• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

The transgender/privacy issue

CaddmannQ

Will TIG for Food
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
I started ranting in the wrong place, so I decided I had to start this thread. A year or so back, this was a big deal because our huge population (0.01%) of transgender people were starting to feel unhappy, because they could not use the bathroom of their choice.

Back when this debacle of transgender people in public restrooms reared it's ugly head in California, our local Congressman was on the radio taking questions & making comments.

I called and suggested the cheapest and quickest thing to do is immediately put portable private bathrooms on every campus for anybody that wanted to use them.

He replied that, "We can't fix this through infrastructure!" Like I was some kind of moron.

I told him I knew this because, "I've been involved in the engineering and construction of public buildings for 40 years." but by then he wasn't listening anymore.

The lawyers were trying to find a way to fix something social, but you can't "fix" such things unless you fix the people, and that's not going to happen soon.

But we can simply deal with it, with a few extra bathrooms here and there.

Of course our rep is a lawyer and his way of dealing with problems is by mandamus: the courts fix the problem by telling people what to do.

Being an engineer I knew that sticking your nose into the American legal system is 10 times as expensive as just going out and putting in a few bathrooms. Lawyers could argue forever, and they cost a fortune, whereas bathrooms are built by illegal aliens and they don't cost that much.

Public Schools never have enough bathrooms anyway.

When your only tool is a hammer every problem becomes a nail, and that is how the lawyers of the United States are running this country into the dirt. They turn every problem into a hugely expensive legal proposition because that's what they're trained to do.

I must live in about the least liberal place in California. Any guy that dresses up as a woman and goes in the ladies bathroom here is going to get a Stern Lesson.

What they did around here, at most big stores, was to keep the regular old public men's & women's rooms plus add a "family" bathroom, which allows all "sexes" in any combination together, but the door locks and it's essentially a private room.

If you're a parent with a small child of the opposite sex, you can still take them to the bathroom without invading anyone. If you're queer you can go hide out by yourself and lock the door.

Anybody who's nervous about what might happen in the regular bathrooms can use the private room.

This is what they've also done at many schools. They simply added a private room or rooms. The schools in Clovis however do not allow cross-dressing, and they keep the boys in the boys room and a girls in the girls room whether they're gay or not.

They don't specifically prohibit cross-dressing but they state in the school policy what is acceptable clothing, and those policies essentially do the same thing.

The parents here seem to be pretty good about policing their own children in regard to these things, and to the problem of funny "sexual identities.

Unfortunately this town is growing a lot & these things will change.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of the "family" restrooms. We have those too in almost every public place. But rather than that being adequate, there's a push for... I don't know, for lack of a better word, "trans" restrooms where each restroom accommodates both sexes and "trans people"(?) so the fix is to retro fit restrooms with stalls and urinals. Not that it's totally wide spread but just saying that to the activist trans people, a "family" restroom isn't enough.

I have a friend in the navy who has said that as of next year (or maybe it's this year even) that the department of the Navy will begin retro fitting restrooms as described above. Far more costly than what you've suggested.
 
Here's my suggested solution:

Stop w/ the Men or Women division.
Change the markings to "Penis" and "No Penis."

That way it doesn't matter what you think you are.
 
So, just so the tranz people can feel more like normal people, instead of feeling like the self-created freaks they are, the rest of us must suffer unisex restrooms?

No thanks.

This fantasy world where we cater to the freaks of society has got to stop.

And not because normal people might disagree with their "style", nor even because we might hate them for all the trouble they cause in their delusions, but because they are sick people whose mental illness we continually perpetuate and increase just by pretending it's OK.

Society is making these people even sicker, by requiring everyone to pretend that they are mentally healthy and sane, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Just because "we" have decided that these deviations aren't criminal acts, people are inclined to believe they are healthy. This just leads everyone further into delusion.
 
This fantasy world where we cater to the freaks of society has got to stop...Society is making these people even sicker, by requiring everyone to pretend that they are mentally healthy and sane, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea of "family" restrooms doesn't really bother me, and I think that is a good solution--now let's (the media) move on to a far more important subject relevant to more than a fraction of a percent of the population. When the kids were smaller, the changing table came in handy. And I would rather a man bring his little girl in there to pee than to bring her into the men's room (for example and as happened to me a couple months ago :eek:).

States and legislatures trying to force their religious beliefs upon us with "bathroom bans" are stupid but not more stupid than cancelling sporting events and conventions because of said ban. :rolleyes:

I believe anyone wanting their lady bits or man bits lopped off and replaced with the other bits is mentally ill. Period. It is just like going to a surgeon and saying "I want you to cut off my middle fingers--I don't want to offend anyone anymore..." Of course they will think you are nuts and the same should apply with private parts. And I sure as HELL do not want to pay for it! NO ONE has a "right" to bill me for their own self-mutilation! :mad:

And while on the subject of mental illness and just a little bit OT: Mental illness should NOT be a "excuse" for a lighter sentence, especially the death penalty! If the body did the crime, the body must die! You can chop off the head and put it in a jar until the cure is found but the body's got to go. I think certain parts of the law and those who practice it should be made illegal--think of the fees defense lawyers make prolonging death penalty cases...
 
I do believe there is a difference between mentally ill and criminally insane.

Mentally ill people we should care for in the proper Hospital environment or proper home for mentally ill people. We can't let them run around hurting themselves and others as that would be irresponsible to society, regardless of how sorry we feel for the condition of these Afflicted people.

In my mind criminal insanity is incurable, and those people should always be executed. We can't let them out on society, ever, and we can't fool ourselves into believing that we have the knowledge to cure them.

And to lock them up for life, like some Zoo creature on display, is also uncharitable. They need to die quietly and privately and in due course of time relative to their capture.

This will get rid of all of those "my client was insane" pleas. We have to decide that keeping criminally insane people alive is not good for them or us.

Their condition may not be their own fault but that is no mitigating Factor where the protection of society must be Paramount over the rights of deranged and insane people.
 
If you stand to pee use the mens room. If you have to sit to pee use the ladies room.

One more thought. If I happen to be with my granddaughters at the mall and a man goes into the restroom when they are in it, the event will make the news.
 
As far as the mentally ill go, the ACLU and courts disagreed with keeping them locked up for their own good and released them all to fend for themselves. Don't see that changing unless someone with big balls and deep pockets run with it all the way to the SCOTUS.

As for the he-she's, they are still whatever they were born with until they have their parts "adjusted". If they can afford it, fine. What I disagree with is the rest of us having to pay for their choices. Especially people like Army Sgt Bradley Manning who still be in jail and not out parading around as a drag queen.

But they should be required to use the restroom that corresponds to their physical profile, not how they dress or ID themselves.
 
I don't want cross-dressers and tranzexuals using public restrooms designed for more than one person. of the same sex.

Too confusing for such a simple binary situation.

They can use the private/family rooms.
 
Yup. And Trump just reversed Obama's "trannys in the military" debacle.

No, he didn't. He actually renewed the ban Obama had in place for his entire 8 years. The media just didn't say anything about it. "If Barry did it, it must be OK. If Trump does it, it must be treason."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267397/transgender-ban-isnt-fair-neither-war-daniel-greenfield

The ban on transgender service that President Trump reaffirmed was there for eight years under Obama. It was there in his first term and his second term. And the media said nothing.

Only in the summer of last year did the ban technically end. And, in practice, it remained in force. All the while there was no angry clamor about the suffering of potential recruits who couldn’t enlist. Those who are fuming with outrage now had hypocritically remained silent. Obama had done it. So it must be good.

Obama had kept the ban in place for almost his entire two terms in office. And he found a way to retain it throughout his final months. With a year’s review, the transgender recruits could only be accepted after he was out of the White House. That way he could have his social justice cake and eat it too. He would get the credit for ending the transgender ban without dealing with any of the problems.
 
No, he didn't. He actually renewed the ban Obama had in place for his entire 8 years. The media just didn't say anything about it. "If Barry did it, it must be OK. If Trump does it, it must be treason."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267397/transgender-ban-isnt-fair-neither-war-daniel-greenfield
You are absolutely correct. I was wrong. Try to find anything about Obama's initial ban and it will take you thru several pages of "Trump bans transgenders". But, then you have to realize that almost all the search engines are owned by a few companies, loyal to the liberal left.
 
Oh, I understand that. I would've missed it too, but someone posted it on another forum.

My apologies if it seemed like I was calling you out. I had no such intention.
 
My name is Scoop and with all this talk about transgender and transracial issues I think it is time to come clean with my secret.
I'm transfinancial and that means I am a rich man born in a poor man's body. Please help me. Send money.
 
For half the cost of real money I can make you believe you are rich, and as far as you're concerned that's just as good right?
 
Oh, I understand that. I would've missed it too, but someone posted it on another forum.

My apologies if it seemed like I was calling you out. I had no such intention.
No need to apologize. You did not call me out. It's good to get the correct info posted for all to see.
 
Back
Top