Author Topic: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms  (Read 35036 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #150 on: January 26, 2015, 12:43:57 PM »
The degradation of America (in this case California) continues. On the bright side when Obama and Mooshell visit their Hollywood buddies they won't be so confused.


http://allenbwest.com/2015/01/california-city-prohibits-gender-specific-restrooms/

Yes, practical bathroom designation is part of the degradation of America!

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH


And the Tools march on!!!!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #151 on: January 26, 2015, 12:45:41 PM »
It doesn't specifically mention it but it does cover it when it says:  "person's private sense, and subjective experience,"
 

I said that before (and i stated why on this very thread) because i hadn't read the other definition

I don't think we are "creating any kind of twisted society".  Is that your answer to my questions?  i.e. "Attempt to eliminate gender differences"    "Broader agenda of indoctrination"   To what end?

Some feel we should address realities with in our society to protect those people's rights.  
 

Seriously?  I live in California.  I go to SF often.  These days you don't need to go to SF to see some crazy stuff.  

And why should i address the specific language when the wiki def sums it up well enough IMO?

Is all this a good enough answer from me Beach?

quid pro quo  

"Attempt to eliminate gender differences"    "Broader agenda of indoctrination"   To what end?

No, it's not the same language.  But like I said, I get why you will not address it.  

I have no problem with protecting people's rights.  What I have a problem with is creating, by law (not biology) a new gender classification, or eliminating gender altogether, as the language from California that I quoted for you appears to be trying to do.  And if you don't believe putting in your own state law that people if they choose to be can be "neither" gender isn't twisted, then we just see the world differently.  

Or do we?

Quote
I don;t see why it's complicated.

penis = man

vagina = woman


Why doe it get some complicated?



Apparently it's a lot more complicated than that today.  

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #152 on: January 26, 2015, 12:46:03 PM »
also on every single airplane that Bum has ever ridden on in his life

So the Airlines, United, Southwest, Delta etc.. are in the broad agenda and indoctrination to erase gender identity in America?


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #153 on: January 26, 2015, 12:47:51 PM »
ok yeah I don't see how anyone could oppose this.  if there's a gas station with only 1 single occupant bathroom, they can't just say it's only for women.  who the fuck is arguing against this? 

Coach is the person show started this thread and he thinks this is a sign of the degradation of  America

Bum has chosen to ignore that obvious fact and pretend it's a sign of something (still not sure what but it's definitely "bad")
He doesn't believe it's just about common sense and convenience.   He can see through that charade and knows it's really part of a culture war

We are definitely living in strange and interesting times, but I'm not sure we turn back the clock on most of this stuff.  Assuming states retain freedoms, I think the best option for people might be to move to another state. 

You really think this is just about convenience for everyone and not pushing some agenda?  

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #154 on: January 26, 2015, 12:50:58 PM »
Coach is the person show started this thread and he thinks this is a sign of the degradation of  America
Bum has chosen to ignore that obvious fact and pretend it's a sign of something (still not sure what but it's definitely "bad")
He doesn't believe it's just about common sense and convenience.   He can see through that charade and knows it's really part of a culture war


yeah I gotta disagree with him then on this one.  I just wanna go poo when I have to go poo.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #155 on: January 26, 2015, 12:57:11 PM »
yeah I gotta with him then on this one.  I just wanna go poo when I have to go poo.

good luck convincing either Bum or Joe

btw - one of the early posts on this thread had a restaurant owner who had mens and womens bathrooms and he said this was a good thing because there would often be a line for one while the other one was completely vacant

again, just common sense shit but Bum apparently sees it as the front line of a culture war that he knows is being waged against people like him and of course Joe just thinks is a sign of the degradation of America.

That's the level of political discourse on this board

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #156 on: January 26, 2015, 01:04:09 PM »
No, it's not the same language.  But like I said, I get why you will not address it.  

I have no problem with protecting people's rights.  What I have a problem with is creating, by law (not biology) a new gender classification, or eliminating gender altogether, as the language from California that I quoted for you appears to be trying to do.  And if you don't believe putting in your own state law that people if they choose to be can be "neither" gender isn't twisted, then we just see the world differently.  

Or do we?

It wouldn't matter if i think its twisted or now, its just different.  There are always people who are different; that's the reality we have lived in since the beginning of time and laws sometimes need to be established to protect the rights of people who want to be or are different.  That's part of what makes us a free country and great one.

A free country where people can live and be who they want to be, whose religion isn't normal, whose life style isn't normal, whose race isn't normal and who's gender identity isn't normal can live here with equal rights protected under the law.

That's what these laws are about.  

You seem to think they are part of a   "Broader agenda of indoctrination".  What do you mean be that?

Do believe we should be a free country BB?  

And are you gonna answer these questions or just keep dodging them?

"Attempt to eliminate gender differences"    "Broader agenda of indoctrination"   To what end?

 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #157 on: January 26, 2015, 01:05:26 PM »
Coach is the person show started this thread and he thinks this is a sign of the degradation of  America

Bum has chosen to ignore that obvious fact and pretend it's a sign of something (still not sure what but it's definitely "bad")
He doesn't believe it's just about common sense and convenience.   He can see through that charade and knows it's really part of a culture war


Would have never pegged Bum as a CT'er.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #158 on: January 26, 2015, 01:23:21 PM »
It wouldn't matter if i think its twisted or now, its just different.  There are always people who are different; that's the reality we have lived in since the beginning of time and laws sometimes need to be established to protect the rights of people who want to be or are different.  That's part of what makes us a free country and great one.

A free country where people can live and be who they want to be, whose religion isn't normal, whose life style isn't normal, whose race isn't normal and who's gender identity isn't normal can live here with equal rights protected under the law.

That's what these laws are about.  

You seem to think they are part of a   "Broader agenda of indoctrination".  What do you mean be that?

Do believe we should be a free country BB?  

And are you gonna answer these questions or just keep dodging them?

"Attempt to eliminate gender differences"    "Broader agenda of indoctrination"   To what end?

 

Oh I'll be "dodging" your question as long as you continue to dodge mine.  So we're probably at a stalemate there.   :)

Regarding protecting people, that's not what this is about.  We already have enough laws on the books to protect people.  We didn't have to create a new gender (including no gender), then pass additional laws to address a newly created statutory gender classification.  I don't think anyone is saying people don't need to be protected.  Of course they do.  

What we don't need to do is try and change biology by passing some law saying, for example, that the anus is a genital.  Or that people can just choose to be no gender at all, whatever the heck that means, and the rest of society has to walk on egg shells.  

In Hawaii, we already include sex and sexual orientation as protected classes in employment, housing, public accommodations, and hate crimes.  We didn't need "gender identity," which only mucks things up with some convoluted definition.  But that's what happens when we don't pump the brakes on this attempt to use pen and ink to change biology.  

And regarding people choosing to live a certain lifestyle, I could care less what they choose to do.  I did business with a guy via phone and internet several years ago.  I wanted to refer some business to him the other day, so I emailed him and some wahine responded.  It was him.  He was diagnosed with gender identity disorder.  Had a sex change.  Changed his name.  I told him he was good at work before his sex change and I'm sure he's still good now, and that I don't care what he does in his private life.  I made the referral and didn't even tell the person they were dealing with was a woman who used to be a man.  Saying all that to say I don't care about people's private lives.  

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #159 on: January 26, 2015, 01:27:37 PM »
Oh I'll be "dodging" your question as long as you continue to dodge mine.  So we're probably at a stalemate there.   :)



 ::)

I have answered you question over and over.

Forget about it, i am not longer interested in wasting my time with you.  

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #160 on: January 26, 2015, 01:29:15 PM »
::)

Forget about it, i am not longer interested in wasting my time with you. 

Oh I'm crushed.   :'(

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #161 on: January 26, 2015, 01:29:44 PM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #162 on: January 26, 2015, 01:31:25 PM »
*Yawn*

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #163 on: January 26, 2015, 01:32:45 PM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #164 on: January 26, 2015, 01:34:22 PM »
 :)


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #165 on: January 26, 2015, 01:34:59 PM »
:)



coward is coward does.

RUN BB RUN!!!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #166 on: January 26, 2015, 01:36:27 PM »
 :D


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #167 on: January 26, 2015, 02:50:51 PM »
Yes, practical bathroom designation is part of the degradation of America!

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH


And the Tools march on!!!!

You just don't get it

Smart guys like Coach and Bum know what this is really all about

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #168 on: January 26, 2015, 03:38:17 PM »
It wouldn't matter if i think its twisted or now, its just different.  There are always people who are different; that's the reality we have lived in since the beginning of time and laws sometimes need to be established to protect the rights of people who want to be or are different.  That's part of what makes us a free country and great one.

A free country where people can live and be who they want to be, whose religion isn't normal, whose life style isn't normal, whose race isn't normal and who's gender identity isn't normal can live here with equal rights protected under the law.

That's what these laws are about. 

You seem to think they are part of a   "Broader agenda of indoctrination".  What do you mean be that?

Do believe we should be a free country BB? 

And are you gonna answer these questions or just keep dodging them?

"Attempt to eliminate gender differences"    "Broader agenda of indoctrination"   To what end?

 



I think that probably goes to the heart of the issue.  The basic argument would be framed as whether or not the State has an interest in regulating.

The argument that was put forth is that existing signs on restrooms would disenfranchise people who were born one sex, but identify with another.  To avoid public embarassment, they want the signs removed or changed on individual bathrooms.

That argument kinda falls short though as transgendered people have to face that same choice when entering a multi-person restroom, which I would argue are just as prevelant - or more so - than individual use restrooms.

So, where is the line to be drawn?  'If' the State has an interest in ensuring that transgendered people do not feel embarassment when selecting a restroom to use, why can't the same logic be applied to multi-person restrooms?

Personally, I don't care much.  I'll piss with a woman in the bathroom, and in the VERY rare case I shit in a public bathroom, I could care less who's in the next stall over.  But, it certainly begs the question as to whether or not there should be any designation for any public bathrooms.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #169 on: January 26, 2015, 03:52:56 PM »
poli board sucks big ol donkey dick lately.

rinos are scared to impeach, love amnesty, love min wage, and can't stop kneepadding romney.
libs know they are probably gonna win white house no matter what obama does in nxt 2 years.
conservatives are just tired of the shit here.

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #170 on: January 26, 2015, 04:31:44 PM »
poli board sucks big ol donkey dick lately.

rinos are scared to impeach, love amnesty, love min wage, and can't stop kneepadding romney.
libs know they are probably gonna win white house no matter what obama does in nxt 2 years.
conservatives are just tired of the shit here.



Ya know I still luv you champ.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39421
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #171 on: January 26, 2015, 05:00:29 PM »
Well isn't everyone a fruitcake in cali anyway?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #172 on: January 26, 2015, 06:09:59 PM »
Ya know I still luv you champ.

 ;D

Well isn't everyone a fruitcake in cali anyway?

Cali is different from the USA.  One dollar in Iowa is only worth 25 cents in Cali.  A shitbag liberal in texas is known as a RINO in Cali.   There are people that want to keep obama in office, who support amnesty, who love romney, actually calling themselves republicans under the cali doctrine.  it's madness, but with a state that liberal, what do you expect?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #173 on: January 26, 2015, 07:42:35 PM »


I think that probably goes to the heart of the issue.  The basic argument would be framed as whether or not the State has an interest in regulating.

The argument that was put forth is that existing signs on restrooms would disenfranchise people who were born one sex, but identify with another.  To avoid public embarassment, they want the signs removed or changed on individual bathrooms.

That argument kinda falls short though as transgendered people have to face that same choice when entering a multi-person restroom, which I would argue are just as prevelant - or more so - than individual use restrooms.

So, where is the line to be drawn?  'If' the State has an interest in ensuring that transgendered people do not feel embarassment when selecting a restroom to use, why can't the same logic be applied to multi-person restrooms?


Personally, I don't care much.  I'll piss with a woman in the bathroom, and in the VERY rare case I shit in a public bathroom, I could care less who's in the next stall over.  But, it certainly begs the question as to whether or not there should be any designation for any public bathrooms.



I don't get your "falls short" rationale

It works for single occupant bathrooms and that's all it was meant to address.  As mentioned by a restaurant owner (or manager) in a video on the first page, he likes it even though he has multiple single user bathrooms because it eliminates lines at one while the other remains empty which has nothing to do with the gender related issues that Bum is struggling with.  

I suspect the issue that Bum is dealing with is that he doesn't want to be reminded that transgendered people exist in the first place which is why he calls it "strange and interesting times"  and muses about "turning back the clock"




Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40768
Re: California city prohibits gender specific restrooms
« Reply #174 on: January 26, 2015, 10:43:22 PM »


I think that probably goes to the heart of the issue.  The basic argument would be framed as whether or not the State has an interest in regulating.

The argument that was put forth is that existing signs on restrooms would disenfranchise people who were born one sex, but identify with another.  To avoid public embarassment, they want the signs removed or changed on individual bathrooms.

That argument kinda falls short though as transgendered people have to face that same choice when entering a multi-person restroom, which I would argue are just as prevelant - or more so - than individual use restrooms.

So, where is the line to be drawn?  'If' the State has an interest in ensuring that transgendered people do not feel embarassment when selecting a restroom to use, why can't the same logic be applied to multi-person restrooms?

Personally, I don't care much.  I'll piss with a woman in the bathroom, and in the VERY rare case I shit in a public bathroom, I could care less who's in the next stall over.  But, it certainly begs the question as to whether or not there should be any designation for any public bathrooms.



I'm with you on not giving much thought to who is in the next stall. When I was a kid, I didn't like using public restrooms. I grew up and got over it. A very popular upscale restaurant and bar here in Portland, has four restrooms. None of them has any designation. One uses which ever one comes available first.

Public restrooms at places with a lot of people, like a concert hall probably need a designation because women need stalls while most men get by using the urinals. Consequently, women's restrooms need to be somewhat larger then men's restrooms at such places. Some clever women can pee in a urinal, but that isn't a real common sight.