I see you completely sidestepped my argument and didn't address anything in my post. I'll take that as a sign that you have no logical and reasonable argument. Transgender people are humans like anybody else. They identify with a gender just like you and I do. You want a society where gender is distinguished? At the moment we do. There are female and male toilets. Now a person who has undergone gender reassignment is now male or female. So they fit into your need for gender distinction and as such will go to a male or female bathroom. Rio and Optimal both provided solutions. Have single rooms and cubicles for each toilet with floor to roof walls and doors. Everyone has their own toilet and are not infringing on anyone else. Once again, another point you failed to address.
Nope didnt say that once. Only argued against all bathrooms being universal gender.. Your back peddling my friend once you realised noone else supoorted anyone being in any bathroom lmao
You're very self important aren't you? If you look back, you will see that that quote you just used wasn't a direct response to ANYONE. If it was, I would have addressed a person, or quoted what I was responding to. And no, arguing against is NOT the same as arguing for. That's like saying people that fight vs copyright trolls are promoting copyright infringement.
You are correct. You did not say those exact words. But you used the exact logic Rio is using above. Let me demonstrate by showing you your own words: Do you see now?
You're correct, you didn't say that, however I'm using your logic (most victims are girls and perpetrators are men) to state that because most victims know and trust their abusers, it's safer to let people that they don't know or trust look after them. I haven't back-pedalled once, if I make a mistake I apologise for it, anyone that has seen me make one on the KAW forums will have seen that.
At crazy. Not once did i say trans shouldnt have their own facilities..quite the opposite. Again you havnt even read the argument.. But whatever. Typical forum argument, rage against something till its unpopular then pretend its not what you meant... Is why i avoid this place
Oh look, I made a mistake, sorry. YOU didn't say that most victims are female. That was in one of serendipity's links. If 80% of these crimes are done by men, then eliminating their threat is a good idea. 80% of children know their abusers, so by eliminating the threat (not letting people they know and trust look after them) I'm keeping 80% of children safe! See, your logic is fundamentally flawed. The ONLY way to keep minors safe in toilets is how I suggested. Floor to ceiling walls and individual cubicles.
All i see is what ive said all along, trans should have their own restrooms. Not make all restrooms universal
If that's all you see, I suggest you get your eyes checked. Your logic quite clearly means that what is less statistically significant is not as important. Hence why Rio is saying, according to your logic, it is safer to leave your child with a stranger because STATISTICALLY abuse comes from a person the victim knows. Again, trans are human like you and I. They have a gender like you and I. So why do they need special toilets? Should lesbians get one too? How about someone who is gay? You're side stepping everyone's arguments against your own.
Of course a man could dress as a woman and do that. But what relevance does it have to my argument? So you dont think men should be allowed in womens restrooms but you think im stupid for saying it bc a man could dress as a woman and go do it anyway. Are you trolling me or what? Men shouldnt be in womens restrooms period, thats all ive said, do you all agree or disagree? One post yall say they shouldnt then you say trans gender shouldnt have to have their own restrooms..lmao well where is the line drawn? If they look 100% male but say their trans they should be allowed in? But you both just said men shouldnt be allowed to use womens....so do we have a hall monitor at each restroom who decides who is trans and whos lying? Lmao
I agree, and have always agreed. Children can be transgender too, if they have to go into those toilets what's to protect them?
What if a man dressed up as a woman and walked into a trans only bathroom and assaulted someone in there? What then?
To the edited part of that: no, we have singular cubicles like I've already suggested multiple times. FYI, this would cut down on ALL types of sexual crimes committed in restrooms.
Agreed, Rio. I don't think we could have a better solution than that one. It keeps everyone 'happy', so to speak.
Going back to the OP: I've just had a thought, gender neutrality / equality wouldn't work, atleast not fully, purely because all babies should be breastfed, (WHO recommends 24months) now I'm aware in some situations this just isn't possible, however if we were to follow the breast is best motto,women would be out of work after childbirth for atleast 6-12 months exclusive breastfeeding, with the man bringing the money, it would make neutrality and equality rather hard to get.
There are no Trans only bathrooms so let's cross that bridge when we come to it. People will be assaulted in these new public restrooms, it will happen eventually, this has opened new territory for molesters to explore. The only thing we can do as a society to prevent it is to not use those restrooms and/or know how to defend yourself/child. Personally I will laugh when I see a molester has been beaten, shot, stabbed etc. for trying to take advantage of this restroom fiasco.
Let's cross that bridge when we come to it? Is there a case with the specific facts of: a man dressed up as a female specifically to enter into a female bathroom to assault someone? If not, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Assaults go on all around us. Rio's suggestion is one that potentially keeps everyone a lot safer, not just who we pick and choose as a society.