Eleven States sue over federal Transgender Bathroom policy

[Vassenor]

My biggest problem is this: Leftists support this stuff, while at the same time attacking the one thing that would allow women, even if it is a statistically rare event, to protect themselves from rapists, transgenders to protect themselves from idiots who think with their fists, and the populace to protect ourselves from any future totalitarian government.

Says the person who wants to force transwomen to be in the same room as said "idiots who think with their fists".

[Free Missouri]

So by your standards anyone who hates murderers are racist, anyone who hates rapist are racist, anyone who hates child molesters are racist...Anyone who disagrees with you is racist. Homosexuality and all it details has always been a plague on society.

No.
How can something practiced by only, according to you, two percent of people be a plague anyway? Doesn't seem like much of a problem.

This isn't a topic because this is the issue of the thread.

Executive orders before have been things like naming an army base, issuing a medal, or ordering certain executive departments with the power to do so to do certain things (like ordering the military to change X regulation or whatever), not to force state-run schools nationwide, bypassing a certain level of federalism, to accept your rule by executive fiat.

The application of title 9 to transgender students was a directive of the Department of Education, and not an order of President Obama. It may certainly violate federalism; he didn't do it himself, though.
Franklin Roosevelt did have at least 9,066 executive orders, however, one of which herded Japanese-Americans into desert camps because they were supposedly all sleeper agents of the immortal Imperial Japanese Military.
(e: Nope, that's cumulative executive orders, for all time.)
If this is to be believed.
Frankly, the disturbing thing to me is that they rely on the idea of sexgender to justify the matter. But it's not like they could get further with sex and gender anyway.

and Roosevelt, despite how loved he apparently is by many people, was a regressive authoritarian who committed vast breaches of the constitution and of human rights justifying them "oh, but this (the exact opposite of what got us out of the 20-21 depression) will save our economy" and "oh, but we're at war."

Sounds similar, doesn't it. Sounds almost exactly like the last four Presidents (Obama, the Bushes, and Clinton.)

[Free Missouri]

My biggest problem is this: Leftists support this stuff, while at the same time attacking the one thing that would allow women, even if it is a statistically rare event, to protect themselves from rapists, transgenders to protect themselves from idiots who think with their fists, and the populace to protect ourselves from any future totalitarian government.

Says the person who wants to force transwomen to be in the same room as said "idiots who think with their fists".

No, says the person who wants the federal government to butt out of the states business so that the states can evolve themselves, as was the way our system was meant to be set up.

[Benxboro]

1. Any time somebody comes into an LGBT thread talking about "muh states' rights", it seems otherwise.

2. Not the topic of the thread.

3. Not a mental or neurological disorder.

4. Why is gender identity in scare quotes? Also, bathrooms are based on gender, not sex. There's a reason why bathroom signs are labeled "men" and "women" and have pictures of stick figure men and women, instead of "XY" and "XX" and showing pictures of genitalia.

5. 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment. Also, Title IX, which, while not a part of the constitution, is pre-existing federal law that prevents discrimination in education on the basis of sex and/or gender.

6. Just because you repeatedly say its a mental disorder, does not make it so. Just like no matter how much the Flat Earth society proclaims the Earth is flat, doesn't mean its flat.

7. I have no clue what the hell that has to do with anything I said. And if that's enough to make somebody a regressive, then the people pushing this lawsuit are regressives, too.

8. Small, vocal minority that the right wing loves to craft into a strawman to attack the rest of us.

9. You said, ironically, after supporting a lawsuit based on people's feelings and fears trumping trans people's god-given, constitutionally-protected right to piss and shit in safety.

1. Fallacy by Generalization.

2. Simply pointing out the regressive left (yes, they are regressive, as they seek to regress our country to a unitarian government rather than one of federalist values) is hypocritical in their protection of the states rights' and of constitutional rights.

3. It's literally the dissonance between what your brain says and what your body says. That, by definition, is a neurological and mental disorder which people need help (of which "corrective" surgery should be the heavily regulated last-resort that requires a long and drawn out decision)

4. Because this whole gender=/=sex stuff is something I approach skeptically. (and before you idiots bring it up: there are only two genders: Male/Female)

5. Please, do show the Jurisprudence that applies either of those (one designed to protect people from, guess what, the FEDERAL Government, the other designed solely to provide the first 10 amendment protections against the states after an anti-federalist president won a war and got shot for it.). Title IX's application has nothing to do with transgenders, it has to do with inequal treatment of girls and boys.

6. it is though, by definition, a http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults, just because you people deny it, doesn't mean it isn't a mental, psychological and neurological disorder.

7. Because that is what the regressive left is.

8. You mean like the left strawmans right-wing people of all colors to be fucking Ayn Rand or even to want somalia? And last I checked it was a large amount of the left that wanted to ban weapons based entirely on cosmetic features.

9. You said, ironically, as leftists continue to attempt to deconstruct the right to self-defense that protects gays, transgenders and your average joe all.

My biggest problem is this: Leftists support this stuff, while at the same time attacking the one thing that would allow women, even if it is a statistically rare event, to protect themselves from rapists, transgenders to protect themselves from idiots who think with their fists, and the populace to protect ourselves from any future totalitarian government.

Likely because the leftist experience with guns has been with them as more of a threat to life and limb and property and less of a tool to protect them. Personally, I view them like I'd view a poisonous snake that spat plasma balls at anything it saw.

[USS Monitor]

Sherman was part of the problem. He loved the South and opposed black suffrage, as well as insisting that his "40 acres and a mule" order was never meant to be permanent and making no effort to stop the government from returning the land to its white owners.

...
Fuck you, Sherman!

Yeah, he was kind of a douche. OTOH, he was really good at his job and I think the world would be a worse place if he hadn't been there to capture Atlanta.

[Free Missouri]

1. Fallacy by Generalization.

2. Simply pointing out the regressive left (yes, they are regressive, as they seek to regress our country to a unitarian government rather than one of federalist values) is hypocritical in their protection of the states rights' and of constitutional rights.

3. It's literally the dissonance between what your brain says and what your body says. That, by definition, is a neurological and mental disorder which people need help (of which "corrective" surgery should be the heavily regulated last-resort that requires a long and drawn out decision)

4. Because this whole gender=/=sex stuff is something I approach skeptically. (and before you idiots bring it up: there are only two genders: Male/Female)

5. Please, do show the Jurisprudence that applies either of those (one designed to protect people from, guess what, the FEDERAL Government, the other designed solely to provide the first 10 amendment protections against the states after an anti-federalist president won a war and got shot for it.). Title IX's application has nothing to do with transgenders, it has to do with inequal treatment of girls and boys.

6. it is though, by definition, a http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults, just because you people deny it, doesn't mean it isn't a mental, psychological and neurological disorder.

7. Because that is what the regressive left is.

8. You mean like the left strawmans right-wing people of all colors to be fucking Ayn Rand or even to want somalia? And last I checked it was a large amount of the left that wanted to ban weapons based entirely on cosmetic features.

9. You said, ironically, as leftists continue to attempt to deconstruct the right to self-defense that protects gays, transgenders and your average joe all.

My biggest problem is this: Leftists support this stuff, while at the same time attacking the one thing that would allow women, even if it is a statistically rare event, to protect themselves from rapists, transgenders to protect themselves from idiots who think with their fists, and the populace to protect ourselves from any future totalitarian government.

Likely because the leftist experience with guns has been with them as more of a threat to life and limb and property and less of a tool to protect them. Personally, I view them like I'd view a poisonous snake that spat plasma balls at anything it saw.

meanwhile, the majority of Libertarians' and Conservatives' experience with guns has been with them more as an equalizer and force of protection when facing threats that are impossible for the average-sized/muscled person to overcome, say a pack of coyotes, a bear, a group of thugs, a totalitarian government, etc. etc. etc. I view them as I wish most of our country would view our military: not an force used to assault others but one which we use solely to respond to direct threats to our country.

[Benxboro]

No.
How can something practiced by only, according to you, two percent of people be a plague anyway? Doesn't seem like much of a problem.

The application of title 9 to transgender students was a directive of the Department of Education, and not an order of President Obama. It may certainly violate federalism; he didn't do it himself, though.
Franklin Roosevelt did have at least 9,066 executive orders, however, one of which herded Japanese-Americans into desert camps because they were supposedly all sleeper agents of the immortal Imperial Japanese Military.
(e: Nope, that's cumulative executive orders, for all time.)
If this is to be believed.
Frankly, the disturbing thing to me is that they rely on the idea of sexgender to justify the matter. But it's not like they could get further with sex and gender anyway.

and Roosevelt, despite how loved he apparently is by many people, was a regressive authoritarian who committed vast breaches of the constitution and of human rights justifying them "oh, but this (the exact opposite of what got us out of the 20-21 depression) will save our economy" and "oh, but we're at war."

Sounds similar, doesn't it. Sounds almost exactly like the last four Presidents (Obama, the Bushes, and Clinton.)

From here I found a chart that showed that GDP dropped from 103.6 billion to 56.4 billion from 1929-33, then rose from 1933-7 to 91.9 billion, dropped in 1938 to 86.1 billion and rose from 1939-45 to 223.1 billion.

Yes, he did many things for political and other forms of expediency, and so did they.
I think that at least some of Roosevelt's means were justified at the very least by their ends. Most certainly not EO 9066 and its' ends, no; that was racist bullshit. He certainly did his best to incorporate his actions into constitutionality, though, during the time of the New Deal.

...
Fuck you, Sherman!

Yeah, he was kind of a douche. OTOH, he was really good at his job and I think the world would be a worse place if he hadn't been there to capture Atlanta.

True...I guess we should have left him where Clausewitz said we should, out of statecraft.

[Grenartia]

Sherman was part of the problem. He loved the South and opposed black suffrage, as well as insisting that his "40 acres and a mule" order was never meant to be permanent and making no effort to stop the government from returning the land to its white owners.

...
Fuck you, Sherman!

Indeed.

[Frank Zipper]

I assume it is no coincidence that it is almost a list of the confederate states.

That's what happens when you overthrow an evil slaver regime and you don't denazify properly. I am sorry my generation did not do a better job of cleaning up our mess.

It is striking to me that the list is so similar, North Carolina are not one of the eleven but they are following the same route.

[Benxboro]

Likely because the leftist experience with guns has been with them as more of a threat to life and limb and property and less of a tool to protect them. Personally, I view them like I'd view a poisonous snake that spat plasma balls at anything it saw.

meanwhile, the majority of Libertarians' and Conservatives' experience with guns has been with them more as an equalizer and force of protection when facing threats that are impossible for the average-sized/muscled person to overcome, say a pack of coyotes, a bear, a group of thugs, a totalitarian government, etc. etc. etc. I view them as I wish most of our country would view our military: not an force used to assault others but one which we use solely to respond to direct threats to our country.

That's certainly a less adrenaline-filled way to look at guns.

[USS Monitor]

and Roosevelt, despite how loved he apparently is by many people, was a regressive authoritarian who committed vast breaches of the constitution and of human rights justifying them "oh, but this (the exact opposite of what got us out of the 20-21 depression) will save our economy" and "oh, but we're at war."

Sounds similar, doesn't it. Sounds almost exactly like the last four Presidents (Obama, the Bushes, and Clinton.)

From here I found a chart that showed that GDP dropped from 103.6 billion to 56.4 billion from 1929-33, then rose from 1933-7 to 91.9 billion, dropped in 1938 to 86.1 billion and rose from 1939-45 to 223.1 billion.

Yes, he did many things for political and other forms of expediency, and so did they.
I think that at least some of Roosevelt's means were justified at the very least by their ends. Most certainly not EO 9066 and its' ends, no; that was racist bullshit. He certainly did his best to incorporate his actions into constitutionality, though, during the time of the New Deal.

Yeah, he was kind of a douche. OTOH, he was really good at his job and I think the world would be a worse place if he hadn't been there to capture Atlanta.

True...I guess we should have left him where Clausewitz said we should, out of statecraft.

He always refused to run for office, no matter how many times people asked, because he knew he wouldn't be as good at politics as he was on the battlefield.

[Benxboro]

From here I found a chart that showed that GDP dropped from 103.6 billion to 56.4 billion from 1929-33, then rose from 1933-7 to 91.9 billion, dropped in 1938 to 86.1 billion and rose from 1939-45 to 223.1 billion.

Yes, he did many things for political and other forms of expediency, and so did they.
I think that at least some of Roosevelt's means were justified at the very least by their ends. Most certainly not EO 9066 and its' ends, no; that was racist bullshit. He certainly did his best to incorporate his actions into constitutionality, though, during the time of the New Deal.

True...I guess we should have left him where Clausewitz said we should, out of statecraft.

He always refused to run for office, no matter how many times people asked, because he knew he wouldn't be as good at politics as he was on the battlefield.

Prescient man.

[New Edom]

1. Any time somebody comes into an LGBT thread talking about "muh states' rights", it seems otherwise.

2. Not the topic of the thread.

3. Not a mental or neurological disorder.

4. Why is gender identity in scare quotes? Also, bathrooms are based on gender, not sex. There's a reason why bathroom signs are labeled "men" and "women" and have pictures of stick figure men and women, instead of "XY" and "XX" and showing pictures of genitalia.

5. 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment. Also, Title IX, which, while not a part of the constitution, is pre-existing federal law that prevents discrimination in education on the basis of sex and/or gender.

6. Just because you repeatedly say its a mental disorder, does not make it so. Just like no matter how much the Flat Earth society proclaims the Earth is flat, doesn't mean its flat.

7. I have no clue what the hell that has to do with anything I said. And if that's enough to make somebody a regressive, then the people pushing this lawsuit are regressives, too.

8. Small, vocal minority that the right wing loves to craft into a strawman to attack the rest of us.

9. You said, ironically, after supporting a lawsuit based on people's feelings and fears trumping trans people's god-given, constitutionally-protected right to piss and shit in safety.

1. Fallacy by Generalization.

2. Simply pointing out the regressive left (yes, they are regressive, as they seek to regress our country to a unitarian government rather than one of federalist values) is hypocritical in their protection of the states rights' and of constitutional rights.

3. It's literally the dissonance between what your brain says and what your body says. That, by definition, is a neurological and mental disorder which people need help (of which "corrective" surgery should be the heavily regulated last-resort that requires a long and drawn out decision)

4. Because this whole gender=/=sex stuff is something I approach skeptically. (and before you idiots bring it up: there are only two genders: Male/Female)

5. Please, do show the Jurisprudence that applies either of those (one designed to protect people from, guess what, the FEDERAL Government, the other designed solely to provide the first 10 amendment protections against the states after an anti-federalist president won a war and got shot for it.). Title IX's application has nothing to do with transgenders, it has to do with inequal treatment of girls and boys.

6. it is though, by definition, a http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults, just because you people deny it, doesn't mean it isn't a mental, psychological and neurological disorder.

7. Because that is what the regressive left is.

8. You mean like the left strawmans right-wing people of all colors to be fucking Ayn Rand or even to want somalia? And last I checked it was a large amount of the left that wanted to ban weapons based entirely on cosmetic features.

9. You said, ironically, as leftists continue to attempt to deconstruct the right to self-defense that protects gays, transgenders and your average joe all.

My biggest problem is this: Leftists support this stuff, while at the same time attacking the one thing that would allow women, even if it is a statistically rare event, to protect themselves from rapists, transgenders to protect themselves from idiots who think with their fists, and the populace to protect ourselves from any future totalitarian government.

I think then don't oppose it. If feminists and LGBT people REALLy want equality, then give it to them. No more modesty, no more chivalry, nothing but pure equality, but they cannot just have their cake and eat it too. No more of this holding back from criticizing them, no more protecting them just because someone looked at them wrong. No. They get what men have had for milenia--total responsibility. Across the board. Enough of this fake equality that pretends to be equality.

As for transgender people, I think that's fair too. But then I think that along with that, the moment that is enshrined in law, no one can ever claim oppression systematically again. After all, who you are is in your mind, right? So if a Black guy wants to say he is white, and you have to recognize it, then a Whit eguy can say he is black and you have to recognize that too. No one will be responsible and everyone will be responsible. Win win.

[New Owca]

1. Fallacy by Generalization.

2. Simply pointing out the regressive left (yes, they are regressive, as they seek to regress our country to a unitarian government rather than one of federalist values) is hypocritical in their protection of the states rights' and of constitutional rights.

3. It's literally the dissonance between what your brain says and what your body says. That, by definition, is a neurological and mental disorder which people need help (of which "corrective" surgery should be the heavily regulated last-resort that requires a long and drawn out decision)

4. Because this whole gender=/=sex stuff is something I approach skeptically. (and before you idiots bring it up: there are only two genders: Male/Female)

5. Please, do show the Jurisprudence that applies either of those (one designed to protect people from, guess what, the FEDERAL Government, the other designed solely to provide the first 10 amendment protections against the states after an anti-federalist president won a war and got shot for it.). Title IX's application has nothing to do with transgenders, it has to do with inequal treatment of girls and boys.

6. it is though, by definition, a http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults, just because you people deny it, doesn't mean it isn't a mental, psychological and neurological disorder.

7. Because that is what the regressive left is.

8. You mean like the left strawmans right-wing people of all colors to be fucking Ayn Rand or even to want somalia? And last I checked it was a large amount of the left that wanted to ban weapons based entirely on cosmetic features.

9. You said, ironically, as leftists continue to attempt to deconstruct the right to self-defense that protects gays, transgenders and your average joe all.

My biggest problem is this: Leftists support this stuff, while at the same time attacking the one thing that would allow women, even if it is a statistically rare event, to protect themselves from rapists, transgenders to protect themselves from idiots who think with their fists, and the populace to protect ourselves from any future totalitarian government.

Five genders, actually - Male, Female, Herm, Genderless and Intersex. I add these three because there are causes of people being born with multiple sex organs, or fewer sex organs or unidentifiable sex organs.

Look, the pisser is the pisser. I don't really care who goes in after me or comes out before me. A toilet - the actual object - is itself unisex. Why is there still a fuss about this?

[New Edom]

1. Fallacy by Generalization.

2. Simply pointing out the regressive left (yes, they are regressive, as they seek to regress our country to a unitarian government rather than one of federalist values) is hypocritical in their protection of the states rights' and of constitutional rights.

3. It's literally the dissonance between what your brain says and what your body says. That, by definition, is a neurological and mental disorder which people need help (of which "corrective" surgery should be the heavily regulated last-resort that requires a long and drawn out decision)

4. Because this whole gender=/=sex stuff is something I approach skeptically. (and before you idiots bring it up: there are only two genders: Male/Female)

5. Please, do show the Jurisprudence that applies either of those (one designed to protect people from, guess what, the FEDERAL Government, the other designed solely to provide the first 10 amendment protections against the states after an anti-federalist president won a war and got shot for it.). Title IX's application has nothing to do with transgenders, it has to do with inequal treatment of girls and boys.

6. it is though, by definition, a http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults, just because you people deny it, doesn't mean it isn't a mental, psychological and neurological disorder.

7. Because that is what the regressive left is.

8. You mean like the left strawmans right-wing people of all colors to be fucking Ayn Rand or even to want somalia? And last I checked it was a large amount of the left that wanted to ban weapons based entirely on cosmetic features.

9. You said, ironically, as leftists continue to attempt to deconstruct the right to self-defense that protects gays, transgenders and your average joe all.

My biggest problem is this: Leftists support this stuff, while at the same time attacking the one thing that would allow women, even if it is a statistically rare event, to protect themselves from rapists, transgenders to protect themselves from idiots who think with their fists, and the populace to protect ourselves from any future totalitarian government.

Five genders, actually - Male, Female, Herm, Genderless and Intersex. I add these three because there are causes of people being born with multiple sex organs, or fewer sex organs or unidentifiable sex organs.

Look, the pisser is the pisser. I don't really care who goes in after me or comes out before me. A toilet - the actual object - is itself unisex. Why is there still a fuss about this?

There's a fuss about it because these used to be private areas. It used to be that ti was a big deal for men and women who were not related to be alone in private together.

I actually do have a good reason. How can this possibly be countenanced alongside women only rail cars? I wish progressives wuold pick a narrative and stick to it. Either men are a menace to women or they are not.

[New Owca]

Five genders, actually - Male, Female, Herm, Genderless and Intersex. I add these three because there are causes of people being born with multiple sex organs, or fewer sex organs or unidentifiable sex organs.

Look, the pisser is the pisser. I don't really care who goes in after me or comes out before me. A toilet - the actual object - is itself unisex. Why is there still a fuss about this?

There's a fuss about it because these used to be private areas. It used to be that it was a big deal for men and women who were not related to be alone in private together.

I actually do have a good reason. How can this possibly be countenanced alongside women only rail cars? I wish progressives would pick a narrative and stick to it. Either men are a menace to women or they are not.

Yes, because as we all know, men are violent boors who think of nothing but sex and beer, and women are delicate flowers who hide a lustful, sultry underside...
Sarcasm aside, like I say, I couldn't care less about who's in the loo with me. Hell, I have to use a cubicle because I cannot go to the loo even if another chap is at the urinals - a woman is not going to make that worse.
Down the road from me is a shop that has a strange system - it's toilets aren't gendered. Instead, there's an octagonal room one goes into and is faced with doors all around oneself. Any of these doors leads one into a toilet room. So it's basically seven cubicles, but without gender specifications.

I disagree with women-only rail cars too. Surely the increase of foot traffic reduces the risk of assault? And it ignores the possibility of women-on-women attack.

[USS Monitor]

Five genders, actually - Male, Female, Herm, Genderless and Intersex. I add these three because there are causes of people being born with multiple sex organs, or fewer sex organs or unidentifiable sex organs.

Look, the pisser is the pisser. I don't really care who goes in after me or comes out before me. A toilet - the actual object - is itself unisex. Why is there still a fuss about this?

There's a fuss about it because these used to be private areas. It used to be that ti was a big deal for men and women who were not related to be alone in private together.

I actually do have a good reason. How can this possibly be countenanced alongside women only rail cars? I wish progressives wuold pick a narrative and stick to it. Either men are a menace to women or they are not.

"Progressives" aren't a hivemind. They don't all have the same opinions because they aren't all the same person.

[New Edom]

There's a fuss about it because these used to be private areas. It used to be that it was a big deal for men and women who were not related to be alone in private together.

I actually do have a good reason. How can this possibly be countenanced alongside women only rail cars? I wish progressives would pick a narrative and stick to it. Either men are a menace to women or they are not.

Yes, because as we all know, men are violent boors who think of nothing but sex and beer, and women are delicate flowers who hide a lustful, sultry underside...
Sarcasm aside, like I say, I couldn't care less about who's in the loo with me. Hell, I have to use a cubicle because I cannot go to the loo even if another chap is at the urinals - a woman is not going to make that worse.
Down the road from me is a shop that has a strange system - it's toilets aren't gendered. Instead, there's an octagonal room one goes into and is faced with doors all around oneself. Any of these doors leads one into a toilet room. So it's basically seven cubicles, but without gender specifications.

I disagree with women-only rail cars too. Surely the increase of foot traffic reduces the risk of assault? And it ignores the possibility of women-on-women attack.

Hey, when the rape culture thing goes away, I'll support this. Until then I don't want to get slapped with an indecent exposure charge because some woman saw me taking a leak.

[New Edom]

There's a fuss about it because these used to be private areas. It used to be that ti was a big deal for men and women who were not related to be alone in private together.

I actually do have a good reason. How can this possibly be countenanced alongside women only rail cars? I wish progressives wuold pick a narrative and stick to it. Either men are a menace to women or they are not.

"Progressives" aren't a hivemind. They don't all have the same opinions because they aren't all the same person.

As I said above: when rape culture goes away then I'll accept this idea. Until then I do not want the explosive mix of women and men sharing washrooms. I know they do in some corporate places, but busineses tend to have fairly clear rules about social conduct. Schools and universities cave every time someone screams microaggression because of Title IX or whatever equiavelent is in whatever nation in the West. Drawing a line. If progressives are not a monolith, let them prove it.

[Neutraligon]

Yes, because as we all know, men are violent boors who think of nothing but sex and beer, and women are delicate flowers who hide a lustful, sultry underside...
Sarcasm aside, like I say, I couldn't care less about who's in the loo with me. Hell, I have to use a cubicle because I cannot go to the loo even if another chap is at the urinals - a woman is not going to make that worse.
Down the road from me is a shop that has a strange system - it's toilets aren't gendered. Instead, there's an octagonal room one goes into and is faced with doors all around oneself. Any of these doors leads one into a toilet room. So it's basically seven cubicles, but without gender specifications.

I disagree with women-only rail cars too. Surely the increase of foot traffic reduces the risk of assault? And it ignores the possibility of women-on-women attack.

Hey, when the rape culture thing goes away, I'll support this. Until then I don't want to get slapped with an indecent exposure charge because some woman saw me taking a leak.

A little hard to be charged with indecent exposure when you are in the toilet isn't it? Considering women have used the men's room before, and this has not happened I fail to see why such a thing would happen in the future.

[New Edom]

Hey, when the rape culture thing goes away, I'll support this. Until then I don't want to get slapped with an indecent exposure charge because some woman saw me taking a leak.

A little hard to be charged with indecent exposure when you are in the toilet isn't it? Considering women have used the men's room before, and this has not happened I fail to see why such a thing would happen in the future.

at my university there are still urinals there. Often they are near the sink or just across from toilets.

[Neutraligon]

A little hard to be charged with indecent exposure when you are in the toilet isn't it? Considering women have used the men's room before, and this has not happened I fail to see why such a thing would happen in the future.

at my university there are still urinals there. Often they are near the sink or just across from toilets.

And? Again women have used the restroom and no indecent exposure suit has occurred as far as I know. So what evidence do you have that such a thing would actually occur. Otherwise you are just fear mongering.

[Wallenburg]

There's a fuss about it because these used to be private areas. It used to be that ti was a big deal for men and women who were not related to be alone in private together.

I actually do have a good reason. How can this possibly be countenanced alongside women only rail cars? I wish progressives wuold pick a narrative and stick to it. Either men are a menace to women or they are not.

Progressives are not the Borg. They have individual, differing opinions.

[USS Monitor]

"Progressives" aren't a hivemind. They don't all have the same opinions because they aren't all the same person.

As I said above: when rape culture goes away then I'll accept this idea. Until then I do not want the explosive mix of women and men sharing washrooms. I know they do in some corporate places, but busineses tend to have fairly clear rules about social conduct. Schools and universities cave every time someone screams microaggression because of Title IX or whatever equiavelent is in whatever nation in the West. Drawing a line. If progressives are not a monolith, let them prove it.

The fact that you're complaining about getting more than one narrative from progressives is proof they aren't a monolith.

The people pushing for unisex bathrooms are almost certainly not the same ones advocating women-only rail cars. Women-only rail cars are a fringey regressive left thing that only a few people actually support.

[New Owca]

"Progressives" aren't a hivemind. They don't all have the same opinions because they aren't all the same person.

As I said above: when rape culture goes away then I'll accept this idea. Until then I do not want the explosive mix of women and men sharing washrooms. I know they do in some corporate places, but businesses tend to have fairly clear rules about social conduct. Schools and universities cave every time someone screams microaggression because of Title IX or whatever equivalent is in whatever nation in the West. Drawing a line. If progressives are not a monolith, let them prove it.

But there isn't a rape culture! Tell me one person, ONE FREAKING PERSON, whose blood doesn't boil when you tell them about a rape incident. There isn't some kind of conspiracy trying to get people to accept rape as okay.