California city prohibits gender specific restrooms

[Dos Equis]

go back to my definition/interpretation of Gender identity:

"A person who sees themselves as other then the one they are."

So neither would mean: not male, not female.  (other then)

quid pro quo    

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

I'm not going back to your definition, because your definition isn't what is on the books.  You're still dodging.

Also, "other than" doesn't mean "neither," particularly the way you're trying to use it.

[OzmO]

I'm not going back to your definition, because your definition isn't what is on the books.  You're still dodging.

Also, "other than" doesn't mean "neither," particularly the way you're trying to use it.

What ever  

My definition is my interpretation.  You asked for my interpretation and i gave it to you.

Thanks for proving you don't have the guts to answer my questions.    Run Forrest Run!

[Straw Man]

What ever  

My definition is my interpretation.  You asked for my interpretation and i gave it to you.

Thanks for proving you don't have the guts to answer my questions.    Run Forrest Run!

why are you arguing with Bum over gender
you're letting him frame the narrative and giving credence to his ridiculous premise and as another person  pointed out (which you well know) Bum likes to play these kind of games when he's got no leg to stand on.   This will be an infinite loop if you choose to continue playing his game

[Dos Equis]

What ever  

My definition is my interpretation.  You asked for my interpretation and i gave it to you.

Thanks for proving you don't have the guts to answer my questions.    Run Forrest Run!

Yawn.  I asked for your interpretation of specific language contained in a specific statute.  You ran away:

I don't interpret that one.  Too long.  I like the simple version on Google better. 

lol

Keep your head in the sand.  And your Wiki page handy.

[Straw Man]

Yawn.  I asked for your interpretation of specific language contained in a specific statute.  You ran away:


lol

Keep your head in the sand.  And your Wiki page handy.

yeah Ozmo,

Don't you know there is a culture war going on and it won't end until the Libs have rendered everyone gender neutral

I think that's the story line of the next installment of The Terminator

[OzmO]

RUN BB RUN!

Yawn.  I asked for your interpretation of specific language contained in a specific statute.  You ran away:


lol

Keep your head in the sand.  And your Wiki page handy.

 

"A person who sees themselves as other then the one they are."

I answered you clearly.  You just won't accept it for the reasons i listed.

"Gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender"

This is describes it well for me.  

I have answered and you still have run from my questions.  What are you afraid of BB?  

[Dos Equis]

RUN BB RUN!

 

I have answered and you still have run from my questions.  What are you afraid of BB?  

I gave you a list of examples that all point to indoctrination and eliminating gender differences.  You simply disagree with them.  That's fine.

Why should I Google "gender specific"?  I'm asking you to give me your understanding of the definition of "gender identity."  I posted the definition of "gender identity" in Hawaii.  How do you interpret that definition? 

I don't interpret that one.  Too long.  I like the simple version on Google better. 

 

[OzmO]

 

I answered your question, you run from mine.  Now you are posting images.

 

[Dos Equis]

I answered your question, you run from mine.  Now you are posting images.

 

I'm about done going around in circles, but just to clarify:  no, you did not answer my questions, as your own quote that I posted shows ("I don't interpret that one.").  I'm not going to play the game where you avoid my question and want me to answer to yours.  I think you're just trying to be argumentative. 

[OzmO]

I'm about done going around in circles, but just to clarify:  no, you did not answer my questions, as your own quote that I posted shows ("I don't interpret that one.").  I'm not going to play the game where you avoid my question and want me to answer to yours.  I think you're just trying to be argumentative. 

 

No, you are running in circles away from  my questions. 

Your latest tactic is to quote an earlier post of mine ignoring the ones regarding answering your question after that.

RUN BB RUN!

[Dos Equis]

No, you are running in circles away from  my questions. 

Your latest tactic is to quote an earlier post of mine ignoring the ones regarding answering your question after that.

RUN BB RUN!

Your later posts only addressed the language you pulled off of Wiki, not the specific language I quoted that you refuse to interpret.  But nice try. 

[OzmO]

Your later posts only addressed the language you pulled off of Wiki, not the specific language I quoted that you refuse to interpret.  But nice try.  

IMO its saying essentially the same thing. Only that the Hawaiian Definition which i have found, so far, only 2 other states who share the same one.

I don't interpret that one.  Too long.  I like the simple version on Google better.  

So you dismiss the definition on google by Wiki eh?

Translation:  You need to use the overly stated definition in Hawaii because it gives you enough material to question it's directness and make a case to its ambiguity.    

I know what i quoted was from wiki.  Wasn't trying to say otherwise.


Mass and Maryland are the same as Hawaii.  I was saying that i only found 2, so far, that share the same definition. And that i like the wiki definition better.

That's before i read the wiki one.

Now that i have  "decided" on a definition...so what?

If all you have is to point out a murky definition while ignoring other more simple definition it explains why you still refuse to answer questions based on assertions you brought up:

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

It might be hard for you to piece it all together while running from my questions.  I sympathize.  

So i will make it simple.  The wiki definition coincides with my interpretation of the Hawaiian definition.  I see the wiki definition as a simplified definition of the Hawaiian definition.

Is that good enough for you BB?  Or will you run some more?

Do i need to re-post my interpretation of the wiki definition before you conveniently forget about it and try another stupid tactic?

[bears]

conversation I had with a girl about just this topic.  but we were talking about gym locker rooms going unisex.  almost verbatim:

Me: "I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing i'm showering in front of a bunch of gay guys.  I'd do it but I can't say it wouldn't bother me a little bit."

Her: "Why?  you thnk they wanna fuck you?!!  Ha! Ha!"  (all her friends laugh too)

Me: "So you'd feel comfortable showering in front of a bunch of straight men?"

her: "Well that's a little different."

Me: "Why you think they wanna fuck you?!!"

Her (and I shit you not 2 of her friends): "That's so rude! You're an asshole!"

this is the world we live in now.  no logic or any sense of fairness was had that day.

[Dos Equis]

IMO its saying essentially the same thing. Only that the Hawaiian Definition which i have found, so far, only 2 other states who share the same one.

It might be hard for you to piece it all together while running from my questions.  I sympathize.  

So i will make it simple.  The wiki definition coincides with my interpretation of the Hawaiian definition.  I see the wiki definition as a simplified definition of the Hawaiian definition.

Is that good enough for you BB?  Or will you run some more?

Do i need to re-post my interpretation of the wiki definition before you conveniently forget about it and try another stupid tactic?

Dude.  They are not the same.  I asked about specific language from a statutory definition.  The specific language was "gender related self image" (although I want to know what you think about the entire definition as well).  The Wiki definition does not mention "gender related self image."  

I asked that question years ago in the thread I created.  I've asked that same question to a number of people over the years and no one has been able to tell me what it means and how an employer can discriminate against someone on the basis of "gender related self image."  So when I asked you, I was asking the same question I've asked many other people.  But you've already said (years ago) that it isn't clear.  

Then I found some specific language from California, which includes a person having neither male nor female gender.  I mean, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  What kind of twisted language is that?  And what kind of twisted society are we creating?  

In any event, I know you're not going to talk about the specific language of a specific statute.  Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to admit how confusing it is (like you previously did)?  Don't know.  Don't care.  

[bears]

Damn, your ability to see a liberal conspiracy in ever little thing is getting a bit strange

The new law basically says if you have a "single user bathroom" in your establishment you have to make it available to everyone
BFD

Isn't that basically the same thing that you do in your own home, even though you likely have multiple bathrooms

I don't get it.  I live in Illinois.  we have single occupant bathrooms.  and they are already unisex.  are you saying that in California there may be only 1 bathroom and it's only for women?  or only for men?

[Straw Man]

conversation I had with a girl about just this topic.  but we were talking about gym locker rooms going unisex.  almost verbatim:

Me: "I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing i'm showering in front of a bunch of gay guys.  I'd do it but I can't say it wouldn't bother me a little bit."

Her: "Why?  you thnk they wanna fuck you?!!  Ha! Ha!"  (all her friends laugh too)

Me: "So you'd feel comfortable showering in front of a bunch of straight men?"

her: "Well that's a little different."

Me: "Why you think they wanna fuck you?!!"

Her (and I shit you not 2 of her friends): "That's so rude! You're an asshole!"

this is the world we live in now.  no logic or any sense of fairness was had that day.

this topic is about single occupancy bathrooms and not gym locker rooms

If you do actually shower at the gym then you've probably already showered around gay guys (just given basics odds)

The better reason for not showering at the gym is the horrible sanitary condition of most gyms bathrooms which often aren't much better than a gas station

[Dos Equis]

conversation I had with a girl about just this topic.  but we were talking about gym locker rooms going unisex.  almost verbatim:

Me: "I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing i'm showering in front of a bunch of gay guys.  I'd do it but I can't say it wouldn't bother me a little bit."

Her: "Why?  you thnk they wanna fuck you?!!  Ha! Ha!"  (all her friends laugh too)

Me: "So you'd feel comfortable showering in front of a bunch of straight men?"

her: "Well that's a little different."

Me: "Why you think they wanna fuck you?!!"

Her (and I shit you not 2 of her friends): "That's so rude! You're an asshole!"

this is the world we live in now.  no logic or any sense of fairness was had that day.

LOL!  That is some absolute hypocrisy right there.  And your question was spot on.  It really isn't about sex.  It's about privacy.  

[bears]

this topic is about single occupancy bathrooms and not gym locker rooms

If you do actually shower at the gym then you've probably already showered around gay guys (just given basics odds)

The better reason for not showering at the gym is the horrible sanitary condition of most gyms bathrooms which often aren't much better than a gas station

I know I'm just saying it reminded me of this conversation.

and yeah I have.  and I've been hit on in the showers too.  blatantly.  like smiling at me and shaking his cock from side to side.  if I wasn't such a sick fuck I would have been mortified.  instead I thought it was funny.  so I started smirking to myself.  he sees me smiling.  this mother fucker thinks i'm smiling because I like it.  very weird and strange 30 seconds of my life.

that's why when I read stories of women being flashed and shit.  my opinion is "shake it off.  It was probably hilarious"

[OzmO]

Dude.  They are not the same.  I asked about specific language from a statutory definition.  The specific language was "gender related self image" (although I want to know what you think about the entire definition as well).  The Wiki definition does not mention "gender related self image."  

It doesn't specifically mention it but it does cover it when it says:  "person's private sense, and subjective experience,"

I asked that question years ago in the thread I created.  I've asked that same question to a number of people over the years and no one has been able to tell me what it means and how an employer can discriminate against someone on the basis of "gender related self image."  So when I asked you, I was asking the same question I've asked many other people.  But you've already said (years ago) that it isn't clear.

 

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

Then I found some specific language from California, which includes a person having neither male nor female gender.  I mean, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  What kind of twisted language is that?  And what kind of twisted society are we creating?  

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.  

In any event, I know you're not going to talk about the specific language of a specific statute.  Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to admit how confusing it is (like you previously did)?  Don't know.  Don't care.

 

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?

[bears]

I still don't understand the issue.  whenever there's a single occupant bathroom at a gas station or a store around here, it has the sign with the man and the lady.  what does it have in CA?

[Straw Man]

I don't get it.  I live in Illinois.  we have single occupant bathrooms.  and they are already unisex.  are you saying that in California there may be only 1 bathroom and it's only for women?  or only for men?

the law basically says if the bathroom is single occupancy then you have to make it available to both men and women and it could apply whether you have multiple bathrooms in an establishment or just one.  The key factor is single occupancy.

this is nothing new and certainly nothing to spend 6 pages pretending this about gender identity and some other horseshit (not talking about you) and then arguing semantics of a definition

 

[bears]

the law basically says if the bathroom is single occupancy then you have to make it available to both men and women and it could apply whether you have multiple bathrooms in an establishment or just one.  The key factor is single occupancy.

this is nothing new and certainly nothing to spend 6 pages pretending this about gender identity and some other horseshit (not talking about you) and then arguing semantics of a definition

 

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? 

[OzmO]

So they have this where bears lives too?

What's the big deal?

Here's the deal:  The article is fear propaganda.  

[Straw Man]

I still don't understand the issue.  whenever there's a single occupant bathroom at a gas station or a store around here, it has the sign with the man and the lady.  what does it have in CA?

there is no issue....except inside Bums tiny little mind

the signs are the same here

you can see samples earlier in this thread

[Straw Man]

So they have this where bears lives too?

What's the big deal?

Here's the deal:  The article is fear propaganda.  

also on every single airplane that Bum has ever ridden on in his life