valid point, but the individual changing rooms would take care of this problem eh?
Yes, if your primary goal is to make sure people who are sexually attracted to each other aren't in the same facilities. But your argument has been that because you are not allowed to share bathrooms and locker rooms with women, gays have a civil right that you don't. Attraction is a mental thing- gender is not. How does the fact that bathrooms are not separated by thoughts equal "civil rights violation"?
just for arguments sake though lets say you ask as a requirement to joining the gym...
What does that accomplish if someone chooses not to answer truthfully? Or defines sexual orientation in a different way?Even though there can be controversies with gender, it's generally straightforward.
also seeing as you didnt answer ill ask again, do you think its acceptable for the cross dressing man to be able to hit on guys he finds sexually attractive in the locker room?
how about you straw?
Things I find unacceptable happen in bathrooms all the time. I walked into the locker room a few days ago and heard some dude talking about his "kike boss." However, both are essentially freedom of speech issues. Having said that, you're aware of Larry Craig, right? Depending on what and how the advance was made, said cross-dresser can be arrested.
Sandow's post was 100% correct. I didn't want to get into it too deeply earlier because this thread is already all over the place, but gender separation is not to separate people who are attracted to each other. It is to separate MEN from WOMEN. it's about rape and violence OVERWHELMINGLY committed on women by men.Outside of prison, man-on-man rape is not very common. Male-on-female sexually based crimes are a common occurence. Separating the sexes was not about making sure neither gender was sexually harassed. When bathrooms were initially segregated by gender, the concept of sexual harassment wasn't even in existence. Separating by gender was about preventing PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.