The Sexuality Left's Real Enemy is Christianity
Governor Andrew Cuomo of NY recently banned most travel by state employees to North Carolina. Was this bizarre action a result of a resurgence of the KKK? No -- rather, Cuomo has decided to impose his religious beliefs on the residents of North Carolina.
Those dastardly North Carolinians dared to say that men shouldn’t be allowed to use women’s restrooms. Clearly no right thinking progressive could live with that, so Cuomo, and thousands of other liberal bigots, immediately began applying pressure to assure that men could use women’s restrooms.
From a scientific perspective, it’s clear that men who claim to think they’re women need our help and support, but the right answer is not to enable their delusion. But even more importantly, both men and women have, according to liberals, a constitutionally ensured right to privacy.
Yet what greater invasion of privacy could there be than to be forced to share a bathroom with a stranger of the opposite sex? Cuomo is appalled that parents don’t want their 10-year-old daughters exposed to any man who simply declares that he’s a woman. Apparently, liberals have no interest in protecting children from pedophile voyeurs. But even adult women don’t want to be forced to share a bathroom with a person with a male reproductive organ.
It seems that to liberals like Cuomo that the only citizens who have rights are those who deny their biological identity -- a rather bizarre faith-based belief.
Cuomo and his ilk reject the settled science that says that merely thinking one is of the opposite sex does not in fact make one a member of the opposite sex in order to advance their purely faith-based belief that people are infinitely malleable.
Could you imagine Cuomo ever saying that a white man could declare himself to be black because he felt he was a black man and as a result get perks reserved for minorities, such as preferential treatment for jobs and government contracts? (Cuomo's opinion concerning Rachel Dolezal, who did exactly that, is not on record.)
No sane and honest person thinks that a person’s sex is any less determined by their DNA than is a person’s race yet liberals wish to impose their belief in magic on the rest of society. Such a rejection of settled science is proof positive that Cuomo is engaged in a discriminatory religious crusade against people who believe in scientific truths.
The internal inconsistency of Cuomo’s position is highlighted by his plan to travel to China. China continues to treat members of the LGBT community very poorly -- as understood by liberals -- and certainly men are not allowed to use women’s bathrooms.
Perhaps the reason that Cuomo has no problem with this apparent bit of hypocrisy is that his real motivation is hatred for Christianity, or more precisely Christian morals, rather than a deeply held love of the “transgendered”.
After all Cuomo, like all hard-core liberals, believes in the unlimited right of the government to control American’s lives. Cuomo believes that he and his minions, the very well paid government bureaucrats, are the anointed elite who have the right and the responsibility to tell everyone else how they should live their lives.
But in America, religion, generally Christianity, argues that the rights of men flow from God, not the State and that the State’s power in fact flows from the people. Christianity teaches that the people run the government; a concept that directly conflicts with the liberal ideal of the government controlling the people.
Cuomo is not the only elected official to espouse, through his actions, this liberal perspective. After all, Obama has often bemoaned having to work with the people’s representatives and has, whenever he thought he could get away with it, violated the constitutional restrictions on presidential powers.
Interestingly, both Obama and Cuomo have visited Cuba, a country that has a far worse record on LGBT issues than North Carolina. Apparently concern for LGBTs is limited to places where Christianity is a key cultural force. Atheistic persecution of LGBTs by China and Cuba don’t seem to bother either Cuomo or Obama.
And then of course Obama’s continual praise for Iran, a country that persecutes LGBTs, shows that he’s not motivated by a real compassion for the “transgendered”.
There is an old saying that those the gods would destroy they first make mad. It alludes to the fact that hubris, pride, and the belief that men can change their own nature lead to actions that are mad when viewed in the context of reality.
Yet what can be more insane than claiming that, merely by saying so, Bruce Jenner can become a woman? What a sexist affront to women!
It’s unclear whether people like Cuomo actually believe in the insanity they endorse, or if they are simply cynically using the LGBT community as a battering ram to destroy the last remaining obstacle – religion -- to their grab for complete power over the American people.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/the_sexuality_lefts_real_enemy_is_christianity.html#ixzz455pKOrv5
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Those dastardly North Carolinians dared to say that men shouldn’t be allowed to use women’s restrooms. Clearly no right thinking progressive could live with that, so Cuomo, and thousands of other liberal bigots, immediately began applying pressure to assure that men could use women’s restrooms.
From a scientific perspective, it’s clear that men who claim to think they’re women need our help and support, but the right answer is not to enable their delusion. But even more importantly, both men and women have, according to liberals, a constitutionally ensured right to privacy.
Yet what greater invasion of privacy could there be than to be forced to share a bathroom with a stranger of the opposite sex? Cuomo is appalled that parents don’t want their 10-year-old daughters exposed to any man who simply declares that he’s a woman. Apparently, liberals have no interest in protecting children from pedophile voyeurs. But even adult women don’t want to be forced to share a bathroom with a person with a male reproductive organ.
It seems that to liberals like Cuomo that the only citizens who have rights are those who deny their biological identity -- a rather bizarre faith-based belief.
Cuomo and his ilk reject the settled science that says that merely thinking one is of the opposite sex does not in fact make one a member of the opposite sex in order to advance their purely faith-based belief that people are infinitely malleable.
Could you imagine Cuomo ever saying that a white man could declare himself to be black because he felt he was a black man and as a result get perks reserved for minorities, such as preferential treatment for jobs and government contracts? (Cuomo's opinion concerning Rachel Dolezal, who did exactly that, is not on record.)
No sane and honest person thinks that a person’s sex is any less determined by their DNA than is a person’s race yet liberals wish to impose their belief in magic on the rest of society. Such a rejection of settled science is proof positive that Cuomo is engaged in a discriminatory religious crusade against people who believe in scientific truths.
The internal inconsistency of Cuomo’s position is highlighted by his plan to travel to China. China continues to treat members of the LGBT community very poorly -- as understood by liberals -- and certainly men are not allowed to use women’s bathrooms.
Perhaps the reason that Cuomo has no problem with this apparent bit of hypocrisy is that his real motivation is hatred for Christianity, or more precisely Christian morals, rather than a deeply held love of the “transgendered”.
After all Cuomo, like all hard-core liberals, believes in the unlimited right of the government to control American’s lives. Cuomo believes that he and his minions, the very well paid government bureaucrats, are the anointed elite who have the right and the responsibility to tell everyone else how they should live their lives.
But in America, religion, generally Christianity, argues that the rights of men flow from God, not the State and that the State’s power in fact flows from the people. Christianity teaches that the people run the government; a concept that directly conflicts with the liberal ideal of the government controlling the people.
Cuomo is not the only elected official to espouse, through his actions, this liberal perspective. After all, Obama has often bemoaned having to work with the people’s representatives and has, whenever he thought he could get away with it, violated the constitutional restrictions on presidential powers.
Interestingly, both Obama and Cuomo have visited Cuba, a country that has a far worse record on LGBT issues than North Carolina. Apparently concern for LGBTs is limited to places where Christianity is a key cultural force. Atheistic persecution of LGBTs by China and Cuba don’t seem to bother either Cuomo or Obama.
And then of course Obama’s continual praise for Iran, a country that persecutes LGBTs, shows that he’s not motivated by a real compassion for the “transgendered”.
There is an old saying that those the gods would destroy they first make mad. It alludes to the fact that hubris, pride, and the belief that men can change their own nature lead to actions that are mad when viewed in the context of reality.
Yet what can be more insane than claiming that, merely by saying so, Bruce Jenner can become a woman? What a sexist affront to women!
It’s unclear whether people like Cuomo actually believe in the insanity they endorse, or if they are simply cynically using the LGBT community as a battering ram to destroy the last remaining obstacle – religion -- to their grab for complete power over the American people.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/the_sexuality_lefts_real_enemy_is_christianity.html#ixzz455pKOrv5
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
The democrats love the feel of power they have when they force young ladies to have to share the public bathroom with grown men who wish they were little girls. That they get to bash religion in the process is gravy for them.
The absurdity of that statement is only worthy of a response to state how ridiculous it is. In fact it is beyond and below absurdity, ridiculousness and commonsense reasoning.
Of course considering that it's source is the equivalent of some "thing" considerably less then that of the very lowest of a cheap supermarket checkout magazine it is not too terribly surprising. It is laughable. It is a childishly stupid.
The article has it exactly right. The nature of your response to it shows that it scored a direct hit.
What utterly astonishes me is that you consistently show hatred and anger toward those who don't view the world through your own rather warped lens. Christianity is all about love and tolerance, not hatred and anger. There is no need to spew such spiteful hatefulness, day after day. All of us know your opinion, and you're certainly not converting anyone to your viewpoint. Remember, he who slings mud, loses ground.
You are in my prayers, so that somehow the hateful is drained from your heart by a merciful God.
there is no hate. I was simply defending religious liberty and the way Mississippi, North Carolina, and other states are going about doing so.
The democrats love the feel of power they have when they force young ladies to have to share the public bathroom with grown men who wish they were little girls. That they get to bash religion in the process is gravy for them.
You don't see the hate there? You hate democrats, and tell us, in so many ways. If you can't see that statement as hateful and derogatory, I truly feel sorry for you!
I'm a democrat and a person who believes in religion. I don't bash religion-- I'm not fond of the hatred spewed by those who are intolerant of others. You paint everyone who disagrees with you with a broad brush, tinged with disapproval, anger, and dislike. What a shame!!! If you could just open your heart, just a little, you could see that most people are not so different from you, and that most people are nice.
Again, these kind of posts draws no one to your side of the argument. No one wants to be associated with you-- even those who do agree with you. I certainly don't see them coming here to defend your blanket statements.
The idea of girls having to share a public bathroom with a grown man who wishes he weren't one is just one of those things that offends me. It still doesn't rise to the level of hatred. Political discussions can be rough and tough without one hating another. We are not snow flakes here.
What are you talking about? A grown man who doesn't wish to be one? What do you mean? A trans-sexual? If they have made the gender change, then they are happy in what they have become... A thought that must escape you!
Your statements reek of hate and anger! It disgusts me, and I pity you that you cannot see it. Political discussions can be rough-- as you so well put it-- but they don't HAVE to devolve into anger, name-calling, and hate. You manage to take every one of your political discussions and "bark" at people... You remind me of this:
No, I'm talking about grown men who are physically and biologically men but who identify themselves as if they were a girl/woman. They are and appear as men and go into a girls room because they want to identify themselves and compel everyone else to treat them as female. I'm not talking about gay or lesbian or people who have been surgically manipulated to the opposite gender.
Do you think that if I were to sacrifice a lamb I could win the lottery?
How did my reply get down here, it belonged after the comment about religion made by Dowser.
in a very public place no guy is going to go into a women's bathroom if he has to pee in a hurry.
This isn't a big issue to me, and I'm one of those who use the women's restroom, as I should. Frankly, I don't care. I rarely dance around in the nude in the ladies restroom, (never, that I can think of), and often seek the advice of gay men when purchasing my clothes-- I figure they can see what looks best on me, and are not interested in bashing me in any way. They are always grateful that I asked their help and treat them like any other girl friend... IF a gay guy were there, and my strap broke, or some other emergency, I would have no hesitation in asking them to apply a safety pin to the offending article of clothing... Gay guys aren't interested in me-- I'm safe.
Private stalls are located in women's restrooms. If you've got a problem, go into the private stall. I would rather my daughter go into a restroom with a gay man in it than some of the women I've seen!
Personally, I think this is all much ado about nothing, based on biases, and personal dislike of the LGBT community. I don't feel that way. It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other-- why would it? People are people and we all need a clean, private place to dispose of our "droppings", so to speak... If a gay guy is afraid he'll be 'jumped' in the men's room, he is welcome to come into the ladies room with me-- I would do my best to help him!
Standard American Thinker nonsense. Liberal men are very excited to legally be able to walk into a ladies restroom and listen to a woman pinch off a steamy loaf, through the walls of the stall that prevent anyone from seeing her.
As a member of the formally sexuality active left, I'd like to say just how much I love Christianity. I mean did you read that really hot old Testament story in Job where the guys daughters get him drunk and force themselves on him? That ought to go over really, really big with the jury! "Honest guys, I was just trying to get some shuteye and then suddenly they were all over me!" I'm sure the judge will love it too! And getting them BOTH pregnant!!!! Had to be rated XXX!! WOW!
It recorded that as happening. It was with Lot and his daughters after Sodomand Gomorrah were destroyed for their sinful perversions. Lot never saw Abraham again and was never recorded in the Bible again after that. Their children founded nations that were later enemies of or destroyed by Gods people after the Exodus some 600 years later.
I stand (sit?) corrected. Lot is the one whose "god" turned his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back. Must have been a real bitch for her the next time it rained. Women and their curiosity. Scheesch! Job is the one who his version of "god" kept screwing over to prove to Satan that he would stay a godly man. It's been awhile since I've read my copy of the bible.
Oh and Lot was the one who preferred that the gay men of the town rape his daughters rather then the male angels that were the guests at his home. "Make Room for Daddy!"
and the Angels did not approve of the gesture and blinded all they gay men before leading Lot and his family out of the city. God gave them specific instructions upon leaving the city and Lots wife would not obey because her heart was there. As usual though, it's that there's consequences for disobedience that's the issue for the non believer not that the person disobeyed a direct instruction from a divine being.
"... the person disobeyed a direct instruction from a divine being."
Was that back when God gave direct instructions? He went strangely silent about the time humans started using their brains to solve problems, instead of relying on wish thinking.
I'm a man, but I would have looked back. I would not have been able to resist to look and to see what was happening!
Would you have looked upon the rough equivalent of multiple nuclear detonations that were totally destroying multiple cities at the same time if you were told not to?
XX, be grateful you have a few atheists here who are willing to constantly argue about and pick over the bones of your relentless number articles about the Christian faith. They are making you the king of the hill on this site.
Would you have looked upon the rough equivalent of multiple nuclear detonations that were totally destroying multiple cities at the same time if you were told not to?
Sure, as long as I had my sunglasses on. Besides, since there is no god, who would tell me. And since the story is a fable, it's all academic anyway.
The issue in North Carolina and other states goes way beyond bathroom usage. The fact we're focused on the bathrooms in NC is to negate the full-out discrimination that is now protected in the state. The state undermined one of it's largest cities, Charlotte, to put through this legislation.
The courts will duke it out and for now the state of North Carolina gets to keep their state law and others can determine whether or not they choose to abide.
The courts will duke it out and for now the state of North Carolina gets to keep their state law and others can determine whether or not they choose to abide.
In addition to the legal battle, more and more corporations will be exerting pressure against the state by choosing not to re-locate there, not to locate there in the first place, and not holding big conventions there.
And it's not only corporations:
Bruce Springsteen Cancels North Carolina Concert Over Anti-LGBT Law
The legendary rocker is the latest to join a growing chorus of celebrities and public figures who’ve spoken out against HB2. On April 3, basketball legend Charles Barkley cited the law when he called for the NBA to relocate its 2017 All-Star Game , which is slated to take place in Charlotte, in an interview with CNN . Meanwhile, stage and screen composer Stephen Schwartz has said he’ll deny the production rights to his Broadway musicals, including “Wicked,” to all North Carolina-based theaters and performing arts groups until the law is repealed.(LINK)
What? No riots yet?
Buzz,
I think the monetary implications far out weigh any voice a riot would provide. Money, or lack thereof, is seemingly a great equalizer. Like all things in life, time and the judicial system will figure it out.
If enough states do it the businesses will have to decide if they want to avoid being in many of the southern, mid western, plains, and mountain west states. It will be where they can't isolate a state or two by their actions. The more states join in, the harder business will have basing its economic model on such a stupid rationale.
While you may see it as stupid rationale, the fact remains federal agencies are now looking into the law as it's stated in Mississippi and North Carolina to determine if federal non-discrimination laws are being violated. That determination could leave both states loosing billions in federal dollars. While business loses may be absorbed, I don't see either state absorbing loss of federal dollars...particularly Mississippi.
The more states that do it the harder the federal regime will have it trying to rationalize withholding funds to 15-25 states. Besides we'd haul their butts to court as the Supreme Court in its obamacare ruling prohibits the federal government to use citizens and states income and other tax revenues to coerce a particular behavior out of a state or group of them.
I'm more apt to think 15 or so governors are watching closely and like Georgia will determine the juice is not worth the squeeze. Should the state and federal laws be at odds regarding discrimination, which would put school funding, medical funding, etc. at risk, you may see a change of hearts and minds.
Damn Billy Wilder. This whole fooferaw was caused by his movie "Some Like It Hot".
So XX, you'd rather this guy have to go into the bathroom with your daughter?
More power to him! Though I have never heard of him I think he's doing the community of Trans-Men a huge service and most certainly should be allowed to use the ladies restroom!
BRAVO!!!!
Oh and BRAVO FOR BRUCE TOO!!!
According to NC law, he'd have to use the ladies room. Seems folks like XX didn't really think things through.
So it would seem. The Rachael Maddow Show just reported that two federal agencies are looking into if the new laws violate federal anti-discrimination North Carolina will be cool because the Governor vetoed the Bill, but Mississippi stands to lose billions of dollars in federal money because their Governor intends to sign their Bill.
Georgia's governor vetoed their bill. The legislature has to attempt an override. Go legislature!
This whole problem could be averted if all washrooms were for all genders instead of making them uni-gender.
There are several bars and restaurants that I personally know of in West Hollywood that have unisex bathrooms.
Up here in Washington, especially in the medical facilities, they have bathrooms, single occupancy, with privacy locks. One user at a time. No gender discrimination at all.
Simple elegant solution.
What's the big huzza over anyway, all restroom production goes to the same place no matter who labors at producing it.
Same at Eisenhower Hospital here. However in West Hollywood both (all?) genders can use them at the same time. They have nothing but stalls, with slide locks.
As long as all-stall washrooms have locking stall doors, who's to complain? If anyone is queezy about using that kind of washroom, put security cameras aimed only at the common areas to guarantee that everyone is as safe as they would be in any building public area. Just mark the stall doors with symbols for urinal or toilet.
Single occupancy bathrooms with one toilet and sink and an exterior door lock controlled from inside is fine for anyone to use. No one I know of opposes these. I don't.
Multi-occupancy toilets with nothing but lockable stalls. Several sinks. What's the problem?
We don't need pervert men wishing they were girls or claiming that looking at women or girls in the common areas of the bathroom checking them out or starring at them.
Do you think they're going to wave their dick at you? The pissing and shitting takes place in the stalls. Unless you like looking under the stall doors you shouldn't have a problem. Unless you like looking under the stall doors you're not going to know if it's male or female genitals doing the pissing. I have to perfect solution for you, don't look under the fucking door!
In the common areas the only way you'll be able to tell if they are male of female is if you ask!
So you are saying that there are no perverts? Or that they can be perverts but it is hatred to label them as such?
Again. Multi-occupancy toilets with nothing but lockable stalls. Several sinks. What's the problem?
Ooooooooooooooooppppppppppppppppps!!! Apparently NC is getting checked out too!
Christianity teaches that the people run the government
The only thing I recall Jesus saying about government was "render unto Caesar...".
Yep, Give unto god what is gods, give the rest to Caesar. (otherwise he will take it)
Why the hell can't we just have unisex restrooms. There are some of these already. It's a big room with lots of stalls with, wait for it, DOORS that latch.
Do you really think people using a busy, public unisex restroom would tolerate some deviant acting out ?
To be honest with you, I don't think the Christian right wants trans people to use ANY restroom, women's or men's.
Clearly this is the case. It's not about privacy, it's about how religion poisons everything.
Only at this time in history are we stupid enough to confuse who should use what bathroom. Males, no matter how you self identify, use the mens room. Same for females. Dont overthink it.
It is really that plain for all to see. Too bad the left can't see.
Jennilee,
Have unisex bathrooms. It's the easy solution. Don't overthink it.
Only if they are one fixture bathrooms with a sink too. Only bathrooms with a maximum use of one person can be unisex. All bathrooms with two or more toilet stalls and a common sink area should always be strictly segregated by actual biological gender. The only exception being a guardian with a small toddler or a care giver/parent with an infant at a changing table in the adults gender bathroom.
I disagree. Several stalls, several sinks. As long as the stalls lock, I don't see a problem.
Your problem is you're under thinking it. Didn't think about 90%+ of the buildings in the country having to add a third "unisex" bathroom. What if there's no room, what do you do now, tear the building down? Persecute them because they are running a business out of old buildings?
In China, most of the bathrooms in public places have the sinks outside the separate gender rooms for use by all. When I first came to China I decided that the only Chinese characters I needed to know were those for "male" and "female" so I wouldn't make a mistake. As it happens, it's only in the most archaic country toilets where they don't have at least the usual symbols, if not the English words as well.
Advice for those who are planning to visit China, who have never been there before: Make sure you bring your own tissue paper.
Didn't think about 90%+ of the buildings in the country having to add a third "unisex" bathroom.
And you're over thinking it. It's easy. They already have the bathrooms. Just change the signs on the doors to "Bathroom" and leave it at that. Problem solved.
Oh I see you are saying we should ONLY have unisex bathrooms in order to appease transgenders. (less than 1% of the population) Got it. But now you are ignoring all the obvious problems associated with both genders having to use the same restroom. More political correctness gone mad.
There are never enough women's bathrooms... Any time I go to an event, like a ball game, there is a line at the ladies room, while men can just go in and come right out. We have to stand there, waiting in line. For practical purposes, if both genders used the same bathroom, there may be enough stalls for all!
There would still be no place for a man in a ladies room.
It's called a stall, with a closing and lockable door.
Do you mean to install urinals in some of the stalls? I don't think that would help the situation... Everyone can easily use a toilet, but not everyone can easily use a urinal...
Toilets and stalls take a lot more space than urinals (most in public spaces don't even have a separator and some look like a 10 foot long sink). Long story short you can easily fit 6 urinals in half the space 2 stalls take. (Think of TOTAL space not wall space) You are just going to make EVERYONE wait longer and get every man in the country pissed at you.
I think this is a fair question as well. How are you going to feel about unisex bathrooms after the first few underage girls get raped?
"How are you going to feel about unisex bathrooms after the first few underage girls get raped?"
Lol. Fear monger much? You think a rapist cares whether it's legal to enter a ladies room or not?
Any cop or Detective will tell you most crime happens based on OPPORTUNITY. if a rapist goes into a unisex bathroom and only him and a young girl is in there....Let's just say I would expect problems. It is a lot different than having to walk into the girls room not knowing how many/who is in there and the possibility of someone screaming simply because there si a Man in the Women's room..
Care to make a wager on how quick is happens if the change is made? I am willing to put $1000.00 on it.
If a rapist goes into any bathroom.....
96, you're just naively forcing a connection between transgendered people and rapists. Give it up. It doesn't even make sense. You are suggesting a rape threat from people like this:
After all these years waiting in line, I really don't care if men are annoyed... Maybe it's time they get annoyed and design more restrooms for women!
And put diaper changing stations in men's room, too. I'm not the only adult in the family that can change diapers!
Diaper changing stations ARE in Men's rooms. Face it. the only way it will work is if they put a device to shock the piss and shit out of anyone sitting on it for more than 120 seconds. If you don't think that is long enough your part of the problem LOL!
Not in all of them. There are a lot more, now, but back when I needed them, they were few and far between... Progress is being made, slowly...
After all these years waiting in line, I really don't care if men are annoyed... Maybe it's time they get annoyed and design more restrooms for women!
And put diaper changing stations in men's room, too. I'm not the only adult in the family that can change diapers!
And put diaper changing stations in men's room, too. I'm not the only adult in the family that can change diapers!
Just about every public men's room has a diaper changing station. If someone has been telling you they don't, then they just don't want to be the one changing the diapers.
For practical purposes, if both genders used the same bathroom, there may be enough stalls for all!
That's true. It works at pubic events like Art Festivals where they just use portable generic toilets. Always seem to be empty ones.
There's nothing worse than have to go to the bathroom, and stand in line... People get in there, and take root, it seems! Get in, do your business, and get out! There's people in dire straits out there!
Quit complaining and piss standing up. LOL! Seriously though. You women take waaaaaay longer than Men. You're just going to ruin it for everyone.
Good! Maybe we'll ruin it for those who design the restrooms at public venues... If THEY had to stand in line, they would be sure to put in enough restrooms!
But now you are ignoring all the obvious problems associated with both genders having to use the same restroom.
People, men and women, go into a bathroom where they find stalls. They find an open stall, they close and lock the door behind themselves, they do whatever business they have to do, they unlock the stall (hopefully) wash their hands and leave. I see no obvious problem with that.
If it is that simple, why are we having this discussion? Shouldn't the light community just go into the stalk of their actual gender, close the stall, lock it, and do their business? Why do we have to change what has worked for generations?
Because there are many transsexual men who live their lives as women and with many it is nearly impossible (if not impossible), without being so crude as to ask, if they have male genitals. They should be able to use a bathroom where they will feel as safe as anyone else and that is a uni-sexual bathroom. Simple. It solves their problem without creating any others except for those people who would want to discriminate against transsexuals.
Not really a simple issue given current bathroom rules. What facilities should the person in red use??
The women's room. But then again if all bathrooms were uni-sexual with just stalls there wouldn't be a problem.
Randy,
Agree, it's rhetorical for some of us. I posted for those dissenting to consider
Here's a picture of a father and daughter. The daughter has male genitals. Should she be expected to use the men's only room? I don't think she'd be safe, but apparently some don't care.
If it is that simple, why are we having this discussion? Shouldn't the lgbtc ommunity just go into the stalk of their actual gender, close the stall, lock it, and do their business? Why do we have to change what has worked for generations?
These are the usual symbols you see on separate washrooms, but maybe the solution is to….
Add another room with THIS symbol:
The real, non-hysterical and honest solution is to eliminate the need for symbols altogether.
Okay, that's certainly a better solution than having to build four separate bathrooms.
True. All public and customer bathrooms in the USA under the ADA are already required to be handicap compliant when built or when remodeled, so there should be no trouble at all. So just change the sign on every bathroom door to say "Bathroom" and the problem is solved.
I still see no logical reason for mixing genders in multi stall bathrooms. Kohls and Walmart do have family bathrooms as well as men's and women's where at least if it's multi gender it's with your own family.
I don't see a reason not to.