Yes, it does.
Could be, but unless it comes from the horses mouth it's still speculation.
Could be just pass a law to show constituents they're working, and nobody could object to this except them hippie weirdo commie fags.

Of course if it came from Republicans it's with evil intent, but from Democrats it's just unfortunate unintended consequences. :lol2: :bolt:

Is it ok for a straight, pussy-loving man to go into the ladies room and have a wee?

There have been times, in clubs, when the men's toilets have had to be blocked off whilst staff deal with whatever, that I've seen blokes going in to use the ladies' toilets. And vice versa.

A lot of places now have unisex toilets. Makes much more sense to me.










- also much easier to share a small amount of coke, if you can all go into the same loos :P

Yebbut...

I'm talking about having a ladies, and having a gents, both properly functioning...Is it ok for a straight, pussy-loving man to go into the ladies room and have a wee?

If a man, straight or otherwise, that dresses as a woman, can go in the ladies, then it has to be ok for me, straight man dressed in traditionally male clothing, to go in the ladies, too, doesn't it?

The thing is, the kind of man who would want to subtly ogle women peeing is the kind of man who decidedly would NOT dress as a woman in public, for that or any reason. And the kind of socially-fucked-up perv who would stare and masturbate and openly leer at a woman in the bathroom is the kind who wouldn't bother putting on a dress before walking in and doing it anyway.

FYI, all men are on some level a threat until we know them and/or prove otherwise. We do not somehow feel more vulnerable in your average public bathroom than we do in, say, any parking garage after 8 pm.

Great video, if you haven’t seen it.



In brief, a young man realizes that his father, how hates black people, only knows one black family, and they are “good ones” –and he realizes that his father’s world view can’t possibly be accurate. And it was segregation of races that created the situation where his father only personally encountered a disproportionately small number of black people.

This got me to thinking… when people aren’t familiar with someone who is different from themselves, because they haven’t had a chance to interact with them, haven’t had a chance to learn that they are “okay” people, it is much easier to harbor unfair, discriminatory feelings about that group. Segregation of races created this situation, but we knew it because we could see who was different, by the color of their skin.

Fast forward to the national “bathroom laws” discussion issue and we don’t have the convenience of skin-colored segregation to define the group we are talking about. What unknowns there are that exist in this case are due to people’s familiarity with the issue—not necessarily their exposure to trans people, because they might not have known if they’ve ever interacted with a trans person. It's, literally, not a "black and white" situation.


So that's my ham-handed metaphor for the subject that's obviously super complicated and difficult to discuss, and people get all worked up about it for various reasons, but I think we should probably try to muddle through and talk about it anyway because it's not going away.

Does that include trans-men?

The NC Legislature has been accused of attacking Trans people. I highly doubt that's the case, I doubt Trans people were considered at all, or that more than half the legislature were even aware Trans people existed. Those that did probably didn't think there were any outside of Greenwich Village, Frisco, Vegas, or Tijuana. I also highly doubt they had a clue this would stir up a shit storm, and weren't prepared for...

http://cellar.org/2016/Trans1.jpg

or for this...

http://cellar.org/2016/trans2.jpg

Of course nobody would bat an eye if either of them went into the "wrong" bathroom, but I guess there's people who are not this convincing.
However if they repeal the law, Gravdigr will be free to use the ladies room once more.

this cuntry is so fucked up

I've learned a lot from my 25 year old daughter. When I would see a person of unclear gender, I would feel uncomfortable, because I wasn't able to label the person and put it into the little cubby in my brain for "male" or "female". She pointed out that it's a person, not just any person - it's Alex. It doesn't matter what gender Alex is, in fact it's wrong to label at all. We should think of every person as that person, not as a male, female, white, Asian, or whatever. Labeling someone as part of a group is the first step in dehumanizing them.

But it's safer, although not 100% reliable, to sort them into friend or foe. http://cellar.org/2015/shades.gif

I like Prince, and was shocked and saddened when I heard that he died.

When I was a young teen, and Purple Rain came out, I didn't know what to think of him. Was he gay? He was surrounded by women in his videos, but he sure acted weird. I was uncomfortable with Prince and his unclear sexuality and started to dislike his awesome music because of it. I think part of it was that I was going through my heterosexual awakening and just didn't want to be confronted by this charismatic guy who wasn't clearly in my camp. If I liked his music, was I gay? I didn't want to be gay, so I decided I didn't like his music. (It's ironic that I was listening to Queen a lot at the time and had no idea about them.)

I've come around since then. I like Prince. I like his music. His persona is all just part of the package. Liking him won't make me gay.

But I can get where the homophobes are coming from. I grew up. They should too.

Police officer: ma'am, can you describe your assailant?

Person: don't call me ma'am, I'm a person.

PO: ok, person, can you describe your assailant?

Person: it was a person.

PO: but was this person male or female? What was this person's skin tone? Was this person tall or short, fat or thin, bald or hairy...or somewhere in any of the possible ranges of any of these things?

Person: well I wouldn't label my assailant...it was just a person.

PO: ok, I'll get the APB out. I don't think your assailant could have gotten far. I'm sure we'll have your assailant in custody soon, and that person won't be accosting anyone one else any time soon.

Labels or descriptors. What are we allowed to say that doesn't interfere with the lofty ideals of the lofty idealists? Just sayin'.

Except that we've never subjected people to the level of scrutiny seen in a criminal investigation because they want to go pee. Why would we start now?? We're freaking out about nothing.

It's this new Great American Culture of Fear we live in. Welcome to it.