Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The internet is full of Liberals saying “I’m not afraid to let my little daughter go to the bathroom alone because transgender men are not rapists or child molesters.” Yes, agreed; this is not about Bad Trans. But straight people CLAIMING to be transgender men so they can camp out in women’s bathrooms, those pretenders might be rapists and child molesters. That’s a possible problem Liberals aren’t acknowledging.
The response is “That’s dumb, who would pretend to be trans?”
If a wealth philanthropist (a member of the Rockefeller family, for example) were to offer $50,000 cash on the spot to everyone who would pretend to be transgender and use the ladies’ room at Target one time, would you reject it out of hand? How about $100,000?
So yes, at least some straight people would pretend to be transgender in order to use the ladies room, if the motivation was sufficient. The question is what would those pretenders consider sufficient motivation? Cash in hand? Access to little girls?
I note these are the same Liberals who vilify the Boy scouts for allowing pedophilia, but then attack them for excluding the largest group of identifiable individuals most likely to be pedophiles. It’s as if Liberals can’t wrap their heads around the notion that not everybody plays by their unicorn-and-rainbow rules. I’m not certain if that’s plain stupidity or willful obliviousness. I’m leaning toward willful obliviousness but it wouldn’t take much to persuade me to change my mind.
Joe Doakes
That’s become the latest addition to the left’s toolbox of noxious debate tactics; right out of the gate, disagreeing with their proposal is based on “fear”.
“But straight people CLAIMING to be transgender men so they can camp out in women’s bathrooms, those pretenders might be rapists and child molesters.”
Do you have any Law Enforcement Statistics to back up your fear?
Your solution is simply looking for a problem. A bigger problem would be for men to keep the seat up when they use the toilet.
They have already arrested a number of these pervs taking advantage of these asinine rules. Go look it up yourself, I won’t waste time on links when you never follow up when your ass is handed to you, time and time again. And to use your own libturd mantra, if we can only prevent one molestation! eTASS, you prove with every post how how amoral and depraved you are. I am sure you already scoped out a stall in a bathroom in Target.
Not yet, Emery, the change is too new. Let me explain it in small steps:
Sex is biology, chromosomes, male and female genitals. Gender is society’s expectations based on sex: boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls. A tomboy is a girl who wants to play with trucks. She’s defying society’s gender expectations. She’s “trans-gender.”
America historically had a societal custom that people would dress and use restrooms according to their gender; hence, biological males cut their hair short, wore trousers and used the Men’s restroom. It was socially unacceptable for a man to use the women’s restroom, a taboo, if you will. The taboo was so strong that if a male attempted to use the women’s room, the women would raise a ruckus and he’d be hauled out of there.
The custom was simple, obvious and self-executing. It operated to deny pedophiles and rapists the opportunity to lurk in women’s rooms waiting for victims. Crime still happened, but it was risky.
The new policy is not simple, obvious or self-executing. Target says it “welcomes transgender guests to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.” But there’s no way to know a person’s gender identity – that’s a personal belief like religion or political party affiliation.
In the olden days, if a middle-aged bearded man in a trench coat followed a little girl into the women’s room, everybody would have noticed and somebody would have stepped in to ensure her safety. Nowadays, who knows? Maybe he secretly fancies himself a woman? And if you accuse him of being a pervert, maybe he can complaint to Target, get you banned for harassing their transgender guests, maybe he can sue you, maybe the government will prosecute you for a hate crime?
When you intentionally reverse a taboo, nobody knows what will happen. It’s too early yet to get an accurate count on the number of child molestation and rape victims. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be any. I’m concerned about that. Why aren’t you?
It happened in Seattle. Creepy old guy went into girls locker room at the YMCA and undressed.
Also, I believe Target’s new policy also covers dressing rooms. So I can go into the gals dressing room to try on my drag swag if I say I identify as a lady. Heh, that would be some interesting civil disobedience. We should set a day aside to test Target’s tolerance.
“Do you have any Law Enforcement Statistics to back up your fear?”
Difficult to gather Law Enforcement Statistics for things that aren’t crimes…
http://www.vice.com/read/its-still-not-a-crime-to-take-photos-up-a-womans-skirt-in-america-522
…but, whatevs.
Yes, all this ‘bathroom legislation’ is a solution in search of a problem in general. But then the Catholic Church looked the other way while a few (very, very few in fact) priests victimized young people in their care. Church Leadership thought losing a few lambs was worth it rather than exposing the lion that there were pedophiles among the ranks. Now they have a solution in search of a problem as a policy: Anyone who might have contact with a child (coaches, nursery room attendants, Sunday School teachers (catechists)) has to go through a background check and spend a few hours each year in ‘awareness training’. So JD’s idea that it wouldn’t take much for a few (again, very, very few) properly situated and motivated individual to abuse the freedom ‘ze’ now has to visit the ladies room isn’t that far fetched. The question is: How many cases of assault are we willing to tolerate?
How many cases of assault are we willing to tolerate?
Sef, what do you mean by “we”? I, for one, am willing to tolerate ZERO. Wastes of Oxygen like eTASS and his ilk are lining up for next available stall to molest a five year old.
Emery, there are 843000 people on Megan’s List who have committed some crime of sexual victimization, generally involving a female. Reports are coming out that some of them–or at least some people who ought to be on Megan’s List–have been found in the ladies’ room where transsexuals are accepted there. Since one must partially or fully disrobe in a bathroom or locker room, it is a place where people are especially vulnerable.
Do.The.Math.
Personally, I am shocked that Target’s lawyers didn’t put the kibosh on this–deep pockets and an obvious threat that the company ought to be expected to heed does not make things fun in court, to put it mildly.
Say Emery? Pick your slack jaw up just a smidge, will you, so I can knock your teeth out with this….
The administration at the University of Toronto was recently enlightened on why two separate washrooms are generally established for men and women sharing co-ed residencies.
The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.
Melinda Scott, dean of students at the University of Toronto, told The Daily Wire that campus police had been contacted immediately and worked with residence staff to “support impacted students and ensure the safety of the Residences.”
“Given the serious nature of these incidents and the impact on directly affected students, we made the decision to specifically designate some washrooms in Whitney Hall for those who identify as men and those who identify as women,” Scott said.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/11/university-of-toronto-learns-why-mandatory-unisex-bathrooms-are-a-bad-idea/
To add one more thing to my item about the Seattle YMCA. When confronted, the guy said due to Washington state law, they can do nothing about it. He can go into the girls locker room and the law is on his side. Local law enforcement officer was asked about it, and he said “yup, that is correct”.
I’ve always found the following rule useful: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Unfortunately, this binary thinking does not apply to liberals. They believe that if they can imagine something, it must be true. They can imagine a world in which sex is fluid and nobody would every dream of harming another (or that “leering” is not harmful, not sure which). That makes them delusional, not mean OR stupid. Too bad reality never seems to land on THEIR heads.
Maybe the “ladies” in Seattle should “explain” to this creep that what he is doing may be legal but that it is extremely unwise.
Think about it. Any male who has ostensibly become a woman is not going into a woman’s bathroom to walk up to a urinal. There are none. She will simply stand in a long line (most of the time) and then walk into a closed booth. A woman who has transgendered into a male is also not going to walk up to a urinal because that would be … well … impractical. So in neither bathroom is anyone likely to see anything that might upset them. Unless they ran into Ted Cruz.
It probably happens more often than we want to imagine that some pervert has entered the women’s restroom. That some places would now give them an excuse, such as “I identify as a woman” is little comfort. Instead of running into the men’s room when he was noticed, I can imagine this man at an unidentified Denny’s would have been cagey enough to use that excuse: http://www.chasinglovely.com/blog/2015/10/7/never-enter-restroom-alone
latest addition to the left’s toolbox … disagreeing with their proposal is based on “fear”.
Not exactly new. When was the word “homophobia” invented? 40 years ago?
“Think about it” – That’s rich, considering the source.
“She will simply stand in a long line (most of the time) and then walk into a closed booth.” – Then why must an act that occurs in the privacy of a booth be accepted under penalty of force on the operator and other users of the rest room?
PS: “Unless they ran into Ted Cruz.” Of course Hillary Clinton in real life had a public rest room cleared so only she occupied it. No one is certain if this was so she could drop a ‘hot sauce laced’ deuce or if she needed to whip ‘it’ out. The best humor is when it has an element of truth.
Think how far we’ve descended the ladder of civility in such a short time. Fifteen years ago gay marriage and transgender bathrooms weren’t on anyone’s radar.
A woman who has transgendered into a male is also not going to walk up to a urinal because that would be … well … impractical.
You incredible dim wit. You are talking about a transsexual; a dude that gets a tuck and roll, or a girl that gets her tits cut off and an addadiktome. These laws reference men wearing dresses and makeup and girls with flat top hair cuts, wearing flannel shirts a tool belt and sporting a bad attitude.
If you want to use the girls bathroom bad enough to cut your dick off, have at it cupcake.
Does it every hurt to be so fucking stupid Emery, or is every day kind of like stumbling through a fog in search of an ice cream cone?
“Leon Lott, the sheriff of Richland County in South Carolina, who told state lawmakers last week that the law would be unenforceable because his officers could not be in the business of inspecting people’s genitals.
“In the 41 years I have been in law enforcement in South Carolina, I have never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom,” Sheriff Lott wrote in a letter to the committee studying the state’s bathroom bill. “This is a non-issue.”
How do you propose to enforce your legislation ?
Emery, think about it: Megan’s List. Re-read until you get it.
Again, the moral and mental character of genuine transsexuals does not matter here. What matters is that they are outnumbered 50:1 to 100:1 by genuine, convicted perverts.
It just boggles the mind that the left cannot figure this out. Just.Boggles.
Emery, it’s not that difficult. “Excuse me, sir, but you seem to be in the wrong bathroom. Your drivers’ license, please.”
Emery lives in DGs world where magical thinking is the penultimate exercise of logic.
How do you propose to enforce your legislation ?
For some, such as yourself, the foreskin covering ears and forehead would give it away, for others, what Bubba said.
Emery, you have really gulped down the liberal koolaid on this.
This is not about harassing trans people. How in the world would you know? What would some some hypothetical angry, terrified, heteronormative person do? Stand outside the ladies restroom and blow a whistle if some matron with a downy upper lip tried to enter?
All of these laws refer to biological sex. The media and the laws’ opponents INVARIABLY refer to the laws discriminating by ‘gender’.
Gender is not biology. Words are categorized by gender. People are categorized by biological sex.
There are powerful forces on the left that believe the sex (not gender) identified on birth certificates is exactly the same as the race that used to be identified on birth certificates, e.g, as a social construct designed to privilege one arbitrary group at the expense of another. They are insane. They are crazy people. They literally believe that biological sex is not real, and that doctors arbitrarily assign gender at birth.
They want to erase all differences between the sexes recognized by law. They want to make certain that all relations between individual are governed by the political state, and that the political state does not recognize biological reality.
This is not about the extremely tiny number of true transsexuals who are not in insane asylums. This is about forcing every person in America to accept the hallucinatory belief that people have an arbitrary gender, and not a biological sex.
This is about forcing every person in America to accept the hallucinatory belief…
The parallel to Orwell is what we should fear. Big Brother’s gift to Wilson, before he was lobotomized, was to tell him the truth; it’s about power. Not just power over what you do or say, but control of what you think. It’s not enough to say there is no difference between men and women, you have to believe it with every fiber of your being.
We have given them every opportunity to condition our kids for the past 30 years, and it’s beginning to pay off; Millennials are primed and ready to believe we have always been at war with Eurasia. Leftists are openly looking forward to the time when the last un-indoctrinated generation is gone.
Maybe Emery’s “logic” is getting to me after all. I have this recurring thought that I’m Rachel Dolezal.
Or maybe it’s that three martini lunch. Never mind.
Leave it to Emery to pick the festering asshole out of the bag:
Gov. Haley: Sheriff Leon Lott only sheriff in state to not sign domestic violence pledge
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) –
Sheriffs across the state took a pledge on Wednesday to combat the issue of domestic violence, but Gov. Nikki Haley called out one sheriff who she says is uncooperative.
Haley asked sheriffs to sign a pledge agreeing to follow a guideline when responding to domestic violence cases. On Wednesday, she claimed Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott was the only sheriff in the state who would not sign it.
The pledge asked sheriffs to create a checklist when handling domestic violence calls. The list includes several policies requiring officers to fill out an incident report when responding to domestic violence calls, which a supervisor would review. It also establishes a plan to determine how much funding and staff is needed to handle domestic violence cases.
“There is one sheriff in the State of South Carolina that does not seem to think any rules apply to him,” Haley said. “It’s unfortunate Sheriff Lott was the only one who did not sign the pledge. The last we heard was, ‘If I get it there, I’ll get it there.’ If he gets it there it’s only going to be because of an election year. This sheriff doesn’t think he has to do anything that he doesn’t think he has to do. It’s unfortunate.”
===================================================
Only a year after the joint drills of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department and the US military raised eyebrows, Sheriff Leon Lott of the RCSD has once again announced that the department will be conducting drills that involve the joint training of civilian law enforcement and the US military.
On May 8, 2015 it was reported by WLTX that the Richland County Sheriff’s Department will be conducting drills in conjunction with the 3rd Special Forces Group out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The exercises will take place at late-night and pre-dawn and will run from May 8 until May 15, 2015.
Citizens have now been informed that Sheriff’s Department and Military vehicles will be traveling in the Lower Richland County community near Eastover and Hopkins as well as Elgin near Screaming Eagle Road. The vehicles will also be traveling in the North Richland County area near Monticello Rd.
The Sheriff’s Department has announced that residents in these areas may hear explosives being detonated and ordinance being set off as well as shots being fired.
Sheriff Leon Lott stated that the department’s Special Response Team, a SWAT-like team formulation that is becoming ever popular in South Carolina Sheriff’s Departments, with the 3rd Special Forces Group. Lott announced that the Sheriff’s department will “provide simulated scenarios for the military” and added that Richland County “an ideal location for training that cannot be replicated at Fort Bragg.”
The fact that the police and military are engaging in joint drill exercises in violation of Posse Comitatus and a long-standing American tradition of separation between domestic policing and military activity is concerning enough. However, if they are training for domestic operations such as raiding American farm houses, setting up domestic checkpoints, and conducting other related raids on the home-front should be terrifying to every single American that desires to keep what little shred of freedom they have left.
Unfortunately, it has become abundantly clear that the American military and indeed Sheriff Leon Lott of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department see the American people and the people of South Carolina as the enemy.
Your kind of dude, Emery. Take a bow.
I think it’s fitting that MBerg provides you with this therapeutic couch for you Tom.
Here’s a real peach from your hero, Emery:
“”[I]f you are a victim of a shooting and you’re in the hospital, when you get out of the hospital, you’re going to jail if you refuse to cooperate with us.”
This turd is up for re-election next month. It’s a pity I cannot vote against him (He’s a Democrat, natch).
It’s fitting you give me a air filled punching bag to knock the snot out of, Emery!
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/12/ab/f8/12abf8ff624c15609f3bd1905592c484.jpg
Emery, in response to your 9:50, I explained Sex versus Gender and distinguished sincere from pretense, but you are intentionally mixing all of them. You think that doing so created an absurd result which invalidates our position but in reality, you’ve only made yourself look absurd.
The sheriff you quoted uses exactly the same technique and achieves exactly the same result.
I think it’s fitting that MBerg provides you with this therapeutic couch for you Tom
I provide a comment section. Full stop.
It’s striking that a person like Sheriff Lott hasn’t figured out that victims of violent crime might have very good reasons not to speak to police, starting with the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and continuing to the fact that they don’t want to be killed by buddies of the accused. His shift to “community oriented policing successes” are not reductions in crime, but rather board seats on community organizations, as well.
http://www.rcsd.net/bio.html
And his statement about not checking genitals when most people will carry ID really suggests that he really, really, really deserved to go to Hahvid.
The reprobate leftists have made this about “genitals” to distract from the absurdity of their own position. It only works if we let it work.
Here it is straight from the horse’s mouth:
https://corporate.target.com/article/2016/04/target-stands-inclusivity
Nothing in there about being a transsexual. Just ‘gender identity.’ And how will target ascertain your gender identity? Why, they have to take your word for it. Gender identity has nothing to do with genitalia at all. This is what even many liberals do not understand. They think that this is a chance to stand up to bigots. The Left is all about hate, these days.
Target, of course, has a strict ‘no guns’ policy. Because they want people to feel safe!
How does your turd taste, eTASS? With your head so far up yer arse you must have a mouthful!
A few years ago, husbands and fathers who found some guy in the women’s bathroom would pound the crap out him. It was the recommended therapy for gender confusion. My understanding was about a 98% cure rate (95% for Englishmen). And much cheaper than lopping off a guy’s tallywhacker and force feeding him a bunch of cancer causing drugs. But then the medical industry wouldn’t make their obscene profits convincing the same guys they needed surgery and pharmaceuticals. Then getting the government to pay for it.
Point of order — the law causing so much consternation to the Springsteens and other signing virtue signalers is a statute in the state of North Carolina. Why is Emery-bot quoting a law enforcement official in South Carolina?
Mr. D – because South Carolina is considering a similar law but one person objected and Emery latched onto that objector to disqualify the idea that a predator might pretend to be trans if it meant enhanced access to victims.
And let’s quit pretending that this is about bathrooms, because it is also about locker rooms and changing rooms, places without privacy and where biological sex becomes obvious and gender does not (or should not) matter.
What J. Ewing says. Writing as the father of daughters who participate in sports, allowing transsexuals into the girl’s locker rooms could all but kill off sports for girls and women. Partially because my kids (and their parents) aren’t especially keen about seeing penises in the ladies’ room at all, and partially because Megan’s List is over 50x longer than the estimated number of genuine transsexuals.
Do the math.
Math is no libturd’s strong suit, BB. Neither is cognitive logic.
Agreed, but you’d think that even a liberal would be able to figure out the cognitive dissonance between (a) allowing guys on Megan’s List to use the girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms and (b) requiring affirmative consent in zillions of cases where the relationship is clearly lawful (if often sinful).
It is as if they do not want young people to fall in love, but they do want them to be molested and raped.
Start with keeping Dennis Hastert
Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from the men’s room.
bikebubba – you’re onto something important.
We learned in high school that a Liberal embraces change, a Conservative resists change. We also learned that Change Is Good so, by implication, Liberals must be Good and Conservatives must be Bad.
If the status quo is No Rape but we’re good Liberals who desire change, then we must desire Rape. We can’t say that, of course, because Rape is Bad; but Change is Good. It’s a conundrum: implement the change and face the consequences, or resist the change and betray our mandate?
Neither. Option C: Embrace the Change and ignore the consequences, blame them on Bush, propose a social welfare program to deal with the fallout caused by the Change, pass another feel-good law . . . anything but admit that Change Is NOT Always Good. Because if that were true, instead of making things better, we’d be making them worse. And that would mean we’re NOT Good people, but Bad people.
That’s even ickier than what I wrote, Joe. But given that Hilliary Clinton is the front runner among the Democrats, I am hard pressed to argue against it. The guy who probably raped Juanita Broadrick, who paid a settlement to Paula Jones, who was rightly accused of adultery by a host of women, and who is said to have gone to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island with hookers, would once again defile the White House.
So either the left is not thinking (pardon the redundancy), or they’re against love and for rape. Heckuva job!
Emery on April 27, 2016 at 12:05 pm said:
Start with keeping Dennis Hastert
An examplar of the GOP establishment that opposes Trump and supported all three Bushes + Emery favorite Kasich. It’s a madhouse, I tell you, a madhouse!
I wonder if any of those wrestlers Hastert groped ever said “Take your stinking hands off me, you damn dirty ape!”
I don’t need the whole loaf. I can be satisfied with most of it. If conservatives don’t get the whole loaf they don’t want any.
Any “transgender” perv caught lurking in the girl’s bathroom can have immediate castration with a box cutter free of charge.