According To CitizenLink/Focus On The Family, There's "A New Type Of Predator" -- Men In Dresses

Oh My! That radio ad...

That ad should be used as parody. But sadly, it's a real ad that will scare the hell out of the ignorant masses.

Jon Stewart needs to get his team of crack reporters on the case here. I don't think anyone else could do it justice.

---

by: RandyH @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:46:57 AM CDT

Idea for the ad

I'd love to see South Park do this ad. Cartman: "Mommmm, there's a man in a dress in the girls' bathroom". Then his mother: "That's OK dear, it's just Mrs. Garrison". And so on. Besides, South Park IS in Colorado.

---

by: mandt @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm much more scared

of finding a Republican Senator or a Cathoholic Priest (spelling intentional) hanging around the bathroom, aren't you all?

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:33:21 AM CDT

No need for an LGBT Organization to fund a study..............

That's because every law enforcement agency in the United States already keeps accurate statistics on sexual assaults and offenders. Aren't sex predator/offenders required to register with local law enforcement agencies? The Federal Bureau of Investigation has a long standing and extremely well respected number of criminal profilers who study, among other criminals, pedophiles.

Clearly, not withstanding accuracy of reporting, a reasonable person would suspect the media would be all over any story concerning such activity even if it was an isolated incident.  

Closed criminal investigations are public record and should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Anyone can request disclosure of such information.

In this case, concerning the State of Colorado, it would be really nice if maybe the Chief of Police of Denver and other Colorado cities would speak to dispel these unfounded and fear mongering ignorant lies. In fact, local law enforcement would be doing a public service in educating the public and steering their concern to actually protecting children.

If I had my wish, LGBT Organizations would work to build an association of all the states and municipalities who have passed inclusive non discrimination laws to respond with statistical and anecdotal experience of how inclusive non discrimination laws impacted their jurisdictions.

Lastly, I'm not up to speed on how the Colorado legislature  works, but I am willing to bet that there was public hearings and testimony in favor and in opposition to the passage of this law. During those hearings, I would suspect that testimony was heard from other jurisdictions who have experience with inclusive non discrimination laws which would show that these folks are simply pandering to irrational and unfounded xenophobic like fears which are guised in their narrow religious beliefs.

I'm sure the Governor of Colorado knows all of this and has access to all the information. Hopefully, the Governor has the support and confidence of the people of Colorado to do what is fair and just.

---

by: goddesspdx @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:08:48 AM CDT

Wait a minute

If the public restrooms/facilities are for just sexual encounters, as these folks think- boy! Have I been using them wrong for years!

But one would think they would build more comfortable areas for playing and messing around in... and I don't wanna know about those "family rooms". Incest? Ick.

Makes worrying about "who's wearing what clothes" kinda trivial, eh?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:45 AM CDT

FWIW

I would call my "man in dress" many, many things... but "predator" is hardly one of them.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:15:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll have to share that with my wife! n/t

---

by: Darjeeling @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm so disappointed

I went into a public women's restroom today and not so much as one fondle, grope, toe tapping footsie games, or even a flash of naked genitalia. Sob! I'm a straight, married white woman- where did I go wrong? Where are all the perverts the freepers and fundies warned me about?

All I can think is that with the high price of gasoline, people aren't going out and shopping like they used to...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:26:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Inclusiveness

Sometimes, as a transperson, it's easy to feel left out, what with all this talk of same sex marriage, GLB only ENDA, etc. Today, thanks to Focus on the Family, I'm feeling appreciated  as "a man in a dress". It's so nice to be noticed as my true self.

---

by: zythyra @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:56:18 AM CDT

isn't it nice to be...

"loved" by Daddy D's crew?

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:03:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

there will be

BISEXUALS in bathrooms....out of curiousity, where do the biseuals relieve themselves now?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:16:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

shhh!

they're not going to announce the bisexual scare until the tran scare falls flat.  one scare at a time, please, never waste a good straw man in the bathroom!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

now that's the argument to use

"If you pass trans-protections, there will be a straw-man in the bathroom!"

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 13:37:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

special

Oh, I'm just feeling so "special"

---

by: zythyra @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 14:00:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What foolishness...

I went to Spain once, many years back as part of a class trip, and I was surprised when I found out they had Unisex Restrooms in some places. Wonder what Focus on Family would have to say about that?  

watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:40:50 AM CDT

i didn't know

I identified as bisexual for a short while before I came out as a lesbian. I didn't realize I was supposed to hold it in all that time. I used women's rest rooms at my university daily during that time period. Sorry to offend.  

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:57:08 AM CDT

I knew it!

I was in the women's room one day at the University and someone said "hey, I think there is a bisexual in here"

It was you, wasn't it?

Has anyone warned Coloradians that there are Lesbians in their restrooms now, some Lesbian Pagans amongst them?

No one is safe...

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

FoF

and assorted other minority groups are flooding the Governors office with their "don't sign SB200" mimeo letters.  We need more Colorado citizens to send "please sign SB200" letters.
Equal Rights Colorado has more information about the bill.
Pam Bennett, Equal Rights Colorado board member

Pam,
J'aime ma Peau

---

by: Blonde Pam @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:28:18 AM CDT

wow

Thanks, Blonde Pam. I think local law enforcement should be interviewed by the gay press every time these salacious and ignorant claims are voiced.

If the gay or mainstream media doesn't, I think local and national law enforcement has a duty to prevent crime and educate.

These ignorant phobic folks cling to the idea that GLBT folks are harming the fabric of this country and putting innocent women and children at risk, while yammering about the sanctity of marriage.

All the while neglecting the facts that any law enforcement agency or cop on the beat can tell you that statistically or by personal experience that most child abductions are committed by heterosexual parents. Most of the child abuse is within the family or close circle of acquaintances and are committed by heterosexual identifying individuals. Domestic violence is most often committed in heterosexual relationships. There is no history, statistically or anecdotally, that queers are widely committing these kind of everyday crimes or that the passage of inclusive non discrimination laws would increase these types of criminal behavior.  

But as a police officer you already know all of this. As a retired cop, I just wish the law enforcement leaders in this country would speak up when they hear this kind of tripe. The Chiefs, Sheriffs along with rank and file cops across the country need to speak to dispel these salacious and ignorant rants when they crop up.

 

---

by: goddesspdx @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 14:04:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

wow...

 Great point, goddesspdx, law enforcement is better serving the community to dispel fear and assure the public that the roster of offenders is updated and they know who the predators are.
 I don't know if they have Megan's Law or one similar where you can look up convicted predators on a local pd datebase.

 However, on TH's blog, when I've mentioned MANY times, my position at LAPD to be able to access databases and statistical breakdowns the public isn't privy to, I DID try to assure those on the thread that gay men and women make up a very tiny minority of violent offenders.

  Especially regarding rape of children and women or the elderly. That drug related crimes are a higher statistical issue and even then, mostly misdimeanors. I was by no means diminishing that there ARE sex offenders who identify as gay. But their victims are more in a statutory situation and gay offenders serve more time and are incarcerated at higher rates than their hetero counterparts.

  But, my information fell on deaf ears. Evidently it's only pedophilia if boys are victimized by men PERCEIVED as gay.
 And I've encountered men in dresses myself...and I know right away what the deal is and I know it's as harmless as if I'd encountered a woman in a dress.
 And by the way, they were Latin boys in cocktail dresses after the clubs had emptied out.
I have one word for them... FIERCE!
I love WeHo  :0P
Yukon Mining Company all night diner never gets boring.

  Education, of course, is always the best remedy to the misunderstandings about cross dressing and preparing for transition.

 But what is the definition of a person who would rather remain uneducated and fearful? Who turns and runs from every opportunity to know better?
If stupid and cowardly are too harsh words, they are the only ones I can think of right now.

---

by: Regan DuCasse @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:51 AM CDT

Colorado Law will say...

that there'll be a man in the woman's showers?  Is this going to happen before or after the law requires all Coloradans to marry someone of the same sex?  I'm so confused....

---

by: eastsidekate @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:23 AM CDT

Experience

I went into a restroom at an airport once, and there was a republican senator in the stall next to me, and now I'm running for congress...  

watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:30 PM CDT

This makes me shudder

Many suggested public anti gay comments contributed to the number of hate-murders in florida this year.

If so this ad could end up leading to deaths in colorado.

The ad is a lie. It's deliberate hate speech.

---

by: battybattybats @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 21:29:59 PM CDT

Someone should report this FOCUS hate speech

to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Seriously. If there is no statistical proof that there is an increase of incidents (the onus is on them to produce the stats), then this is a bold faced lie and ... hate speech directed at a class of individuals.
Enough is enough!

---

by: SharonB @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:09:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

predators and prey

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 23:10:20 PM CDT

I agree that for people who are transitioning...

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 23:30:44 PM CDT

So... who is it directed at?

Women with vaginal dysgenesis? Cloacal dystrophy?

I know what you're saying, and agree to some extent. But body configuration, while a really, really good guide to gender identity, is not perfect, it's an approximation.

There are exceptions.

Part-timers don't need these protections. Others with various IS conditions (and I include neurological Intersex here, transsexuality, HBS, whatever you care to call it), well, they do.

Those in a state of transition, with one appearance, but atrophied genitalia of the other, and whose appearance is changing, specifically need protection.

The Patriarchy cannot tolerate nonconforming women. And those whose bodies do not match the male ideal are the worst of the lot, and are to be suppressed.

Look at who is against these Human Rights - aren't they,. every single one, involved in Patriarchal oppression of the worst kind in all other areas too? Can't you see the pattern of Patriarchal oppression there?

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 00:07:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree...

Part-timers don't need these protections. Others with various IS conditions (and I include neurological Intersex here, transsexuality, HBS, whatever you care to call it), well, they do.

  I have been dianosed as intersex and I am HBS, transsexual, but I live full time, am undergoing HRT and am under the care of gender therapist which is, in my opinion, should be required of those male to female wishing to use the womens restroom  

  It is directed at those who wish to "tear the doors of the womens restroom", regardless of the fears, phobias, mental anguish, and stress of young girls who are not strong enough to feel comfortable in a restroom alone with a males dressed feminine, called transgenders but in reality includes, transvestites, cross dressers, gender benders and fetish freaks.
 

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 00:55:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Has it ever occured to you......

<!-- RATINGS -->

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 23:31:47 PM CDT

Fraternity of Males...

Maybe I feel resentful they want to claim to be as I, yet they hide. Why do they feel they must hide when I feel I must be "out", seen by everyone everyday, at all times dressed "feminine", living as female? I can't help it, I had to do it even at the risk of losing my job and I did. They're just playing around but living as males, but usually I say, practicing life as males, but if they are transsexual their practicing is for naught and is not practicing at all, but portraying as male. I surmise you didn't read all my posts about cross dressers because in one I made a statement to the effect, I do not believe they ever will come "out" in public, because they don't want to or can't live with the fact their personal peers [business associates, business contacts, employers, fellow employees, their straight friends, and here I will say their's of macho braggadocio, of the persuasion and personification that males are above women, and I've wonder if they get this notion from the fact they stab women with their shaft and in the traditional sense they mount women from above her, will perceive them as " a "faggot" or a "queer" or a "homo", as we "transsexuals" suffer the discriminatory. We live with that stigma, whatever others want to think of us, we live with that and as women on a daily basis. But cross dressers? They'll lose their "masculine" status and that swagger that goes with it, that "machismo", that essence of maleness, that proud status of being virile, that strength, that vigor, that force we used to portray so we could hide our femininity, all the things I hated about me, because I used to believe it was the feminine I hated about me, but it wasn't, it was the portrayal of masculininity vexing my true spirit. As transsexuals we live in truth and hide not. I must think they want to make claims they cannot substantuate with their hiding, with their clubs these cross dressers. I've have yet to have someone identify with me in a public setting save a suitor seeking sexual rewards and a male married friend cross dresser from out of state who felt "safe". I've never had a male or female step up to me in public and introduce themselves and say anything like "Hi, I'm a closeted cross dresser and my name is" etc, etc., or any that profess gay, lesbian, f2m who made my acquaintance by introducing themselves in public. I walk alone out here, in the daytime, in a dress. No, I am made to feel by every one as some sort of "outcast", only the "general public' treats me as others and "out" here in public is where I'll stay. Why do they ask that I come into their realm and accpect it, these who claim "transgender"? I ask them to come "out" and into my realm, "out" here in public but they do not, they stay in secret and hide and I am not one of those. I always find something sinister about secrecy. I felt it too when I was 10 years old putting on girls clothes in the woods in 1960, but, I was compelled and it felt so wonderful, it was then when I really felt I was me, as now. In these times of LGBT awareness, the legislation we have, the laws we have supporting us, why still live hiding? Why still live in secrecy and fear? It is these cross dresser's, "transgender" that perpetuate this and hinder, in my opinion, "our" progress into societal acceptance. We've got to make a stand, but if they won't stand with me in public, I'm not going to stand with them in secrecy. No, I'm not one of those, and for others to start name calling is derogatory, discriminatory. I'm not a cross dresser and I'm not transgender, I don't go back a forth between the two, I'm transsexual, my sex identity and my gender identity is female and always has been. I made many an audition for the other role (male) and would have been the star of the show but I lost my billing because I was "one of those" (queer) . No matter I out played, out worked, and out performed the "perceived" straights, I lost all rewards because I was a "queer", a "faggot". Maybe thats why I feel as I do, because I know in public to keep their "male status" in the "male fraternity", they must deny us, they must discriminate or suffer a "faggot" status, they must slander "LGBT's" or be castigated with the stigma as one of them, "he must be a "homo too", so I know that's what the secrecy is about.. That's what hurts too, they won't stand with us "transsexuals" or gays publically and will, if the situation would "out" them to the public or at their employment, discriminate, in the secret fraternity of the straights males, they will speak of you disdainful to shirk any association with LGBT's.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 23:39:06 PM CDT

Can we leave the ideology out of this?

For once?

The fact is that no-one can show that this kind of legislation increases assaults.

This kind of legislation has been enacted in plenty of different places and not once has this lie of predators using it occured. It's a myth.

No matter your viewpoint on the whole HBS Vs Transgender or genital status arguments the fact is this is a myth.

How to better improve comfort or safety in public facilities is a seperate issue that we've argued about quite thoroughly enough in previous discussions.

Even if you disagree with the legislation you should acknowledge that this ad is promoting a myth and transphobic panic.

---

by: battybattybats @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:04:25 AM CDT

It doesn't seem anyone...

   here speaks up for young female teens about the bathroom issue. They're voice is not heard here or I never see it so I try to ask as though I am one. How do I get a choice as 14 year old female, a little timid and sheltered from that world as we adult LGBT people know it, to keep the women's restroom door from being torn completely off it's hinges by laws, (for the TG merry-go-round where anyone can get on or off at will by donning a skirt and spike heels, (and I wonder why they like those so much, most women don't wear them. Oh, thats right, fetish freaks, I almost forgot they exist) for use by males who would dress a little female to enter the little girls rooms, even though they are not feminine, not on hormones, not living full time as a woman, just fetishists and gender benders.  

   I am trying to show that lurkers can give an errieee feeling, even to adults, amounting to down right fear, to the point of not want to use and deciding they can't use that restroom with certain persons lurking around outside or inside. Why even try it? See one of my previous posts on lurkers in this thread. Track down a busy roadside reststop some evening. I'm sure you've heard of them. I can name two that made headlines in local papers. In Covington, Louisiana, and in Poplarville, Mississippi. They both had to be raided and patroled to stop the wanton homosexual sex with abandon to protect the publics rights of use. They were taking over the facilities. Now thats male on male, but it's the total disregard of others that worries me about the issue of the public womens restroom. These lurkers and predators, who are seeking mutual sex of same sex persons, do not care about the publics right to use the public restrooms and they are males, not transsexuals, will be able to claim they transgender and giving an open end invitation without stipulations is opening the floodgates of intrusions upon certain womens restrooms by those who would claim transgender, unless, required to submit to HRT, real life experience living as female to transition to female including at their employ, and having a licensed therapist in gender issues.

   Why didn't you just tell me to shut up batty, that's what your post amounts to, but I won't, so it's useless to even try.

   It's just something worthwhile to think about, in my opinion,  

  Why was I afraid useing the public restroom in Hayne City, Florida? Because no one else was around while three men lurked at the door, with me sitting in a stall, my pants down, and one of them comes inside even. I was quite fearful, even as a former Marine and a Vietnam combat veteran, not being able to see what they were doing, but hearing voices and movement outside. I had my vigilance working in the extremes and fight planned. But when you can't see what some strangers are doing right outside your door it is scary, expecially in strange place at that, with no one else around.

   How will young teen girls feel if three males, dressed as female, happened by and entered the rest room, speaking in male voices and standing twice the size of a young girl. Scared shitless.

   I don't think I'm that far off base and it's not ideology, it's reality.

   An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 00:04:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then

Why don't you support the idea of replacing all communal facilities with single-use cctv protected facilities?

That way people are safer with or without this issue.

I in previous discussions here provided reports where women and girls were not safe in womens toilets prving that the current ones are insufficiently safe to start with.

The discomfort argument is about perception not reality as the fact that no-where has seen a rise in assaults following such measures shows.

Still when the current system is not safe for anyone and this issue might make some less comfortsable but not less safe (and some more safe) and single-use toilets can solve multiple problems at once, namely vastly increased safety for every vulnerable group and disability access not to mention increased comfort, then why don't you just support that and the problem you have with this issue goes away entirely.

I wasn't telling you to shut up, just to keep ideological problems you have out of this discussion. Bringing up the problem of discomfort is different. Though plenty of white people felt uncomfortable sharing facilities with black people and we desegregated them anyway. Nevertheless it and a multitude of problems are solved by the single-use facility model.

It has one flaw for some that many will consider the solving of another problem, people wanting anonymous sex will need to go elsewhere.

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:50:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Having hawks circling chickens...

   is not "ideology". It is a fact of reality. It's evident your not from the U.S.

   We haven't had a lot trouble here in the past with men invading the women's restrooms for crime, so whats your test prove? Nothing. Besides, nothings going to happen while the spot light is one it. Wait till everyone looks the other way and the spot light dims on the restroom use issue by so called transgenders, then the snakes will begin to come out and who will the public hold responsible? Transsexuals. Because all the closeted CD's and transvestites and transgenders will fade back into their cowardice holes as they pull their male cloaks back over their shoulders.  

   But with the patterns of behavior in this country, of which I referred to at some men public restrooms above, it's likely that will continue with the TG merry-go-round emplemented into law as soon as these types of characterless person get a whiff that it's legal if your wearing a skirt and the public spotlight has dimmed. It's very easy to crap right now in this country in public restrooms, whats the problem? Would you like to see a before and after photo of me concerning HRT and it's effects? No, it's only those men who want to play at "girl" as some fad that have a problem when they shed their male attire for some recreational play. They want a 365 day halloween law so they can take their sport to the streets of mid America.  

   An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

   Are you going to pay the building owners to make all restrooms single use? Not feasible. Can you imagine how many single use restrooms you'd have to build for a large airport? And can't you hear the war drums pounding over this restroom issue. It's far from over and wait till the first nut case erupts somewhere in a womens restroom.

   I will step out on a limb here and state that the majority of women do not, and I mean adamently, want men in the public restrooms ! No matter how bad you paint the "family" pundits and the gender phobia brush.  

   What I wrote about concerning  "rights of use"  no one wanted to pick that one up here at pams when I mentioned property rights of egress, ingress, and regress in the public forum. All I got were a bunch of comments from a peanut gallery, no common sense dialogue, no discussion what so ever, but it does fall under rights of use, not homo or gender phobias. It's a legitmate concern and turning a blind eye to anything that doesn't agree with you will get you more enemies that will turn the tide on you for a long time as ENDA has done and taken us out to sea.

   I'm not so sure thats not why ENDA failed for us, this restroom issue. Besides, all I want to do is take a crap and pee anyway, it's not a place to hang out so whats the big fuss that we want men to piss "over there" and take their sexual hormones with them.

   Too many time their thinking with the wrong head, the one between their legs.

  Ideological, ideological, ideological, ideological, ideological, ideological,..  (lol)

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:41:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Evidence please

PhyllisMs,

Do you think there aren't 'beats' in other countries?

1. The single use CCTV protected public facilities would stop that problem. I keep pointing out to you that it would stop the very sort of problem you yourself experienced. Why then won't you support it as a solution to all these problems? You didn't like it so why not protect others from going hrough the experience you did?

2. You said

Are you going to pay the building owners to make all restrooms single use? Not feasible. Can you imagine how many single use restrooms you'd have to build for a large airport?

Building standards change and it's up to owners to comply when it happens. Usually when slow change is required it applies only to new constructions and then slowly it is introduced via renovations and refurbishments until eventually only heritage listed buildings are exempt.
Sometimes changes are required to obtain operating licences permits and the like. These would come into effect as each establishment comes up for renewal dependant on local laws and regulations regarding such things.

3. You say with certainty that a rise in attacks will happen. Where has this occured? If you can't site a single place that has enacted such laws and subsequently seen a rise in attacks by dressed-to-disguise people, long after the spotlight has faded or not, then you have an assumption, a postulation, a belief, a projection.

Not truth, not proof, not evidence. You only provide a conjecture that goes directly against the clear pattern of a lack of a rise of such attacks. No rise means no rise. You can say there will be but if there hasn't been then your just imagining there will be and nothing more!

---

by: battybattybats @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 20:24:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have nothing to prove to you...

   it is my stand, that penis's are not allowed in the women's restroom, unless the penis owner is:

1. Undergoing HRT(Hormone Replacement Treatment).

2. Under the care of a licensed gender therapist.

3. Living full time as female in "real life experience" including at their employ.

No "big brother" cameras Batty and please stop trying to make a hole you think I'll fall through and come out on your side of the earth. Ain't happening. Go on about you way.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 00:03:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And you are still pushing a myth

Because the risk hasn't eventuated anywhere, it's a myth.

So you can complain about the rainbow unicorn danger all you want it's still only existing in the imagination of you and that of these lie-peddlars that this is about.

Side with liars who are trying to stir up transphobia all you like.

Your still propagating a fantasy.

Slowly public facilities are becoming more single-use anyway for disabled people's access.

And no 'big brother' cameras protecting the outside of such toilets? Why? Do you want to keep those beats open? Weren't you so upset by the very behaviour that those cameras would deter? They already are installed at countless public locations and they needn't be inside the single-use toilets but to monitor the space at the entrance to ensure safety. Toilets like this already exist and they will become the eventual standard.

Your rules will not protect those who are most vulnerable right now! The children, the disabled, the elderly, the visibly gay and all the gender non-conformists who currently are the most victimised groups in public toilets. There is a real threat to them right now and every year they get attacked. But you don't want to protect them! You object to the measures that will directly protect all of them equally.

Your rules won't protect people from your bugbear because it's imaginary! A supposition that fails. A predicition that hasn't come true! Your rules are just like the pink pills to save people from the scary comet.

Toilets are not safe currently, people get assaulted in them currently. These laws you don't like won't make that worse. Your rules you want won't make that better. It'd just make you more comfortable, a protection from your imaginary bogeyman

Come up with a different reason for not allowing these changes if you like but protecting people from a threat that isn't real is plain bogus.

The threat is nothing more than a myth!

---

by: battybattybats @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:59:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Childrens rights are no...

   myth and there was a time when children were for the most part free from predators, like when I grew up. We pretty well could be safe running around our neighborhood alone. It was very rare to hear of atrocities against children, even rape, because children were taught to greater respect of their elders and girls were afraid to speak up about such things, sadly. 

   But over the years from the 1970's on, children are no longer the exceptions and they have become more or less fair game to the criminal element of which I don't exclude well to do business travelers in poor countries taking advantage of the impoverished for sexual exploits.

   After a rash of kidnappings, murders, rapes of boys and girsl our country began to wake up to the realization and a heavier watch began to take hold by concerned parents. The same also goes for the "neighborhood watch" which was implemented across the country after rashes of burgalries and drug dealing.

   So don't tell me the escalation of criminal behaviors is a myth. The myth is in your head.

   The restrooms haven't been invaded because of the vigilance of parents and police and I hope it stays that way. Tear the doors off the "little girls" room and it's opening that last respite for women to a whole host of complications.

   You rules will perpetrate.   

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 13:28:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adults can take care...

   of themselves, the childern are vulnerable, and I can't believe you never speak up for them, it's always about you and your argumentive self.

 

G'day....

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 13:31:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Myths and more myths! (and a lie?)

Adults can? The disabled? The elderly? That's ridiculous! Adults are frequently the victims of assault and a disabled person, an elderly person is clearly vulnerable! As are children.

childern are vulnerable, and I can't believe you never speak up for them

So what is that, a massive cognitive failure or an outright lie?

Because I keep mentioning the risk children are under in the current system as one of the strongest arguments for the single-use cctv protected facilities!

Here's the proof:

The children, the disabled, the elderly, the visibly gay and all the gender non-conformists who currently are the most victimised groups in public toilets

listed first! Right there! See, the word children there?

In past eras most abuse of children was often not reported but it still existed! It is now openly reported making attempts to determine whether or not the incidence of the crime itself has risen impossible to determine.

Kidnapping is one that does appear to have risen though some have stated this is mostly because of the rise in the breakup of abusive marriages where in the past the partner and children would have remained trapped and now non-custodial parents kidnapping and often murdering their children is very much on the rise. Especially lately the phenomenon of mothers kidnapping and/or murdering their children.

Clearly more must be done to protect children. Nevertheless, if you were right there should have been such a rise in assaults because of laws like this already and it hasn't happened making your view still an unfounded belief and nothing more!

Children right now are assaulted in toilets. Children have been assaulted and murdered in public toilets already in the current system!

How do you propose to make THOSE children safer?
The single use cctv monitored toilets WOULD make them safer!

So your objections to such toilets is an objection to protecting the children currently at risk from REAL predators all while claiming to protect them from IMAGINARY predators!

You can't show the risk is real as it just hasn't happened, you just repeat that you suppose it is real, you imagine, you believe, you hold on faith instead of evidence! You imagine the possibility and the assume that it is true.

All while objecting to a real protection for real victims from real predators!

---

by: battybattybats @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 20:00:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you happen to know.

   Chubby Checker? Because you have the twist down pat.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 21:55:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Twist? Not remotely

I'm being consistent.

While your attempt to turn the argument failed.
I've been mentioning the importance of the single access toilet for protecting children for ages in plenty of discussions with you including the very comments you were replying to.

You'll need a much better argument for maintaining the current system. The current system which is dangerous for many vulnerable groups of people now rather than the imaginary scenario that has never eventuated that you provide.

And even if you were right about it which your not the best way to solve the dilemma would still be the single-user system!

It's the best current answer to everyone's safety and comfort needs.

---

by: battybattybats @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:17:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You just want to beat me up...

    Your stalkking me...,because you just want to fight anyone with whom you disagree. People have a right to have their opinions. You have a right to state yours too, but to keep throwing stones at me and others here that I've watched from the side lines is fighting. You've stated your point, why can't you let it go? I do, I state my points, others read it or ignore it and we move on to the next thread. But batty, noooo, she's got to fire automantic weapons not stop. You'll melt your barrel that way batty.

Besides, it's only men in dresses...that want to change things, but they won't sit down to pee anyway, so whats the point?  

   I don't have an argument batty, I have three stipulations for eliminating cross dressing men from useing the womens restrooms.

   Theres lots of things I don't like and there are lots of things I disagree with and most I can't do anything about, I live with it. But batty why can't you? Isn't it that you just want to beat me up ?

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 22:50:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whoa

You think I what?

Showing that your arguments are wrong is stalking and wanting to commit violence to you?

I'm a pacifist! I have been for decades, even when physicly attacked! I definately don't want any violence of any sort done to you or any other human being!

You keep stating your point yet you object to my responding. You've lied about my not speaking up for protecting children when my solution protects them more than yours does!

You make your 'live with it' comment but your not are you, your talking about it here, expressing your views, but objecting when I express my counter views.

Your more concerned about your problem with crossdressers than with protecting any and all of the vulnerable people at risk now! You've made that clear often enough.

I'm not about to idly watch demurely while you propagate lies and falsehoods that denegrate and demonise a victimised group of people!

I suggest that these false claims of predation in this advertisment are hate speech. Intended to raise transphobia and likely to result in transphobic violence. That seems to be the only real risk of violence here!

Whose stalking who anyway? I posted in this discussion before you did! That'd be you stalking me then not the other way round.

---

by: battybattybats @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:57:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You don't show my point of views, they are not...

   arguments( see how you think). Your constantly making accusations against me, in essence, attacking me.

   I've never objected to you responding to any post, even with disagreeing with my point of view.

   All the vilnerable people you are speaking about are not complaining they are suffering a pattern of violence as you put on. But I state how threatening young girls can feel, with men in the public restroom. I refuse to see it.

   So why can you agree to disagree.

  

you propagate lies and falsehoods that denegrate and demonise a victimised group of people!

 This is frickin halarious !

  Posting an opposing view to any post is not stalking, but battling any and every post one person makes is stalking. Your obverse.  

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 17:16:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I won't speak with you again.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 17:17:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absurd

On so many different levels.
I'm not battling any and every post you make, I've seen posts by you in other discussion and, not disagreeing with them or disagreeing with them but not seeing countering your views as important I've ignored them. Where I have responded has been where I have strongly disagreed with you as I do hear. Totally appropriate and nothing like the stalking you are imagining.

I never disagreed with

how threatening young girls can feel, with men in the public restroom

but, like white people who found having black people in desegregated bathrooms threatening but got over it eventually, I'm sure many would get used to it in time when they realise those men are simply harmless transgendered people.

And I bet they would be more comfortable in a safe single-user facility!

And the disabled and the elderly and the transgendered and male children etc will all feel safer in single user facilities! The comfort and safety issue you raise is as valid a reason for single user facilities as the safety argument.

And they wouldn't just feel safer but be safer! And we'd have less people especially children assaulted in public facilities every year!

A measure for preventing the rape and murder of children is something your arguing against! Why? So you can feel accepted by being allowed in a public communal woman-only space that keeps out the crossdressers?

That seems a pretty unacceptable price for others to pay for your benefit!

---

by: battybattybats @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 19:16:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The only time there are males in the Bathrooms...

...are when the fundies send them into them, like at the RIO in Montgomery County, MD to make a cheap point.

They are creating the "crisis" they complain of. How convenient.

---

by: SharonB @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 15:58:58 PM CDT