ADVERTISEMENT

Liberal Insanity put into law in NYC. Now dudes can pee with the ladies!

Your dime store psychological reading of me aside...here are a bunch of examples of bad stuff done by deviant men in public restrooms. Mind you, most of them had to disguise themselves as women to gain access to them because in reality, even deviant pieces of shit don't like to get caught.

Now you can say these are no reason to worry about anything, but the parents and family members of these victims probably all thought the same way but don't anymore.

I just read an article titled "Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgendered Restrooms".

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/

In it she says, "I read these reports, and my heart starts to race. They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters."

So I googled those men. Most had to dress as women to gain access to women's restrooms. Now they don't have to.

Jason Pomares

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...elope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html


Charges were filed Tuesday against a man who wore a wig and women's clothing to disguise himself as he allegedly used a concealed camera to record "hours" of video of women in a Los Angeles-area department store restroom.

Jason Pomare, 33, of Palmdale, was arrested Saturday after customers contacted security officers at a Macy's store to report a man in the women's restroom. The security officers contacted a deputy, who was on patrol at the Antelope Valley Mall (map) when he saw a man matching the subject's description leave the store.


Norwood Smith Burnes

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/cross-dressing-man-arrested-for-exposure-at-walmar/nQddG/

A 51-year-old man wearing women's clothing was arrested for allegedly undressing in front of children at Walmart.

Police say Norwood Smith Burnes, 51, of Rome, has a long record of indecent exposure and was on probation for public indecency when the latest incident occurred in the women's bathroom at Walmart in Calhoun, the Rome News-Tribune reported.

Burnes was in "stages of undress while on the stone floor and would do this in the presence of several young children," witnesses told police. When police arrived, they found Burnes wearing a short skirt and jacket, black leather coat, high heels, red nail polish, green eye shadow and jewelry.

Taylor Buehler and others

Police: Sex offender posed as woman, went into women's locker room
A registered sex offender dressed up like a woman, went into a women's locker room at a pool and talked with several children before being chased down by a good Samaritan, according to the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/125111914.html
http://www.katu.com/news/local/132679743.html

Police: Man in bra and wig found in women's bathroom - admitted to other offense where he showered in the girls' locker room for sexual gratification
A man wearing a bra and wig was arrested Friday after he was spotted in a women's bathroom at Everett Community College, police said. The man, later identified as Taylor J. Buehler, 18, of Lake Stevens, was placed under arrest. He admitted to officers that he was the suspect in an earlier voyeurism incident at Everett Community College on Monday, police said. In the earlier incident, he said he took a shower in the girls' locker room for sexual gratification, according to the police report.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...omens-bathroom-wearing-bra-wig-142987265.html

Cross-dressing Peeper Infiltrates
Cal Women's Locker Room On Monday, October 4, 2010 at 9:20 p.m. and again on Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. a male disguised as a female was discovered in the Recreational Sports Facility women’s locker room. On both occasions the suspect fled the scene when confronted by staff members. In one of the instances the suspect was seen using a cell phone to photograph women inside the locker room. After each occurrence UCPD searched the area but was unable to locate the suspect. No one was physically contacted during these encounters.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510...ing-peeper-infiltrates-cal-womens-locker-room

Man dressed as woman tried to take pictures in dorm, police say
Sheriff's officials said their investigation revealed Petersen dressed as a woman and went to other "female-only facilities" in Rancho Cucamonga and Yucaipa, where he allegedly tried to take pictures with a cellphone hidden in his purse.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-man-allegedly-dressed-woman-20130624-story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/rodney-kenneth-petersen_n_3496651.html

Purdue police investigate report of man taking photographs in women's restroom
Purdue University police are investigating a reported incident in which a man dressed as a woman was seen taking photographs under the wall of a women's bathroom stall in Yue-Kong Pao Hall of Visual and Performing Arts. According to a police report, a woman was in a bathroom stall on the third floor of the building and saw a hand holding a blue flip-phone camera beneath the door. She left the restroom and then returned to confront the person. At that point, she realized the person was a man dressed as a woman.
https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080331PoliceVPA.html

Transgender Student in Women’s Locker Room Raises Uproar - Exposes Self to Underage Girls
The decision to allow a transgender 45-year-old college student who identifies as a woman but has male genitalia to use the women’s locker room has raised a fracas among parents and faith-based organizations, who say children as young as 6 years old use the locker room. The locker room at Evergreen College in Olympia, Wash., is shared with the Capital High School swim club and a children’s swim academy, along with the students at Evergreen. “The college has to follow state law,” Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. “The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state.” But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern. “[A mother] reported her daughter was upset because she observed a person at the women’s locker room naked and displaying male genitalia,” said a police report filed in September by a mother on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...der-man-to-expose-himself-to-young-girls.html

  • The above example is a case where a transgender person is following the law and nothing is reported that indicates they are intending harm to any individual. However parents of the young girls in this locker room are still concerned about a person with male genitalia being allowed to disrobe and enter a previously protected are for women & children.

http://www.protectfayetteville.com/dangers-to-women-and-children.html

I'm really curious, did you actually read these and your brain still applied them to your OP?

None of them appear to have been stopped for being in the women's restroom, they were stopped for taking photos. That stands to reason that the complaint was about them taking photos ... not just being in the restroom.

Hell, one of these is about a guy undressing in front of kids at a walmart. Seriously, do you think these are correlated to your claim?

How were these "protected areas" before? That is probably the fifth time I've asked, are Florida public restrooms patrolled? Does the sign have some fancy lasers?
 
Here is what you are missing and refuse to listen to:

How does that change with this law? According to you there are a lot of "sick effers", some of which you are claiming are dressing up as women. So what you seem to be upset about is your possible knowing of the concern, instead of going in with your 12 year old daughter to protect her? Because according to YOUR POSTS she wasn't protected when you claim she was ... by a sign that did nothing.


Lol...who isn't listening? The sign does EVERYTHING. It forced these ass holes to have to dress up as women first of all. Now they don't. It let women know if men were in that room that they could scream their asses off. Now they don't. It was real easy to distinguish the predators from the guys taking a piss. Now...not so much.

I can't help that this is too difficult a concept for you to grab. Plenty of others here are able to just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
Lol...who isn't listening? The sign does EVERYTHING. It forced these ass holes to have to dress up as women first of all. Now they don't. It let women know if men were in that room that they could scream their asses off. Now they don't. It was real easy to distinguish the predators from the guys taking a piss. Now...not so much.

I can't help that this is too difficult a concept for you to grab. Plenty of others here are able to just fine.

Women can still scream if something bad is happening... you find it hard to distinguish between a predator and a guy taking a piss? C'mon.
 
Lol...who isn't listening? The sign does EVERYTHING. It forced these ass holes to have to dress up as women first of all. Now they don't. It let women know if men were in that room that they could scream their asses off. Now they don't. It was real easy to distinguish the predators from the guys taking a piss. Now...not so much.

I can't help that this is too difficult a concept for you to grab. Plenty of others here are able to just fine.

By "forcing them" to dress up like women appears to a) have prevented little and b) made you think something you've proven is unsafe might be safer than it is.

Weird that you posted all of that to claim it was safe(r) before the change.

I understand the "concept", it is just silly, that a sign stopped sexual assault (when you've shown it hadn't).
 
Women can still scream if something bad is happening... you find it hard to distinguish between a predator and a guy taking a piss? C'mon.

I'm saying it's gonna be a lot harder to tell if a man is up to something. If a man was walking out of the women's only restroom as a woman was walking in, she would be suspicious of what the hell he was just doing in there. Now, the men are shielded by the new norm.

I can;t believe I have to keep explaining this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
I'm saying it's gonna be a lot harder to tell if a man is up to something. If a man was walking out of the women's only restroom as a woman was walking in, she would be suspicious of what the hell he was just doing in there. Now, the men are shielded by the new norm.

I can;t believe I have to keep explaining this.

Because you are equating man with suspicious, and you post articles about men caught taking pictures ... you know, the thing that got them turned in and arrested.

Men are not shielded by the new norm and allowed to break the law, the difference is that the law you keep claiming protects your daughter didn't actually protect your daughter ... according to you. Your links didn't show men who were taking a dump and arrested for breaking that law, it was all men taking pictures of people in bathrooms.

Funny, because now you can literally go in and protect your precious, inevitably-to-be-raped-apparently daughter without fear of a sign.

You are blowing the issue way out of proportion. You are claiming that sexual assaults will increase because of the law, while ignoring the tried and true 2A claim: criminals don't obey the law to begin with. Someone with a sexual fetish so extreme they dress up like women to gain admittance won't be protected by this, nor did the (non-enforced) law stop them, therefore your claim must basically be that regular joes will now commit sexual assault because they are in a bathroom with women. Is there any statistical data to support that?

Certainly not any that you've shown. Seems more like you'd be in favor of paying for more security in public restrooms, maybe full length individual stalls with strong locks?
 
I'm saying it's gonna be a lot harder to tell if a man is up to something. If a man was walking out of the women's only restroom as a woman was walking in, she would be suspicious of what the hell he was just doing in there. Now, the men are shielded by the new norm.

I can;t believe I have to keep explaining this.
I think you're overestimating the extent with which guys who are not transgender are going to bypass the societal norm and begin casually using women's restrooms. Could they legally? Sure. Will they en masse? I highly doubt it. Most won't even know about it or remember it beyond the initial headline where it was announced.

There is no motive for the average male to start using the ladies room. Any slight advantage would be outweighed by the ire and pressure he will almost certainly deal with from women when he does so. I suppose there will be some upset about transgender people being accepted freely to use any restroom while they draw comments and pressure to not do so. I guess it's yet another symbol of how straight men have it pretty rough nowadays.

The few men who choose to take advantage of entering a women's restroom due to a rule intended to protect transgenders will and should be scrutinized when they do so and if they break the law, they will be prosecuted the same as today. Men who take advantage but do nothing illegal while in there will be viewed as they should be, not law breakers but... maybe opportunistic jerks or pervs?
 
I think you're overestimating the extent with which guys who are not transgender are going to bypass the societal norm and begin casually using women's restrooms.

You are still operating under the paradigm of labeled restrooms.

How do you follow a "societal norm" in absence of labels?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
You are still operating under the paradigm of labeled restrooms.

How do you follow a "societal norm" in absence of labels?

This is one of the strangest things I've seen posted in this thread, although you aren't the first to imply it.

Since when have signs regulated by law determined societal norms?

I guess maybe what you are saying is that in the absence of knowing what is inside (all stalls vs. urinals) you won't know which "norm" to follow, which I guess could have some merit. But societal norms have never been determined by signage.
 
This is one of the strangest things I've seen posted in this thread, although you aren't the first to imply it.

Since when have signs regulated by law determined societal norms?

I guess maybe what you are saying is that in the absence of knowing what is inside (all stalls vs. urinals) you won't know which "norm" to follow, which I guess could have some merit. But societal norms have never been determined by signage.

You're trying way too hard here. Nice work.
 
You are still operating under the paradigm of labeled restrooms.

How do you follow a "societal norm" in absence of labels?
Where did you get the cockamamee idea that they're re-labeling the restrooms? The order allows people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.
 
Where did you get the cockamamee idea that they're re-labeling the restrooms? The order allows people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

Why would they need labels at all?

As was stated, the EO endorses total restroom Anarch-pee.

If there's a drain, us it!
 
Why would they need labels at all?

As was stated, the EO endorses total restroom Anarch-pee.

If there's a drain, us it!
This isn't a theoretical thought experiment. The signs are there and will stay there. I'm glad we got that cleared up and we're all in agreement that this will work fine and is as it should be.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT