No one is saying it's wrong that you might feel uncomfortable. That is why you educate yourself to feel less uncomfortable. It's a "national crisis" because people not willing to educate themselves are passing bigoted laws because of ignorance. Good? Good.

Nothing wrong with SJWs at all but believing in the cause and that it should be fought for hard doesn't mean anything goes. No-one here afaik believes anything goes so everyone opposes some things.

I go much further than many in some regards (particularly in making rules and laws) but believe we shouldn't abandon liberal values while we do it.

Yes, everyone should "educate" themselves into pretending that there is really no difference between men and women other than societal constructs. This is one more example of the absurd being treated as legitimate...a red herring to the masses.

You realize I never said that at all, right?

That is why you educate yourself to feel less uncomfortable. It's a "national crisis" because people not willing to educate themselves are passing bigoted laws because of ignorance. Good? Good.

??

What makes you think trans people weren't using the bathrooms of their choice prior to their these laws?

I once saw a transwoman (a reg at poker enough to be well known at the time) stopped from using the ladies room at Casino Arizona and felt terrible about it (couldn't use the men's room either). And at the time it was when they didn't have family restrooms. And that brings up a question: Do these guidelines apply to tribal land?

FWIW, a floor person did it, not security, which I mention bec I'd like to think that that's not their official policy.

47 years of living. Can you tell me when "Prior" was? And by your own argument, can you tell me at what point it became a civil right for men to enter girls' bathrooms?
?

There's no such thing as "actual rights", they're all socially constructed.

Did you personally check if the guys in your bathrooms had penises? Otherwise I don't see how 47 years of living would help you.

Here's one.


http://endtransdiscrimination.org/report.html

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/0...cide-attempts/

"found that 41 percent of transgender and gender non-conforming people have attempted suicide, a rate far higher than the national average of 4.6 percent.

thats on them

I don't spend much time in Women's bathrooms, but do they do anything in the open other than wash their hands? Who cares if a man washes his hinds next to your imaginary 10 year old niece?

Did you tell her it was no problem she just had to wait a generation so we don't upset bigots?

Don't see why that should matter. The bulk of your and LG's MO is to speak for other people.

He said, speaking for the people he was arguing with

Also did he tell her he used the women's restroom when he wants because he's Howard? A self confessed John using the women's restroom as he pleases would scare the **** out of most parents. hopefully howard understands this.

Do the women's rooms your children use not have doors on the stalls or something?

National media attention has died down.
According to this thread there is no greater good to support.

I really don't get why ppl care so much either way. Is this really anything to worry about? Aren't there starving people out there and victims of sex trafficking?

Btw social warriors, those opposing you don't care about the increased suicide attempt rates so throwing it in their faces is a waste of your time.

He asked specifically about studies done showing why allowing bathroom rights are important. I gave him the biggest one available.

We understand that people who think transgendered are subhuman don't care about their suicide rate. It's why we fight so hard for their equal rights. Because we sure as **** know that you people wont.

Also, it's very amusing that you threw out a "whatabout"ism when we very been discussing what a bull**** deflectionary tactic itt in the last 100 posts. Well done!

People here care so much because a state used this issue to pass a law to deprive ANY Lgbt person of their legally protected workers rights. We care because we don't think these people should kill themselves at such a heightened rate and general acceptance is a huge step in removing that stigma.

I think a lot of the concerns we are discussing ultimately arise from the tension created from our trying to run modern software on caveman hardware, trying to run social programs based on ideals while our base impulses often go against them. So if the office hottie drops something and bends over to pick it up, you're not supposed to ogle her ass or flirt with her even though that's what you viscerally want to do. I would infer that, when it comes to influencing behavior, techniques that tap into our caveman instincts have a built-in efficacy advantage. So advertising is largely based on fear, violence attracts us to movies, sex sells everything, etc.

It's funny you mention clockwork Orange in this context, which centers around an attempt to straightjacket someone really in touch with their inner caveman into a good citizen who represses their urges (even if involuntarily). But if you force people into submission they will feel as though you are taking away their freedom at the level of their identity, as though you are delimiting their free will at the boundary of exactly where it wants to go. So what I think explains the anger at Sarkeesian is fear of losing identity and sense of free will which, for many hardcore gamers, is wrapped in the fantasies of games which also tap into their caveman instincts, which, in so doing, solidify/reinforce the legitimacy of the games as a basis for identity. I mean you take maybe a geeky guy, put him in a society increasingly organized around isolation, tell him he has to act according to certain norms, and then take away his outlet under the guise of making him behave better (with no clear evidence that he has actually even broken the norms) and he will get pissed.

Your argument that games that don't appeal to base instincts so directly are potentially better parallels similar arguments pitting crude gratification vs. refinement. A difficulty when making that case is that you have capitalism squarely against you in the form of corporations who don't want to take risks on anything too original and who don't want to stray from the proven formula of appeals to base impulses- there is too much risk in refinement or exploration. Plus the advertisers always want the younger audience as the fertile ground for planting brand loyalty, and of course the demand for sophistication obviously dips in that demographic.

Actually, I think that time was a one-off, and by that I mean she was a reg and must've used the ladies room all of the time. Everybody knew and everybody treated her fine. Except that time.

I remember the first time I saw her, came back to the table and said 'Did you see that hot blond?' to which I was told to take a closer look. And don't be so uptight to say that isn't a bit funny.

Well if its nothing to worry about then probably just follow the DOE guidance on this non issue and be done with it.

Since A Clockwork Orange has been brought up I'd like to point out that there are two versions of which Kubrick was apparently unaware (he used the American version). The final chapter of the author's preferred version has Alex turning away from violence as he ages. And I think that society will change over time w/ this issue as well. And I obviously think it's a bad thing to replace an evolution w/ an imposition.

Cheers for this, Chez. I obviously thought that everything goes when it comes to social justice, even though you say no one actually believes that. This definitely changes my mind about the stupidity of using such a term in a derogatory manner and adds a lot to the discussion.

Is it like how I don't care about military veterans having higher suicide rates than the general population?