LOL!

Please don't go there....too scary. This nitwit on youtube looks like something from the Star Wars bar scene. In fact the entire Democrat party looks like they belong there.

Yes and no. Historically in order to be "qualified" for the cosmetic transgender surgery you had to be diagnosed with gender identity disorder. This is a psycho-physiological syndrome called Gender Dysphoria and was clinically quantified.

However, according to sources for Wikipedia:
" It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on 2013 diagnostic criteria"

This tells us some key bits of information. First it is less than the percentages touted. Second, there is a clear skew toward male to female dysphoria by roughly 2-3x.

A key aspect bot talked about in this flap is that there is a difference between actual legal transgendered (having GID and/or the surgery and hormone treatment to make you look like the other sex) and "identify as the opposite gender".

However, to actually enforce such a restriction would require some form of registration and identification. But really, that is only for those who have not been "re-assigned" as only those who are visibly not of the gender the restroom was intended for would be questioned or complained about. This would of course naturally be skewed toward men identifying as female and thus going into the ladies room.

But the federal order wasn't just about barrooms but locker rooms, showers, and "related areas". The media and pundits just like to focus on the waste elimination side and conveniently forget that it also applied to the rest of the "facilities".

And to the claim that someone will argue for urinals going into ladies rooms making no sense I'll also add this: http://nationalreport.net/arizona-bil...

Oh and here is a trans-women who objects to having to "hide" in the stall so wants to use urinals: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theg...

So yeah, the notion that no transwoman will want to use a urinal was proven false last year in a rather public fashion. Not to mention retractable urinals in ladies rooms in Europe is already a reality.

Actually yes. I have two that I know, one of which does prefer to stand due to convenience (it is quite convenient, so yes that makes sense as well). I also know men who prefer to sit to pee. Every demographic is not monolithic. This is the last place I'd expect to read someone act as if they are.

Stupid is as stupid does.
---dinosaur plagiarism strikes!

Imagine that wannabe baby killer cloned several times over.

Transgender? This is a medical problem and should be treated medically. The foolishness of transgender public restrooms is nonsense and a terrible waste of money. Jim Wright

Unbelievable! I was always under the impression that it takes a male and a female to make a baby.....silly me.

what is correct to you that we can apply to all men and women (not just children), and not to the benefit of a small group of individuals at the expense of a majority of others?

It may be "common sense," but it's not correct.

slfisher, you're right using the bathroom is not transgender specific and therefore, there shouldn't be any laws to put it (transgender rights) above the rights of others. As I understand, liberals are advocating for transgender males to be able to use public female bathrooms at the expense of all females for whom the lady's bathroom was designed for (can we agree on this?). They want to protect the transgender's rights by allowing them the use of a public female bathroom (which is not a right in my opinion) at the expense of infringing on the female population for whom that public bathroom was made and designed for. The liberals are cleverly using children to sway public opinion, but they won't talk about grown men having this same right that they want for the transgender "children." Any logical mind would see that applying this rule into legislature and seeing it through to its ends would result in adult males claiming they are transgender (how do you legally define who is and who isn't transgender? answer: you can't, so its a freeforall) now using a public bathroom labeled for women and filled with young girls all while that male having different intentions because it was their right to enter said bathroom as provided by the liberals. Clearly the liberal left are not thinking about the lawsuits that would unfold from this course of action, not surprised though. Common sense to me means that a transgender boy goes to the bathroom the same way that a regular boy does (public or private), so he should use the facilities that were designed for him.

No comment. I actually wrote one but ended up deleting it. Who actually votes for these people like Cuomo, Pelosi, Reed, Waters, etc.? That's the real problem. We elect freaks and then they want to change things that have worked for centuries to some freaky way they think should conform to their individual strange beliefs. Hell, that's even how we got Trump, at least that's why I voted for him due to his desire to knock off the bull and get back to the Constitution and Law, and clean the swamp. Hopefully more states will soon follow suite. Whoops I guess I actually made a comment.

As a grinning Clinton (either one) would say back during the Nineties~"It's for the children!"

Me dino loves this!

Yep.

Me dino knows how to put this issue down.
Let's put it a vote! Tee-hee.

Holy Moses! I found the hydrophobic hag!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIMj...

I live in Texas. If they ever pass laws that allow men into the women's restroom. I will go into the restroom with my wife and daughter. Then lean against the stall door while they do their business. If they say anything to me, I will state that I identify as a protective man.

And with the SJW'S claiming we live in a 'rape culture' it seems disingenuous to be for both of these issues. Especially since being trans is totally in the person's head and has no physical evidence to support it. So while I will accept that some people may believe they were born in the wrong sex, there is no way they can prove that this is not a phase they are just going through (being a trans-trender). And as such, people trying to commit criminal acts can just claim to be trans and get access to victims because there is not difference between an actual trans person and the pervert.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. A transgender woman isn't going to want to stand to pee . Do you know any transgender women at all?

Right, currently y'all don't have urinals. Currently. It is not a stretch to project that if people-with-penises who "identify" as a women are "less" unless they are able to force others to let them pee in the ladies room, that you'll see urinals mandated because a man-as-woman would feel disempowered if "prevented" from standing to pee. After all, we already have women who stand to pee at a urinal.

Then again, IMO, a wise person doesn't tie one's identity to which room they pee in.

What I find telling is the progressives are acting like Obama's executive order had the force of law. And Trump cannot recinding it because it doesn't line up with their views (there were reports about lawsuits preventing Trump from recinding the order, but may have been talking points by some LGBTQXYZ group's plans). It was just a suggestion at best (though it did have an ultimatum that schools would lose funding if they didn't comply). And all Trump did was return the decision back to the States, saying it was not the Federal government's perogative, but the State's.

Yes, Didn't one of the nut cases on the women's march say that all male babies should be killed!

Let us examine the argument being made, and expose its stupidity.

The argument boils down to:
"a select group of people should be allowed to choose the genitalia of people in the bathroom they want to use". If a woman wants to use the men's room, she is wanting to choose pee around people with penises. If a man wants to use the women's room he is wanting to choose to pee around people with vaginas. What one "identifies" as is entirely irrelevant.

What is missing is that by forcing a "mensroom" to be open to non-men, you are removing the "choice" of men who don't want to be whipping it out in front of women, and for women to not pee around men. Thus, the argument is essentially "this tiny, tiny portion of the populace's feelings and desires should entirely overwhelm the feelings and desires of the rest of the population". The argument being made is that a woman who "identifies as a man" is somehow uncomfortable or "less" for having to pee around other people with vaginas, but also that men who don't want to pee around people with vaginas' discomfort is irrelevant - thus actually making them legally "less than".

That argument is clearly stupid. It isn't even really a "progressive argument" because that would really require the needs of the many to outweigh the needs of the few, which this argument inverts. To truly make the argument the left is making here, you must argue for a single large restroom with no stalls, no barriers, and no other limitations. But they aren't. They do not make this argument because it exposes, if you will, the stupidity and illogical nature of the argument.

I'm not stigmatizing anyone save for a dimwitted anchorman and a pinhead for a past president who rendered women's restrooms into a unisex visitation zone.