Yup. Use whatever bathroom you want. If someone else in there doesn't like it, that person is the problem, not you.
Everybody can just do whatever they want to do, social norms and mores be damned.
Liberal Insanity put into law in NYC. Now dudes can pee with the ladies!
- Thread starter YellowSnow51
- Start date
Yup. Use whatever bathroom you want. If someone else in there doesn't like it, that person is the problem, not you.
Everybody can just do whatever they want to do, social norms and mores be damned.
Essentially, yes.
In NYC, you may now go into any City-owned/operated bathroom or locker room or similar facility, and if anyone says something such as, "What are you doing in here?!" or "Get out, you don't belong in here!" you can now say to them with absolute conviction that you are legally allowed to use whatever facility you wish to use, and furthermore, NYC law prohibits such questions/statements.
Defense against what? Claims they were liable for things they historically haven't been held liable for?
What did they do before that made a difference? And why would social norms be stopped? I asked earlier but no one answered, what percentage of users will switch?
What I am trying to figure out is why you are so adamantly for men being able to use a women's restroom and vice versa. You are right...the vast majority will continue to do what they have been doing. I just think this is one more of many silly changes we are starting to or will see. How is allowing men to pee in a female bathroom making this country better?
I'm not, and I don't think you can quote anything from any one of my posts to support your claim.
How is the opposite "making the country better"? A law was was passed and now we are considering its merits. You say it is "silly", but I presume you mean more than that, as the OP thinks it will lead directly to sexual misconduct/voyeurism/rape/whoknowswhatelse. That is some serious fear-mongering. I balanced that fearmongering with logic.
If only a small percentage would actually switch, what exactly is the significant harm? Theoretical daughters being theoretically harmed by something that is (according to Yellows posted evidence) already occurring?
We don't guard these restrooms, so why keep up the false pretense that the person shitting next to you has the same genitalia?
If a woman walked in behind me to a public restroom, like at a park, I wouldn't shrivel up and scream rape, nor would I even be embarrassed, because I don't presume she would pop a squat in the urinal next to me, or if she were shitting we'd be blocked by stalls. Same goes in women's restrooms, where all they have are stalls. Prior to this law they had no idea who was next to them, so what did this law change? False sense of security, in theory?
This all comes down to fear mongering like in the OP. Change something we don't actually control now and rape becomes the next step? And to support that he posts things that are happening regardless of the law?
All of your posts indicate you are for it. If you can't see that it changes behavior I can't help you. Now women, and men, have to worry about someone walking into the restroom when they might be changing...because they are used for that also. There really was no reason to change the law. Again...most people won't switch bathrooms. But some will...and it isn't a good thing. Not fear mongering...just reality. No reason for it. But having said that...I will go on with my life.
I'm not for it, I'm just not against it. I don't care for many reasons, such as what I posted and probably most importantly that I don't live in NY.
How did they not have to worry about that before? There was literally nobody stopping it from happening. I've posted that about a half dozen times now.
Amazing that the fear-mongerers always claim it isn't fearmongering because it is just reality. Like saying it isn't a threat, it is a promise.
Or, if life goes right on going on as you suggest, will you have been wrong?
A construction worker gives a cat-call to a lady walking down the street and she hurries along her way.
The same construction worker gives a cat-call to a lady in a NYC public restroom and she will sue for sexual harassment and emotional damages created by the Mayor's Executive Order.
Tom, Yellow, Trad, whoever:
Did the prior law actually stop any of this activity (switching restrooms, voyeurism, rape) from taking place? If not in any objective way, why would the new law matter?
Did the prior law actually stop any of this activity (switching restrooms, voyeurism, rape) from taking place? If not in any objective way, why would the new law matter?
It's clearly a condition unilaterally created by the Mayor of NYC.
Unless you would prefer harassment victims go directly at him in a civil suit?
If you can't see the difference I can't help you. One could generally assume that nobody of a different gender was going to walk into a restroom one was changing in. NOW, you actually have to think about it...because it is completely acceptable, whereas before it was not, for someone to walk into the opposite sex bathroom...behavior is changed.
And yes...that's what I am known for on here...trying to scare everybody. Perpetuating fear. Good God. If anybody is being dramatic...it's you.
Give me a break. All of the perverts and weirdos were kept at bay because there was a "Women Only" sign on the bathroom door? Now that it says "Unisex" every woman who uses a public restroom is going to be subject to unwanted advances? Save the hyperbole, we've got plenty in this thread already.
Where did I say women were going to be raped now? I agree with your point there...however like in a different reply...now one needs to keep in mind that it is acceptable to be walked in on by a member of the opposite sex. AND the rare predator can now plead the same...they had the right to be there, where before they could not. I'm sure you can understand the difference.
Another one of our great teachers who mold young minds. Scary shit. This is the same guy who thinks kids are stupid and there is no way they could be confused about being a transgender because they don't really exist. You can understand his bias when you have that information.
Again...Holy Hell. You seem to have lost your ability to have a discussion. I really think you are exaggerating my stance. If you can't see that it changes the way someone thinks when they walk into a bathroom, I can't help you. I just threw out my opinion...didn't think it was going to rustle you so badly. Honestly don't care.
Keep telling those students that are transgender they don't exist in your mind. I'm sure they appreciate your support. What a POS.
No, that was Yellow's basic premise, pass this law and now terrible no good very bad things will happen to women.
It isn't any more "socially acceptable" now with this law than it was before, the law doesn't determine social requirements. As I said, I doubt the previous law and this one change anybody's mind about anything.
The "rare predator" can claim he had a right to be there? As opposed to before? Obviously you are talking about a predator that hasn't committed a crime, otherwise they would certainly be arrested for that crime (assault, videoing, etc.). So, essentially you are talking about someone who might be a "rare predator" who hasn't actually done anything...and how is that different than that exact same "rare predator" who hasn't actually done anything under the prior law? There is really no enforcement difference.
You, and others, are trying to make it seem that people would be prosecuted BUT FOR this law, which is silly.
Apparently incorrectly, which is one of my main points. Yellow posted enough evidence to show you always should have been leery.
This makes no sense. You are claiming that the city would have to defend a construction worker in a sexual harassment lawsuit ... because the law made unisex bathrooms?
Fred took it in a whole other direction, but yes I am exaggerating your stance to fit with the exaggerated stance of the OP. I was questioning your opinion and whether you actually think this law, vis a vis the old one actually matters.
This is a fear mongering issue, plain and simple. I actually think it is similar to the "toddlers with guns" fear mongering. But I'll digress.
No.
The city would have to defend it's Executive Order.(not a law)
No sense going after the construction worker. He doesn't have money and the city is the enabler of the encounter anyway.
Are you saying you never said that? Here it is from this thread. I even called you out there for being a POS. So cool it on your biased hyperbole and think about your students you could be helping rather than making them feel like they don't exist.
So who are they defending it against? That was the first question I asked you, and you brought up some construction worker. Who is suing the city in your allegation that they better save up money?
Ol' Doodle doesn't pretend to know what all of the intended and/or unintended consequences might be from this new reality. But one consequence that seems almost certain is that NYC is about to pick up two happy new residents.
The victim. The women who was exposed to the traumatic encounter due to this new executive order.
She would have a case to seek damages against the city for enabling this encounter.
No different than Balasio using an EO to remove all of the streetlights from Central Park, because star gazing "is a fundamental human right that should not be restricted or denied to any individual."
One night you are strolling through Central Park and take a tumble down the Bethesda Fountain staircase because you didn't see them.
You sure as hell could sue the city of New York for creating a hazardous condition that lead to your incident.
You seriously have a comprehension problem because we discussed that. Are you someone's wife, by the way, because you are trying to bring up an argument from a month ago that I thought was settled? Good God, man...step away.
Translation = Well since you've provided proof that I'm a POS to my students, I'll now call you a woman to help try to deflect that I've been proven to be a POS.
Like I said in that thread, I feel sorry for your students. They don't deserve to have a teacher that acts like a bully.
That is so wrong it is funny. It was wrong when I first called you out over it and yet you kept at it. The city wasn't historically responsible for those attacks previously, this wouldn't change that. But don't let that get in the way of your rant, especially when you are comparing an intervening criminal act with a hazardous, known condition (unlit, dangerous stairs).
Good question Doodle, how did he ever get in that bathroom anyways? (or was it the other way around?)
