Uh, Houston, we have a problem..

Uh, Houston, we have a problem.. | I'M A BIGOT FOR THINKING BIOLOGICAL MALES WHO INDENTIFY AS WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THE WOMEN'S BATHROOM FOR SAFETY REASONS? WHAT IF I | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
15,034 views, 136 upvotes, Made by H2O 24 months ago memescreepy condescending wonka
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
18 ups, 2 replies
IN THAT CASE I IDENTIFY AS HONEST | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
13 ups
. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
ME TOO! | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
YOU KILLED 4; I KILLED MILLIONS COME AT ME BRO | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
I'LL JUST DELETE YOU FROM HISTORY | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
HOW CAN I TOP THAT | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
It seems we have a winner!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Didn't happen
reply
2 ups
reply
12 ups, 4 replies
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
I say we have a mens room, a woman's room and a single room for people who identify as dogs, gorillas etc.
reply
1 up
I say you base it on SEX and not GENDER.
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
Upvote anyway :)
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
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.
reply
10 ups, 4 replies
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'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.

As I've pointed out before, if you want to prohibit something because of the possible safety risk to the public, you should want very strict gun control laws passed, using that line of reasoning.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
I've been saying that this entire time, but it never sinks in!
Kudos for trying though. Have an ?!
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Thank you! :)
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 2 replies
[image deleted]Am I a bigot?
reply
2 ups
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.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Understood.
reply
3 ups
np :D
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
2 ups
I'm not anti-gun. I was simply pointing out that using his argument, gun control should be tightened immensely. I don't think it should be, for the record.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
"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.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I would disagree with your first point, because it basically amounts to majority rule. In the US, the majority doesn't always get their way.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
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?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
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.
2 ups
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.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
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.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Actually, I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I was using the gun control issue to highlight the flaw in your argument, that safety should supercede the desires of trans people. Passing restrictive laws in the name of the greater public safety is exactly the argument anti-gun people use:
"If even one child is saved from a sexual assault, this law is worth it"
"If even one child is saved from a gun homicide, this law is worth it"

Upvote.
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
And if two children are killed for every child saved, you still think the law is worth it?
reply
1 up
reply
5 ups
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".
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It works some places, but not all states or cities would be willing to pay for them.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Do you even know what a bathroom attendant is?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Might not be a bad idea, to just have one person in the bathroom, in the corner or something.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Here in Philly, we have two. I think two people could stop someone from raping someone else.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
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 **pe, just like touching and filming/voyeurism
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
We should put ceilings on stalls.
reply
2 ups
Yup. It would be much smarter to do that. It would be a good idea totally aside from this whole trans argument anyways
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
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?"
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
1 up
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!
reply
1 up
I've never seen a republican say that before.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Epic reply. Absolutely epic. :)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Thank you. <G>
reply
0 ups
Anytime :)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
If one of them committed murder, would they go to a men's prison or a women's prison?
reply
2 ups
See my comment below.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I don't mean to call you specifically a bigot, but I think that way of thinking is characteristic of both hypocrisy and bigotry.
Just sayin'.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I'm not a bigot, I just don't agree with allowing trans men in womens bathrooms. It's not like I'm saying I don't want to ride the bus with them or something. Personally IDGAF if people are trans or not. I don't think it's right, but I think that if that's how they choose to live then so be it. I just don't think we should give sexual predators excuses to get with a foot of naked little girls. And yes this has and does happen. Do some transphobic people use this as an excuse to discriminate? Probably, yes. But most of us are genuinely concerned for these little childrens safety; I don't see why the transgender community (Which you all claim is very nice) doesn't realize that perhaps they should put these girls' safety before their own agenda?
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Transgender men pose no threat to children using public bathrooms. They have no "agenda" besides defending their right to use the bathroom of their identified gender. This same argument was used when conservatives claimed that gay men would assault little boys in the men's room. It didn't happen, and it won't happen in this situation. You should check out my other arguments and read them all the way through before you brush them off. You may emerge a little more open-minded. : )
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"They have no "agenda" besides defending their right to use the bathroom of their identified gender."
This is patently false. First of all, there is no such right. They are fighting to create this as a universally recognized right. You may think the term "agenda" has a negative connotation but as a truthful matter, the fact is their "agenda" is to make this a right.

Secondly, its about usurpation of basic property rights and freedom of association. If I own a gym and want sex segregated locker rooms due to consumer demand, why does any govt need to step in?

If I want to protect my young daughters' privacy and innocence, why does the LGBT's agenda to break down gender roles trump my rights as a parent and force my daughter to share facilities with boys/men?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The Civil Rights act prohibits discrimination against individuals based on gender, race, religion, etc. Therefore, if you own a gym, you cannot tell people to use whichever bathroom you feel like they belong in. You CAN say "Ladies here, gentlemen there!" but you cannot tell someone that they are or are not a woman or a man if they identify as the opposite. You legally cannot force them to use the restroom of the gender opposite the one they identify as (except in NC).
There have been transgender people using the bathroom of the gender they identify as for the past few decades, so if your daughter hasn't been sexually assaulted in a public restroom by a transgender individual yet, then you can be confident it's not going to happen. She's just as safe now as she's ever been. I've seen that bullshit card played so often it disgusts me how thoughtless and gullible people can be. Is it safe to assume you watch Fox News?
Saying that transgender people have no right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as is a statement that is only accurate if you also consider that it is not specifically stated that you can legally wear casual clothing instead of business suits or dresses in public. Or pajamas to bed, or a swimsuit in the swimming pool, or your birthday suit around your house, etc, etc. Oh, or use the bathroom at all. Those are unlisted rights, not explicitly written in any law book yet we still consider them basic rights. Transgender people using the bathroom of their identity is also a basic right, otherwise, NC wouldn't have has to pass a law to take away that right.
The LGBT community's agenda is to stop overzealous fearmongers and hateful discriminators like you from trampling on them. Nothing they are doing is harmful or dangerous to you or your family, and the only thing they want to take from you is your ability to take away THEIR rights.

P.S. Also, if you want to protect your daughter's "privacy and innocence" so badly, you're setting a bad example by being on Imgflip. Just thought you might want to consider that.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I think you're missing the fact that the NC "bathroom bill" wasn't written out of the blue. It was written to counteract the City of Charlotte ordinance that removed the property owner's right to manage their own facilities the way they want. As you point out, it's been happening without incident the way things have been for decades, so why did Charlotte need to pass the special ordinance? Because agenda.

Secondly this is an example of how the civil rights act oversteps the bounds of rationality. Nobody at the time would have understood "sex" to mean "gender identity". If you want to create a new right, pass a new amendment or something. Don't retroactively redefine words.

There are more people's rights to consider than merely the transgender person's rights. The property owner has rights to who can use their property, people have freedom of assembly and association. Just because the civil rights act abridged these particular freedoms for some specifically desired identity groups doesn't mean it created a general principle that applies to all identity groups everywhere.
reply
1 up
Oooookay. Time to set one thing straight for the record. I'm perfectly happy debating why transgender people should be allowed to use whichever bathroom they identify as, but that wasn't the main point of the NC law. This "Bathroom Bill"'s complete purpose was to outlaw any local government in NC passing any law that protected transgender individuals from discrimination. The only reason it is known as the bathroom bill is because the media realized that the story would be more interesting if they focused on the part involving people not being allowed to use the bathroom.

Charlotte passed their ordinance to prevent people from discriminating against transgender people in all aspects of life. Before they passed it, people could refuse to grant loans, sell houses, or in general sell or provide services based on their gender identity. This was an all-around civil rights law passed on a local level that banned discrimination based on gender identity. It was not part of an "agenda" anymore than the Civil Rights Act(s) that granted colored people and women (mostly) equal rights were.

NC, besides the large population centers, is mostly conservative, so they moved to squash this policy of acceptance and fairness as soon as they could. This whole issue is about more than just the bathrooms, but the OP's meme was only about the bathroom part, so I humored him and stayed relevant until you brought up Charlotte.

What you're saying about identity groups is basically that if I disagree with you or I don't like how you look, as long as I base my stated opinion on something other than the fact that you're colored, a woman, etc. I can refuse you services or retail. If I was a business owner or manager (which I'm not) and I thought gauges are disgusting (which I do), by your logic I could refuse to let them use a bathroom in my store or sell them clothes or toiletries or groceries or fast food or whatever I'm marketing based solely on the fact that they have gauges. If I thought you looked ugly, I could do the same. That is a really shallow and f**ked-up thought process by most standards.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Seattle has already had problems arising from this, btw. What about single occupancy door locked restrooms? I know that won't work at a ball game, but it will at McDonalds.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Checkmate! :D
reply
1 up
LOL
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I just googled what you're talking about. I found 2 stories about the same incident of a man who made no effort at identifying as female. He was a bigot trying to test the law. And I saw another from "The Daily Wire" which claims in the headline that there were 5 such cases but didn't have a single citation. Also very few complete sentences. Westboro level ingnorant. So tell me where I can find corroboration on this problem you say Seattle is having.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And to be fair, I'm not wholly on fire about this subject having bounced in a bar that hosted "Donna Summers" events. I found the participants very polite, friendly and engaging as people.
However, that said, cultural established behaviors are protections. Japan has female only train cars to prevent butt pinching and groping by a minority of the population. We have separate bathrooms to prevent untoward behaviors and generate privacy boundaries. I'm not convinced that Hermaphrodites, true transgendered individuals are the threat. Maybe it's like the left gun control reaction? 1.3% percent of homicides were gun related so punish all gun owners. Less than 1.3% of the population is transgendered so push it on the rest of the population.
Me? I'm one of those let people be people if it doesn't affect it threaten me.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Then why are you citing a single case of someone who obviously knew the law didn't apply to him as if it were an example of the norm? I'll bet a transitioning woman in a men's room in the south (where I live) is at a far greater risk than the other way around.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So you're saying there is an established behaviors precedent set by a new law?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The law is meant to protect people who identify their gender other than as stated on their birth certificate. Not on the spot identification. It's not a ticket for a carnival ride. You know that.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Unintended consequences is a known outcome of any law passed. There is of course the letter of the law and the intent of the the law and then....what comes of the law good or bad.
1 up
And people who abuse loopholes are breaking the law. Laws can only be written to a human level of precision. Anybody bound on twisting words to suit their purposes can do so. But the law also spells out it intents along with limitations and penalties. And I hope Mr. Boardshorts gets the max peeping Tom fine applicable.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Your talking about Green Lake as a "test". Read the original report as to his behaviors at the time of coming by the swim team that entered. Look it up. It's public record. His defence, which is being pushed as not to sully the ordinance (which was developed by an independent unelected body, btw). So, ya, the test defence is just that and it will be tested in court.
reply
1 up
Reports from eyewitnesses said he was simply a man in boardshorts who walked in and started undressing but was stopped by staff. I didn't read any account of him approaching children or women. In other words he was on your side. He didn't like the law and decided to seek it's protection even though it doesn't apply to him.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Again. One instance. I'm sure there's been a lot more drunk idiots in the wrong bathroom that the malicious stalkers that you think are just around the corner.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't think I made any claims that would hint to the degree of how prevalent i think this problem is or isn't. Green Lake is close, do I used it as an example. Maybe it wasn't a strong g case, fine...we test it in court. I agree with the drunk statement you make. But don't go projecting on me your biases.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't mean to project a bias. I just think that the canary in the coal mine hasn't even coughed yet and you're picking out a teeny little casket.
reply
1 up
Fair enough.
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
But I get your point. Upvote, even though I disagree with the meme :)
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Thanks xD
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
Most transgender people (not all, but most) are sexually attracted to the gender opposite to the one they identify as. Therefore, anyone identifying as female can generally be assumed to be attracted to men. Requiring that men who are or used to be physically female to use the ladies room would, by your logic, INCREASE the risk of sexual assault, which is exactly THE OPPOSITE of your intended goal. This "sexual predator" bullshit is just another excuse invented by Fundamentalist theists and far-rightwingers who realized the world doesn't respect the "Because God said so!" shit anymore. The fact that their claims have no merit doesn't matter because they realize if they shout loud enough to drown out people telling the truth or shovel enough bullshit over reality, people will believe them. Bill Maher actually coined a term for this type of argument: Zombie Lies, defined by Urban Dictionary as "lies that just won't die, no matter what the facts are." Kill them with facts all you want, but they'll keep coming back.
And yes, while it is HYPOTHETICALLY possible for sexual predators to take advantage of this loophole (vulgar pun not intended), according to the empirical evidence this doesn't actually happen. If it did, there would already have been multiple cases of people sexually assaulting people in public restrooms under the pretense of being transgender, but there have been no reported cases of sexual assault in public bathrooms by anyone claiming to be transgender. Fox News can spout all the bullshit it wants, but that doesn't change the fact that IT NEVER HAPPENS!
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
:)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Common sense isn't actually all that common.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"common", in this context, isn't referring to frequency, but rather to a solid epistemic core that is simple to whomever bothers to listen.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
That's not a typo.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
I'm not sure... :P
reply
2 ups
Thanks! :D
reply
3 ups
Well said!
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Does an assault have to happen before a law is passed to prevent it from happening again, or is it better to pass a law to prevent the possibility?

Consider Megan Kanka.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Considering my earlier point that these bills increase the risk of sexual assault rather than decrease it, and my other point that there have been no cases over the past several decades of sexual assault in a bathroom involving a transgender person, it is better not to pass laws that discriminate simply based on fear and hatred and use the disguise of flimsy logic to justify such discrimination.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And considering my point below, I agree that a post-op transsexual woman SHOULD be allowed to use the women's restroom and locker room. My objection, at this point, is in allowing anyone with a p**is in there.
Regarding the women's restroom, if there were a way to GUARANTEE that the ONLY people with a p**is in there were transgenders, I wouldn't object at all. I might even be able to compromise about allowing those with a p**is in there IF (A REALLY BIG IF) there are better precautions in place to prevent misconduct by perverts hoping to have an alibi for their presence (having never been in a women's restroom, of course, I can't say for certain that it's the same, but I do know that the stalls in the men's room have rather sizable gaps and very flimsy doors/locks).

However, I will not compromise on locker rooms. No little girls should ever have to see someone's p**is, no matter what that person's lifestyle is. I'm sure many women aren't all that thrilled by the thought, either. THIS aspect of the situation seems so obvious as to almost not need comment (but, unfortunately, it does).

And before anyone starts to try to label me as a bigot, I support gay marriage. I'm all for using whatever gender pronoun and name you prefer. I wouldn't stop dating a woman just because I found out she was born male, probably not even if she did still have her p**is (I don't know if I'd be able to have sexual relations with such a woman, mind you; since I never have been in this situation before, I don't know how I would actually react, though it would certainly be non-violent), because my feelings for a woman are for who she is as a whole person.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Non-existent problems don't need solutions. Transgender people have been using the rest room that corresponds to their gender identity for quite a few years now, yet there hasn't been a single recorded case of a sexual assault being committed by a transgender person in a public rest room. Why, suddenly, has it now become a dire threat?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Read my response to MaximusUltima. You're misrepresenting my position entirely, and your argument has already been addressed by me.
reply
0 ups
What do you think about what I said about this in my very long comment? I am interested in knowing your opinion on it.
reply
2 ups
LOL I upvoted it for visibility, because of how stupid (and funny) I think it is.
reply
0 ups
I don't get why the facepalm, in this comment.

Since "bigot" isn't a physical trait, it should be easier and more credible for someone to identify as one (or not one), than it is to identify as something physically different. Right?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I will add in some open minded scientific argument. I am very well educated on the science of transgender and intersex conditions and I am also politically neutral. Males and females have many differences. Those differences are there so people can reproduce more. The differences are put into two different categories. Primary sex characteristics and secondary sex characteristics. Primary sex characteristics are those you have at birth and secondary sex characteristics are the physical characteristics that develop during puberty. The sex characteristics are put into two categorys: androgens (testosterone) and estrogens. Androgens controlled the male side of development, while estrogens controlled the female side of development. Humans are designed to have a mix of the two and both are used as health advantages in both males and females. If you have an unhealthy ratio of the two before birth, one cause of this is ambiguous genetalia. You can also also have unbalenced sex hormones during puberty, if your hormone releasing glands failed to develop properly as a primary sex characteristic, probably due to unbalanced sex hormones. There are various causes of the imbalence of hormones. One could be an insensitivity to androgens, which, depending on the level the body cannot respond can result into a human who is a slightly non masculine looking male all the way to a full fledged female. Another one of the causes is abnormal chromisomes due to something going wrong as the fist cells are combining, the baby could have xxy cells as an example. The body gets confused and releases abnormal ratios of hormones. As you can see, chromosomes dont really define you gender, what really matters is how your body develops. When the body is not developed properly into 100? female or male like those examples, the person would be considered to be intersex. Many intersex people are surgically "reassigned" as male or female and are not told about being intersex. But a very large number of those people as children strongly do not feel like something is correct about their gender. Very strongly. Even without ever being told they were born intersex.
Why is this?
There is also a primary sex characteristic you may or may not have heard of. That is the brain. One of the benefits of having this is mating behaviors.
The question is do transgender people have a brain that is in line with their "gender identity".
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
MRI scans have taken the average of transgender peoples braines through what can be seen in an MRI scan and it was aligned with their gender identity. The problem with this method is that is varies a lot from person to person so it can only be taken as an average I a group of people, and also it is not really known if it directly relates to this "gender identity" of the brain. Some studies have removed the hypothalamus from animals and they displayed no mating behaviors. It is also known that human hypothalamusses are very distinctive between the genders. The hypothalamus can be observed only through physical examination. Eventually scientists had gotten a hold of 8 transgender brains. Only one of which was male to female and one of which had never received any hormonal treatment. All 8 brains matched a typical brain of ther actual gender (the gender they knew they were only since a few years old).
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why cant a person become a helicopter or a rice cooker or change races. Peoples brains are not wired to be those things. Doesn't that mean that if some people in the world want to change those things. Yes. Of course not all transgender people have transgender brains. There definitely going to be people who want to transition just to be different. There is also a condition where people find becoming more like the opposite gender sexually arousing. This is not known how this fits into psychology or neurology really. Most likely anyone choosing to change their gender probably won't feel very comfortable or like something isn't right because they are going against their natural biology.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Talking about transgender people using bathrooms. Most transgender have taken hormones from a young age (so they wouldn't get the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite gender). And look 100? normal for a male or female. A study on transgender kids found that their subconscious reactions to things was the same as the "normal" people of their gender. This shows that transgender females, for example people generally will act like a normal female and will be unlikely to assault another female. In my opinion, I would think that anyone who is transitioning to be different or for any psychological reason, if that is a remotely common thing, will most likely not as well. What I believe to be the biggest problem is men who would dress up like women to be able to get into the women's restrooms. You decide what you think is the best choice.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Another Study gave developing animals fake opposite sex hormones on the first half of pregnancy in one group and in another group of animals they gave hormones in the second half. The ones in the second half had a reproductive system matching their chromosomes, the way the body would probably have been on the path to develop naturally, but the "behavior" of their gender did not match. The ones with hormones in the first half had an ambiguous genetalia but behavior matching the naturally occurring path of development. This shows that the neurological gender identity or whatever you would like to call it probably develops in the second half, while the reproductive system develops in the beginning. And also than animals can be transgender, of course. This can explain why there are so many transgender people. Although, a lot of transgender people do have minor intersex "side effects" that were probably caused from some hormonal abnormality in the beginning as well. Not everything works out perfectly.
reply
0 ups
Well, since you asked my opinion...

Your comments seem well-researched and contain quite a lot of information. Your position on the topic, however, is rather vague, though I'm inclined to think that you are basically in agreement with me.

I like to read through all the comments/threads on a post that catches my attention, so naturally, I noticed where you said you are intersex. Since you've given many definitions for the term (and forgive me if this question isn't appropriate; I honestly don't know about the propriety), what does that mean in your specific case?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
It should be like it is in the prisons... If you have a p**is, you go to the men's. It doesn't matter how pretty you are. It doesn't matter how much you cry about getting **ped. They don't care.

It can't be simpler.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
IMO, criminals waive all their rights and privileges once they commit a crime. Besides basic human rights and amenities, they deserve NOTHING. They have it better than most poverty line families do!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That's a strawman argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.
reply
1 up
Well I agree with your comment so..
reply
3 ups
If you don't get the reference, don't ask.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And i'm intersex.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
And, that says nothing. You could range from idiopathic to kinefelter. All have different rates of presentation.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Ok, sure. I don't really know what you mean.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Those are types of intersex "disorders". I hesitate to use disorder , but I don't have a better term for the conditions...not being an MD and all
reply
0 ups
Idiopathic isn't really one specific cause of intersex. Klinefelter's Syndrome I would say is more of a way its presented.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Very rare
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Not rare at all and its called intersex.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Depends on the condition, doesn't it?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Correct. But it really depends on where you want to draw the line between normal male or female and intersex.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
That's too open ended sounds agenda driven not scientific. However, I shall read more about it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If you want to learn more I made a pretty in in detail comment around the bottom and this gives a pretty good explanation too: scratch.mit.edu/https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/70723204/
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Thanks. I was reading. Starting to wonder about causation and the environment.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Many foods contain artificial sex hormones in it, some things like plastics do too. The number of intersex people have slightly increased recently due to changes in ingredients, what people use, etc.
reply
0 ups
I know that polyurethane mimcs estrogen almost to a t. Think shower curtains, tubing, milk jugs. So it got me thinking...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Foods with more chemicals and contained in things like plastics are more likely to contain some artificial sex hormones. Although intersex normally has a natural cause sometimes its caused by those things or the mother may have been taking some kind of drug while pregnant as an example.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Thanks for your info
0 ups
No problem.
Sorry about the duplicated comment. I thought the first one was deleted.
reply
0 ups
Some intersex conditions are more "mild" and some are more "severe". There is a lot of debate on what is considered in the intersex category. You can read my long comment around the bottom if you want.
reply
2 ups
That would actually have the opposite safety implications
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Then you've identified as an idjit.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So then you identify as a bigot?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Nope. I think idjits have just as much place in society as us normal folk.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
You mean if I'm not careful someone on this site might say something judgemental about me? Thanks for the heads-up.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Your words would have offended me, but I make it a point to be kind to people with 1st grade grammar skills.
reply
1 up
As well you should. They're clearly doing you a favor by speaking in terms you can grasp.
reply
4 ups
This meme sucks
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Anyone who hates on this comment is therefore a bigot for believing me to be one.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You didnt have to fight for your rights to be a straight white christian male. You dont even know what you're opposed to.
reply
0 ups
There is a very clear example of what straight Christian males are opposed to. If you actually knew anything about Christian people, you'd know the Bible is a thing.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
Yeah it's kinda weird that all the talk of bathroom creeping and peeping is coming from religious heteros who follow it up with how everyone but them is a perv.
reply
1 up
;-;
reply
1 up
I identify as an attack helicopter. Don't tell me what to do.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Just don't INDENTIFY as a speller!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Lol I made this running on about 3 hours of sleep.
reply
1 up
Well, there is such a thing as speelcheek !
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m f**king retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me “Apache” and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
reply
0 ups
Lol ^^^
reply
1 up, 1 reply
:)
reply
1 up
Haha, I was gonna make the title "I'm not done with the bathrooms yet" lol
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Oh snap.
reply
1 up
Whatever you said to me on that other thread got bumped. Must've been naughty indeed.
reply
1 up
Snizz to the ap! :)
reply
0 ups
Bathroom division is about physical compatibility, not f**king identity.
reply
1 up
Well the first step to tackling your bigotry is acknowledging it.
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I'M A BIGOT FOR THINKING BIOLOGICAL MALES WHO INDENTIFY AS WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THE WOMEN'S BATHROOM FOR SAFETY REASONS? WHAT IF I INDENTIFY AS A NON-BIGOT?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back