North Carolina

[Lydiot]

Just another topic out of the quote Lydiot made. A Democracy is not made up of blunt majorities crushing over minorities. Every majority should leave room for minorities, else it is not a Democracy in my book.

Kind regards, Vincent

But the problem here - and please forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying - is that we're faced with not just the possibility of "phobia" against minorities but also arguably legitimate concerns. So while someone may be anti-LGBT and supports not giving transgender males access to female bathrooms, there will be people that have no problem with LGBT-individuals but have a concern with predators posing as trans to gain access to these bathrooms.

So I think what jwocky was saying was that this is a difficult situation with no clear easy solution. If you allow this minority to have their way then the risk increases that predators get into these bathrooms (for example). If you don't then the minority suffers by being forced to use a bathroom that they feel isn't theirs.

I suppose the solution I can see is having gender-neutral bathrooms available, and having those be single-person only. Of course, the problem then becomes the financial one because a lot of people won't want to pay for it. But I suppose that's a solution.

[KL-666]

I do not know what the American bathrooms are like, that you need "single-person only", or "have to swing your gear in public". We have cubicles in which we undress. So somehow i miss to see the problem.

Lots of talk by the way about the ladies. But how about the men's where a boy is suddenly confronted with a "woman". I think the girls will be less baffled to see a person in a dress.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

I understand what you're saying, but the difference is that it's not just about appearance but about a potential threat (that's the argument for some at least).

The concern is a male being a physical danger to others because he is a predator. So, in other words, because men are stronger the danger is perceived as being larger. A boy seeing a real woman isn't considered such a big deal from that standpoint. So imagine instead a bathroom for women with a single woman inside where a man, dressed as a man, identifying as a man, walks in. She might feel uncomfortable because the man represents danger by virtue of them being different genders and being in a shielded location where nobody can see the two. That's a big reason for having separate bathrooms. The feeling of (and arguably actual) safety. Now, just take the exact same situation but substitute that man for a man dressed as a woman. Does this actual woman know for a fact that this man truly identifies as a woman and isn't just a predator who is cross-dressing in order to get into the women's bathroom?

So again, one argument - to some people - is that we need separate bathrooms for safety and that by allowing men dressed as women in women bathroom we're lowering safety.

Again, a woman who identifies as a man going into the men's bathroom is probably viewed as far less of a threat to both men and boys by virtue of women in general being less strong compared to men.

I want to point out though that I want everyone to be happy and feel safe, I just think that this is a tricky thing to solve so that everyone is happy with the outcome.

[KL-666]

I understad your argument Lydiot. But for me motive is hard to grasp. Why would someone want to become a bathroom criminal, when they can be criminals at much more prestigious places?

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Rapists and pedophiles hardly operate using the same reasoning sane healthy people use, or at least their actions aren't based on it. You might as well ask why anyone would be a pedophile in the first place, when there's more money and less harsh potential punishment in white collar crime?

[KL-666]

Ok, but then again i think: where do we get the idea from that we can get our toilets crime-free, while we know that crime is everywhere?

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

@Vincent: So, because we know some things happen sometimes, we should open the door to make bad things happen more frequently? That's quite a generous use of human life, isn't it?

[KL-666]

I do not think i said exactly that. Just that with a more relaxed attitude you survive perfectly well. No need to have the paranoia that comes with your job.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

You know, Jwocky, i am proud of people that give up their lives to protect freedom. But if you do, then someone has to enjoy that freedom, else it is rather pointless to create freedom. Let me be in the role of enjoying the freedom you create. Then the world is perfect.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Vincent, I don't think you're reading jwocky's point 100% correctly (sorry for being presumptuous here jwocky, correct me if I'm wrong):

The issue is that we have crime in all demographics, all social classes, all venues, both genders, etc etc. So, now that we know that, what we can do is look at statistics (or profiles and figure out IF we can do something to lower the chance/risk of something happening, and IF it's worth doing that given that we're likely giving up something in return for that safety.

So, it's not about making toilets 100% crime free, because that's not going to happen; it's about taking perhaps some of the worst crime and then taking action to cut down the odds of it happening as much as possible with as little negative effect as possible. If we can make (mostly) women safer by giving them their own bathroom at the relatively low cost of providing men with their own bathroom (i.e. making more bathrooms) then that's ok. It doesn't matter if there's crime elsewhere.

Again, I don't think anyone of us is saying there's an easy solution here, we're just recognizing what the objections are. The important thing to remember here, in my opinion, is that not all objection to this is based on people being anti-LGBT, even if that's certainly a part of many people's opposition.