mini room) with toilet, sink, dryer and mirror. Remove all of the communal stuff like the sinks outside the cubicles. Done. It's becoming more and more common over here for bathrooms to be converted to unisex with the door on each stall going from floor to ceiling, so that no one can try to peek inside. The sinks are still outside and are used by men and women. I don't like it because when I go to a public restroom for a leak (which is 95% of the time), I'd much rather use a urinal than go in a stall with a toilet. It's much faster and usually cleaner. Women I've spoken to don't like it either not because they are afraid of being raped by a transwoman but because they simply don't want to be in the presence of men in a restroom. As for the idea of making each unit into a complete mini-bathroom with a sink, it would be not only extremely costly but it would also greatly reduce the number of available stalls. So this proposal is rejected. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Nov 20, 2024 16:23:26 GMT
Easy solution - convert the restrooms so each cubicle is a self-contained unit (mini room) with toilet, sink, dryer and mirror. Remove all of the communal stuff like the sinks outside the cubicles. Done. It's becoming more and more common over here for bathrooms to be converted to unisex with the door on each stall going from floor to ceiling, so that no one can try to peek inside. The sinks are still outside and are used by men and women. I don't like it because when I go to a public restroom for a leak (which is 95% of the time), I'd much rather use a urinal than go in a stall with a toilet. It's much faster and usually cleaner. Women I've spoken to don't like it either not because they are afraid of being raped by a transwoman but because they simply don't want to be in the presence of men in a restroom. The restrooms are the mini-rooms that contain the toilet, sink, dryer, mirror - not the larger leading to them. So they are not sharing the restroom with men. And yet it works fine in the UK so it must be doable. So your assessment is rejected. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 20, 2024 16:23:41 GMT
It's the technical feat that piques my interest. At the expense of tax payers? Are trans people not tax payers? At any rate, I don't disagree that a separate bathroom doesn't resolve the equity component. They might as well make the bathrooms gender inclusive. We can't give everything to everybody. If we wanted to, we could. We (taxpayers) are rightfully doing it with accessibility. Every new public building has to be accessible, even without the use of your legs. New publicly founded multifloor housings must not be built with just stairs. Where there were only stairs before, there are now also ramps, elevators and escalators, if the place has to be accessible by everyone. It's expensive, but it's the right thing to do. Even though people who can't use their legs or don't have legs are a minority. It could also be done with bathrooms and changerooms, if the political will was there. But as this thread shows, there are still plenty of right-wingers who like gender segregation and apartheid. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 20, 2024 16:26:29 GMT
No, you're deflecting. How did we keep trannies out of women's rooms before we started letting them in? No. No, we did not. But you create this fake issue about papers or strip searches, because you people would rather invent a nonexistent issue than simply admit men shouldn't fucking be in women's rooms. I'm not deflecting in the slightest. lol It's a SILLY bill. It's just silly "virtue" signaling. If it was about something real, it wouldn't be that bathroom.
Silly.
Silly.
Silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by cat on Nov 20, 2024 16:30:16 GMT
It's the technical feat that piques my interest. At the expense of tax payers? Are trans people not tax payers? At any rate, I don't disagree that a separate bathroom doesn't resolve the equity component. They might as well make the bathrooms gender inclusive. We can't give everything to everybody. Segregationists were tax payers too, and a much bigger block than trans people, but we outlawed it out of practicality. That was racism. The fact black people's taxes paid for their infrastructural segregation made the insult all the more unjust. |
|
|
|
Post by gwyn on Nov 20, 2024 16:35:37 GMT
Is anyone remotely surprised? And who will be policing this? Oh, please. As if you didn’t make an entire thread here just to let us know you’d been banned from some forum for being a TERF. *Actual* 2024 leftists hate you, call you the enemy and chase you off torches in hand. Face it. You’re a Bill Clinton era leftist. The Left left us a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmywynn on Nov 20, 2024 16:42:12 GMT
If those delicate Congress men and women are afraid to be in the bathroom with a trans Congressperson then they can just wear a diaper. It would be fitting since they are acting like babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 20, 2024 16:44:03 GMT
We can't give everything to everybody. Segregationists were tax payers too, and a much bigger block than trans people, but we outlawed it out of practicality. That was racism. The fact black people's taxes paid for their infrastructural segregation made the insult all the more unjust. You're assuming that no black people were segregationists, which is not the case. For instance, Muhammed Ali was a very famous one and even endorsed George Wallace....yes, that George Wallace. |
|
|
|
Post by cat on Nov 20, 2024 16:47:50 GMT
That was racism. The fact black people's taxes paid for their infrastructural segregation made the insult all the more unjust. You're assuming that no black people were segregationists, which is not the case. For instance, Muhammed Ali was a very famous one and even endorsed George Wallace....yes, that George Wallace. That's no real excuse either, as plenty of white people were not. |
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 20, 2024 16:50:03 GMT
If those delicate Congress men and women are afraid to be in the bathroom with a trans Congressperson then they can just wear a diaper. It would be fitting since they are acting like babies. Or the cry baby trans person can wear a diaper if they are afraid to be in the men's room. Funny how this only goes one way when LGBT activists talk about it....makes you think.... |
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Nov 20, 2024 16:54:21 GMT
I'm not deflecting in the slightest. lol It's a SILLY bill. It's just silly "virtue" signaling. If it was about something real, it wouldn't be that bathroom.
Silly.
Silly.
Silly.
How will Nancy Mace's new bill improve these situations? Be specific. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 20, 2024 17:17:53 GMT
How will Nancy Mace's new bill improve these situations? Be specific. Women: Uncomfortable with men in women only spaces.
Bill: Prevents that. Restores common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Factchecker3Point0 on Nov 20, 2024 17:20:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 20, 2024 17:49:12 GMT
How will Nancy Mace's new bill improve these situations? Be specific. Women: Uncomfortable with men in women only spaces. Bill: Prevents that. Restores common sense.
Let's modify the setting a little bit. Fragile white men: Uncomfortable with black men in changerooms. Bill: Reintroduces race-segregated changerooms from the Jim Crow era. Common sense? Silly. A better solution would be: No common changerooms and showers. Only private ones. It's expensive; but if we value rights of the individuals, it would be the more just solution. |
|
