Uh, Houston, we have a problem..

It seems we have a winner!

Didn't happen

I say we have a mens room, a woman's room and a single room for people who identify as dogs, gorillas etc.

I say you base it on SEX and not GENDER.

Idc if a woman uses the bathroom with me in public. Do I think it's smart for her to do so? No, but it's her choice to put herself in danger. However, it is NOT a young 9yo girls choice to share a bathroom with a 30yo man who claims to be a woman. Idgaf if a guy think's he's a woman, but if trans people are so caring and considerate of others, why do they insist upon having a rule that opens up young girls to pedophiles? I understand not every transvestite is a pedophile, but pedophiles will abuse this law to get much closer to little girls without raising suspicion.

I've been saying that this entire time, but it never sinks in!
Kudos for trying though. Have an ?!

[image deleted]Am I a bigot?

I would have to agree with you there. I have yet to meet any transgender/sexual person that I am attracted to, and I don't think I will.
Despite my own reservations to associating intimately or sexually with a transgender/sexual person, I still think discriminating against them in everyday situations (bathrooms, loans, sales, etc.) is wrong.

Using attractiveness to justify discrimination is basically saying "Anything I wouldn't bang isn't worth my time!" That is a very Donald Trump-ish way of thinking.

Understood.

np :D

North Dakota is 8th in guns per person, has among the loosest gun laws in the country, and our gun murder rate is 49th in the US, I simply have no reason to believe that we should change how we do things if we are already one of the safest states. Chicago has strict gun laws and massive murder and gang issues.

Um, I specifically tried to make it clear that I don't FEEL anything about this. I don't give a f**king shit if someone thinks they're a woman in a mans body. If that's what they feel, then good for them. I take a live and let live approach to the whole thing. My point is, these little girls are being put in danger by these laws. So what if it's a 1 in 10 chance? That's still A PERSON.

Also this has zero connection to guns. Guns are weapons that crazy people use for bad things, and that good, law-abiding people use for good things. Also, in YOUR line of reasoning, since you approve of strict gun laws for safety you should approve of strict bathroom laws for safety.

And if two children are killed for every child saved, you still think the law is worth it?

"What you're basically saying is, trans people should use the bathroom that YOU feel comfortable with them using, not the one THEY feel comfortable using."
-I maintain the better rule is that people should use the bathroom that makes the most number of people comfortable. For example, if one person makes 20 people uncomfortable, the comfort of the 20 people > the comfort of the 1.

"I'm pretty sure most people could tell the difference between a real transgender person who's been living that way for years, and a sexual predator who is just saying they're transgender but obviously isn't."
-Maybe, but by the standards set forth by the Obama administration, you can't question anybody, not parents or anything. Nothing is required to prove sex identity, it's merely self IDed.

Ok, good point. Allow me to clarify. What I mean is a general rule of thumb is that everyone should use the facility that makes the most number of people comfortable.

Here's a personal example that is somewhat common for me. I'm at work and have to go to the bathroom. The janitor is currently cleaning the men's room so it's closed temporarily. If my only concern is my own personal comfort, I could just go use the ladies room tight next to the men's room. But that would make the women uncomfortable. The right thing to do is wait for the men's room to reopen or go to a different floor, not out my own selfish wants ahead of others. The same moral point should apply to trans people.

Dude, by that logic, no one would be allowed anywhere. Your blatant disregard of hard facts and other people's feelings annoys me. Therefore, you aren't allowed on Imgflip anymore. My presentation of facts and my open-minded perspective probably annoys you. Therefore, I'm not allowed on Imgflip anymore.
A large number of the US's citizens are uncomfortable with Trump being President, so he's out, and for the same reason so is Clinton. Oh, and every potential political candidate EVER.
The Middle East is uncomfortable (understatement) with the US meddling in their affairs, as is just about every country in the world. Considering that the US has only 4.5% of the world's population, we're the vast, vast minority, so we shouldn't do anything involving anyone or thing else.
See where this is going yet?

Yes, I am comparing transgender people using the bathroom to option to be an ass or not. Because my point it is kind of an ass move to make everyone else uncomfortable to suit one's own preference.

Everything else you said is obvious exaggeration. Well except the first few analogies about expressing our opinion on imgflip. There are common rules of courtesy regarding the sharing of particular opinions. For example, when I'm having a family dinner with my family who tend to be very liberal, then I wouldn't assume to sit there and announce my opinions to everyone. That would be rude given the company. Same concept with the locker rooms. Just don't insist upon using the facility that makes everyone else uncomfortable! AKA don't be an ass.

I wasn't exaggerating. The Middle East was fine (meh, relatively) before the US came in and created one of the biggest clusterf**ks in human history (probably second only to the fall of Rome and the Cold War). The US has a population of between 318 and 319 million people while the world has 7 billion.
318,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 = ~0.045 = 4.5% Pretty simple math.
If a large group of people being dissatisfied with you disqualified you for political office, the character assassinations would never stop and we'd never have another President or Governors or Sheriffs or Judges or any position anyone could be elected or appointed to in the government.

Now, on to bathroom etiquette! -_-
If you can identify someone as transgender in a bathroom, you're paying too much attention.
If you can identify someone as transgender in the men's bathroom (and you're not just pervin'), you (or they) are probably also standing at a urinal. (In that case, you should be uncomfortable anyway, considering how small the dividers usually are, IF THERE ARE ANY!) In the case that you're standing at a urinal, your business is to empty your bladder and then gtfo. Seriously, if you stand at a urinal long enough for your discomfort around transgender people to become a problem, you're probably making others uncomfortable AND you've probably got another more urgent problem to worry about. You might want to go see a doctor. Just sayin'.
If you're in a stall, you can't see other people unless you or they are looking under it or you left the door open, in which case you have a different problem to worry about than their gender identity.
If you're washing your hands you're leaving anyway, so why the f**k do you still care?!

Even if you are so transphobic that it you HAVE to check everyone in the bathroom with you for the gender, your chances of running into a transgender person are pretty slim (unless you need to use the bathroom way more than is normal and you should see a doctor).
The current population of transgender people in the US is less than half a percent. You want the math so you know I'm not exaggerating? There are 1.4 million transgender individuals in the US.
1,400,000 / 318,000,000 = ~0.0044 = 0.44%

I'd be willing to bet that if you EVER used a public restroom at the same time as a transgender person, you'd either never notice or be around long enough for it to matter. So yes, this is a matter of fear and hate on the part of NC's law's proponents, not rational thought.

So how many pedophiles do you think are raping young boys in the men's room at the moment? Because guess what: pedophilia is typically gender-neutral. (I've seen studies that suggest the number of boy victims is about 3 times higher than that of girl victims, at least for undetected offenders. At least one other studie suggests there's twice as many girl victims as boy victims, but the citations on that one are a bit fishy, as they too often are in this area of research...)

And for the record: I agree it's probably not smart for *anyone* to share a bathroom with you, considering how quickly your mind seems to go from "a place to relieve myself" to "the perfect crime scene".

It works some places, but not all states or cities would be willing to pay for them.

Do you even know what a bathroom attendant is?

Might not be a bad idea, to just have one person in the bathroom, in the corner or something.

Here in Philly, we have two. I think two people could stop someone from raping someone else.

That's actually a really good idea. I think just having two other people in there would be a deterrent enough. Im not worried about rape, just like touching and filming/voyeurism

We should put ceilings on stalls.

Yup. It would be much smarter to do that. It would be a good idea totally aside from this whole trans argument anyways

I think you didn't understand what he's saying...
Those are men who were born female. North Carolina now REQUIRES that these MEN now use the WOMEN'S restroom. See what he's saying? The whole rhetoric of NC's bill is to PREVENT EXACTLY THAT! Before the bill was passed, they used the men's room with no one batting an eye!
Also, if they look like that, they most likely produce or take Testosterone WHICH IS A MALE HORMONE. If they produce it, they are also physically male. If not, you still can't brush it aside: one of the common characteristics of testosterone is increasing sexual attraction towards women. If you're so worried about men sexually assaulting women in the bathroom, you should want these GUYS to use the men's room instead of the women's!
Honestly, if the bill banned people from using the bathroom opposite their CURRENT PHYSICAL sex, I could understand that. I wouldn't like it or vote for it because I still believe it would be morally wrong, but I could understand that rationality.

So one thing I don't understand about transgenderism is this Orwellian wordplay like you're using here. For example, emphasizing that although they were born women they ARE men. It's just patently irrational. They are women who want to be men and have altered their bodies to appear to be men, but they are, as a matter of rational fact, women.

But you keep saying that if they have male genitals, they are a male... since they used to be female, you want people who are men NOW to use the same bathroom as women...?
Do you STILL not see the fatal flaw in your argument?! If you could ignore reality any more than you already do, gravity wouldn't affect you anymore!

The "confusion" here is only on your part, and only because you ignore reality even while it slaps you in the face, saying, "Huh, I wonder why my cheek keeps stinging?"

First of all, I've never said anything fearful or hateful. Your talking points are showing.

Second, I've never said "if they have male genitals, they are male". My point in this statement is to refute the idea of transgenderism that merely "identifying" oneself as a thing makes you the thing aside from physical objective fact. My position on the bathroom issue has always been very Libertarian - let the individual property owners freely make their own decisions and keep the govt out.

So my point still stands. Merely thinking oneself to be a thing doesn't make you the thing.

I keep saying the same things because reality still hasn't changed to match your desires. If it ever does, let me know and I'll re-evalute my position.
Also, you might notice that you and people like you keep saying the same thing despite all empirical evidence proving you wrong. I believed you called those "talking points." For your "talking points," the term "same old bullshit" probably fits better.
If you guys are going to continue spouting aforementioned bullshit, don't be surprised or offended when someone tries to get the truth out too.

You know, one of my favorite hobbies is debating with people who clearly put thought into their arguments, you know, people who can refute my arguments when I try to refute theirs. Intellectual conversations like that are entertaining and enlightening, even if we don't agree.
I'm not getting any of that here. Apparently none of you are able to present anything but the same already-disproven rhetoric, so this is wasting my time.
Cya!

I've never seen a republican say that before.

Thank you. <G>

If one of them committed murder, would they go to a men's prison or a women's prison?

See my comment below.