North Carolina

[KL-666]

Again, i understand what you are saying Lydiot. But i have a hard time to relate to that. In my country the first toilet crime still has to happen.

Kind regards, Vincent

[legoboyvdlp]

Do you mean no Dutch people leave an abominable smell, which is in my opinion the worst possuble crime?

[Side]

I feel like pointing up some things:
1. Treansgender is not about cross-dressing, is about people feeling that gender, wearing in that gender clothes and having those gender "attributes" but been born with another biological gender
2. With that law in active sexual depredetors still would have access to victims (read homosexual paedophiles ones -most of wich dont make clearly gender differences)
3. I am a user of a 3er way bathroom (disabled) and I know first hand the problems the "four bathrooms solution" can bring

My two cents: I am for only 1 bathroom able to be used by anyone and a more open society in what those problems can not be happen, chance the world not the walls

Side

[jwocky]

Lydiot got the basic line here ... See, if people get through a gender change surgery, they are after that women ... well, natural born women have there sometimes another opinion, but well, the main point is, they have a provable cause and lost the equipment. But the mere claim to be transgender is a too common ploy used by sex criminals. And by all means, we don't even talk here about "sacrificing rights" we talk here about denying the demand for new and additional rights. Imagine, straights would demand their own gay free rest rooms ... everybody would laugh and say, that's just homophobic ... even that claim would be nothing different than any other toilet-rights in public only it would be one for a majority ... still, the political corrects would dismiss it as "incorrect" in a heartbeat.

On a personal note, Vincent, I do what I do because I can. I don't give my life for other people's freedom, at least I don't risk my ass for that these days. You can, in a way, compare people like me with cleaning women. We come into play when the milk is already spilled. Thus, the whole thing, from my side, is, not to enable people who intentionally spill milk. That is a job, only society can do, not single persons. Soooo ... it is not about you enjoying freedom. Feel free to do so. Just take sometimes a moment to think about those, who maybe go and enjoy the same freedom to kill and maim for a variety of reasons and ponder, whether some things are worth the risk, not for yourself, but for others, far more in need of protection. Namely children who aren't able to protect themselves. So, it's your freedom (well, not really, I have a really hard time to imagine Vincent in a dress in a lady's room) versus their freedom and life. A technically unnecessary thing against spilled blood. From that point, I doubt, you can convince me, we have to cater with new demanded right to a small minority for the price of endangering the weakest in our societies.

[jwocky]

Oh Vincent ...

Again, i understand what you are saying Lydiot. But i have a hard time to relate to that. In my country the first toilet crime still has to happen.

Only because you don't know it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It only means, you didn't notice it and that is in part the fault of an information policy in Europe that serves to hold the attention to such stories low. But a short look in the databases shows ...

April 16, Eindhoven, two girls 5 and 6 years from a public bathroom in a mall

April 4, another girl in Eindhoven, same mall

Mar 21, Steven van der Welde from Den Haag plead guilty for three counts of child rape in a court in England. Those three counts are connected to a 12 year old girl, he met online and visited in London. He used tried to snatch another girl in ... you guessed it ... a public restroom at the railway station when he returned to Den Haag. I think, van der Welde is kind of known as beach volleyball player there?

Amsterdam has since May 4 an unsub who tried three times to talk young boys into going with him, he lurked in ladiy's rooms and approached the kids while the mothers were sitting in the stalls. The unsub is still on the lose, he was described on three scenes, always wearing the same red flower dress (the flower dress earlier actually was not just an example).

May 1 and 2, remains of two little girls were found near a town named Welde (no idea where that exactly is in the Netherlands). The girls disappeared in separate incidents form lady's rooms in Rotterdam and Dordrecht (I think Dordrecht is somewhere near Rotterdam?). A third girl disappeared under similar circumstances in Gouda (I know only the cheese, but without looking, can it be, Gouda is also not too far from Rotterdam?), no body has been found in this case.

So ... I only went back 60 days (the May cases come in June, but Interpol has already at least two fresh ones from the Netherlands in the database, young boys, also Den Haag, and girls in Leuwarden and Groningen who seem to be connected, but I have no details yet).
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights states in a study from 2014, the Netherlands had at this time, the fourth highest prevalence rate of physical and sexual violence against women in Europe. 45% of all women in the Netherlands have experienced sexual violence. This is well above the European average of 33%.
Well, actually in the Us, where everything is so bad, a similar study in 2008 found a 25% quota, but given the increasing number of bathroom crimes, especially the soaring numbers in California and on the East Coast, I wouldn't trust, that is still that low a number.
Bottom line ... only because you believe ... it doesn't mean, it doesn't happen, Vincent.

[Lydiot]

I feel like pointing up some things:
1. Treansgender is not about cross-dressing, is about people feeling that gender, wearing in that gender clothes and having those gender "attributes" but been born with another biological gender

I think we know that. Cross-dressing was just used as an example to illustrate a particular point.

2. With that law in active sexual depredetors still would have access to victims (read homosexual paedophiles ones -most of wich dont make clearly gender differences)

But this goes back to what jwocky alluded to which was that just because problems exist in some areas doesn't mean we should allow them to increase in others, or that just because we try to minimize them in some we shouldn't try to minimize them everywhere.

Further more I'd question the characterization you made - "homosexual pedophiles" - as I doubt that's an accurate description. I think "homosexual" is largely irrelevant. They are attracted primarily to an age range rather than a gender. Obviously I'll defer to science on this if there's data that suggests otherwise.

[KL-666]

If there are abductors and rapists, you have a much broader problem at hand, than who goes to which bathroom. I would not want to spill legislation and police time on that, but on the true problem which can popup anywhere, even if we lock down all the bathrooms.

But i do understand the sentiment that makes people go after symptoms instead of causes. And that is about the closest Jwocky and i will get at convincing each other, i am afraid. No problem, we do not all need to think the same.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

I know, it's hard to understand, Vincent, because everything has to be "freedom" and "acceptance" and "correct" nowadays, but reality tells us, there are abductors and rapists and sexual molestors and pedophiles and I personally refuse to open up their preferred hunting grounds and give them a legal excuse to hang out there, so that no police officer can at least drive them away anymore. To me, by knowledge about the situation, how this types (actually several) of offenders think and operate, it makes not the faintest sense. This is about one step behind allowing registered sex offenders as kindergarden teachers or give them unrestricted uncontrolled access to playgrounds including provisions to make sure, they can never lose this access, not even when caught again, not even ticketed when their intentions are clear. This idea is so stupid that one can only top it by inventing public child auctions ... oh wait, a court in California just decided, to offer pre-groomed children on Facebook is not a sufficient reason for Facebook to cancel the account in question. So, we are kind of already there.

[Lydiot]

If there are abductors and rapists, you have a much broader problem at hand, than who goes to which bathroom. I would not want to spill legislation and police time on that, but on the true problem which can popup anywhere, even if we lock down all the bathrooms.

But i do understand the sentiment that makes people go after symptoms instead of causes.

Ok, but look at it from a different perspective. A lot of parents won't let their young children go by themselves to places where there are no crowds, not because the child might injure itself, but because of the concern for adults or other children harming them. So, it's not really about a bathroom per se, it's about the type of space it is. My parents didn't allow me to walk by myself as a child when it was dark outside. They didn't like me hanging out in areas like dimly lit parks. Not because I might hurt myself, but because if someone took advantage of me nobody would be there to stop it.

You could conversely ask the question: Why don't we see rapists and pedophiles in action in the middle of crowds, like in shopping malls, in filled movie theaters, in rock concerts etc....? Why do these things predominantly happen when and where fewer adults are around?

Now, if we draw your argument to an extended conclusion I should have been allowed to go wherever, because any pedo hiding in a bush in a park is just a symptom, and removing me from a dangerous situation doesn't solve the pedo's problem. But no parent thinks that way.

And so in principle this is the same thing. It's not claiming that it deals with the broader fundamental problem, it's that we deal with the likelihood of someone getting hurt. And one thing doesn't exclude the other. In the case of the US it's one of the richest countries on the planet. If the issue is resources it's not a big problem. The money is there.

Again, there may be a relatively simple solution, like making all bathrooms gender-neutral and arguably then individual bathrooms. But people will disagree on spending that money on conversion. And so the alternative would be to allow men who identify as women in women's bathrooms, at which point as I said the arguably legitimate concern/argument is valid. Unfortunately part of those who object will also be those who object for "moral" or "religious" reasons, who object because they object to LGBT people in general. And so considering that latter point the US government indeed has a point when it makes it an issue of human rights. It's just that there's a conflict of interest between parties who all have this right.

[jwocky]

The argument that those who object do so for "religious" or "moral" reasons is of course also used a lot to just discredit everyone who objects. I am for example no member of any organized congregation and I supported gay marriage for twenty years (so about ten years longer than the people who suddenly made it "in" and used it for their political gain), still, if it comes to this subject, I het in other discussions the accusation, I would be some kind of Bible thumper ... which is ridiculous, because opposite to most real Bible thumpers, I actually read that book (don't worry, I also read the Quaran, the Baghavat Gita and other books). So while there are really some "religious" motivated people objecting, most of the opposition deals with regular real world problems and since politicians can't solve the real world problems, there is always the attempt of this old underhand strike.