Liberal idiocy: Girls must overcome discomfort....

[Tarheel Baptist]

...of male genitalia in THEIR locker room.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/charlotte-observer-girls-must-try-overcoming-disco/

 

[Mr. Hall]

...of male genitalia in THEIR locker room.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/charlotte-observer-girls-must-try-overcoming-disco/

What the Charlotte Observer really said:

"We, of course, never said or remotely suggested girls should get used to seeing male genitalia. We said the opposite ? that privacy is important and there are ways to maintain it."

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article79392542.html#storylink=cpy

Still,  allowing intact males into a female restroom/locker room or vice-versa seems misguided in my view.  If you want to use the ladies'/men's room get the appropriate sex change operation.  Otherwise, stay where you are.  Then again:

Q: Which bathroom should a transgender person use if he or she hasn't had genital surgery?

A: The details about whether or not someone has had genital reconstructive surgery, also called sex reassignment surgery (SRS), don?t tell you anything about gender identity or someone?s right to use a certain bathroom?and asking about it is a major invasion of privacy, as it involves personal medical information. It could also be illegal. For instance, if employers were to impose such a ?genital standard? for bathroom use, they would need to inquire about the genitals of everyone in that workplace. Imagine the privacy concerns that would raise!

The fact is that very few transgender people seek SRS, whether because of cost, personal beliefs, concern about surgical risks or the limitations of available procedures. In a recent survey of 6,450 transgender people in the U.S. conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, fewer than 25% of transgender women had undergone genital surgery, and fewer than 5% of transgender men had.

The U.S. State Department and the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently recognized this by dropping surgical requirements to change the gender listed on passports and SSA records.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/restroom-faq

Maybe it's not as simple as it first appears.

$

 

[Ransom]

What the Charlotte Observer really said:

"We, of course, never said or remotely suggested girls should get used to seeing male genitalia. We said the opposite ? that privacy is important and there are ways to maintain it."

What the Charlotte Observer really really said:

"Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls? locker rooms ? and vice versa ? might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort ? with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage ? then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined."

Link

So the gist of the concluding paragraph of the editorial was, in fact, accurately conveyed by the Washington Times. They are saying that getting comfortable with seeing men's naughty bits in the women's locker room is the moral equivalent of getting comfortable with seeing a black man use your drinking fountain.

 

[Mr. Hall]

So the gist of the concluding paragraph of the editorial was, in fact, accurately conveyed by the Washington Times. They are saying that getting comfortable with seeing men's naughty bits in the women's locker room is the moral equivalent of getting comfortable with seeing a black man use your drinking fountain.

The notion of girls "seeing" men's genitalia in the locker room was not mentioned.  The Observer editorial talked about the discomfort of some with the  idea of men's genitalia just being in the female locker room.    It described the Administration's recommendations for addressing the "privacy needs of all students in bathrooms and locker rooms,"  and mentioned some methods for insuring privacy, e.g., curtains, that are being followed in some schools.  "The measures follow a simple premise:  Offer those who are uncomfortable a chance to be comfortable, but give choice to everyone instead of taking it away from some,"  which means in part that if a female doesn't want to "see" a male's genitals while in the locker room, she shouldn't have to.  So the statement in the Washington Times was not accurate.  The Observer article did not tell girls to ?attempt overcoming discomfort at the sight of male genitalia.?  Nor did it imply that a female getting comfortable "seeing" a male's genitals in the locker room is the "moral equivalent" of getting comfortable seeing a black man drinking from the same water fountain.

$

 

[subllibrm]

So the gist of the concluding paragraph of the editorial was, in fact, accurately conveyed by the Washington Times. They are saying that getting comfortable with seeing men's naughty bits in the women's locker room is the moral equivalent of getting comfortable with seeing a black man use your drinking fountain.

The notion of girls "seeing" men's genitalia in the locker room was not mentioned.  The Observer editorial talked about the discomfort of some with the  idea of men's genitalia just being in the female locker room.    It described the Administration's recommendations for addressing the "privacy needs of all students in bathrooms and locker rooms,"  and mentioned some methods for insuring privacy, e.g., curtains, that are being followed in some schools.  "The measures follow a simple premise:  Offer those who are uncomfortable a chance to be comfortable, but give choice to everyone instead of taking it away from some,"  which means in part that if a female doesn't want to "see" a male's genitals while in the locker room, she shouldn't have to.  So the statement in the Washington Times was not accurate.  The Observer article did not tell girls to ?attempt overcoming discomfort at the sight of male genitalia.?  Nor did it imply that a female getting comfortable "seeing" a male's genitals in the locker room is the "moral equivalent" of getting comfortable seeing a black man drinking from the same water fountain.

$

No one is talking about "seeing" genitalia? So where does "she" hide her man parts while taking that shower in "her" locker room?

"Overcoming discomfort" means something or they would not have written it. But thankfully it won't be "nearly so awful" as we imagine it could be.

Parse on, O great defender of nonsense.

 

[FSSL]

A 9 year old girl has been instructed to "look at the wall" and the boys to "stand closer to the urinal." In quaint little Howell, Michigan.

Praytell... why in the world does a President have the ability to extort our schools into this kind of absurdity?

 

[Ransom]

The notion of girls "seeing" men's genitalia in the locker room was not mentioned.

Oh, so it's got nothing to do with male nudity visible to teenage girls. Presumably these girls would be equally "distressed" if the male genitalia remained stashed in the tranny's jeans?

Good grief, you are either naive or obtuse. Maybe both.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

...of male genitalia in THEIR locker room.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/charlotte-observer-girls-must-try-overcoming-disco/

What the Charlotte Observer really said:

"We, of course, never said or remotely suggested girls should get used to seeing male genitalia. We said the opposite ? that privacy is important and there are ways to maintain it."

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article79392542.html#storylink=cpy

Still,  allowing intact males into a female restroom/locker room or vice-versa seems misguided in my view.  If you want to use the ladies'/men's room get the appropriate sex change operation.  Otherwise, stay where you are.  Then again:

Q: Which bathroom should a transgender person use if he or she hasn't had genital surgery?

A: The details about whether or not someone has had genital reconstructive surgery, also called sex reassignment surgery (SRS), don?t tell you anything about gender identity or someone?s right to use a certain bathroom?and asking about it is a major invasion of privacy, as it involves personal medical information. It could also be illegal. For instance, if employers were to impose such a ?genital standard? for bathroom use, they would need to inquire about the genitals of everyone in that workplace. Imagine the privacy concerns that would raise!

The fact is that very few transgender people seek SRS, whether because of cost, personal beliefs, concern about surgical risks or the limitations of available procedures. In a recent survey of 6,450 transgender people in the U.S. conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, fewer than 25% of transgender women had undergone genital surgery, and fewer than 5% of transgender men had.

The U.S. State Department and the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently recognized this by dropping surgical requirements to change the gender listed on passports and SSA records.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/restroom-faq

Maybe it's not as simple as it first appears.

$

As Ransoms link to the editorial shows, that is EXACTLY what they said and EXCTLY what they meant. I know that defending liberal, or any other type of idiocy is difficult. But simply saying "you didn't see what you saw" is hardly an effective debate tactic.

 

[prophet]

You mean,
"Nuh-uh" , isnt an effective argument?

Just goes to show that Libs are the same person at 60 that they are on the K-4 playground.

earnestly contend

 

[Mr. Hall]

As Ransoms link to the editorial shows, that is EXACTLY what they said and EXCTLY what they meant. I know that defending liberal, or any other type of idiocy is difficult. But simply saying "you didn't see what you saw" is hardly an effective debate tactic.

Nonsense.  The Oracle of Ottawa said:

"They are saying that getting comfortable with seeing men's naughty bits in the women's locker room is the moral equivalent of getting comfortable with seeing a black man use your drinking fountain."

The Washington Times said:

"A leading North Carolina newspaper issued an editorial last week telling girls to attempt ?overcoming discomfort? at the sight of ?male genitalia,? should transgender bathroom laws be enacted."

Show me in the Observer editorial where it said anything about females " getting comfortable with" seeing male genitalia, or vice-versa.  Good luck.  A vague, vanilla statement that "the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort" was included toward the end but that was it.  Much of the article talked about maintaining privacy by means of curtains or private changing areas so that the females do not have to be exposed to or see male genitalia, and vice-versa if they don't want to. 

As a practical matter, it is estimated that roughly 0.3 per cent of the population is "transgender."  So in a school with 1000 students, maybe 3 of them would be transgender.  And how many of these 3 would actually want to use the bathroom or locker room  associated with their gender identity?  Maybe none.  And if one or two of them  did choose to do so, they'd be vastly outnumbered.  So the risk of a student being exposed to the genitalia of the opposite sex against their will would be minimal.  Much ado about nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/upshot/the-search-for-the-best-estimate-of-the-transgender-population.html

All this aside, my preference would be that people use the bathrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with their genitalia.  But I don't think it's a big deal if some transgender folk don't and I'm not going to rend my garments over it.

$

 

[FSSL]

Or just instruct the girls to look the other direction and boys to hide their penises by stepping closer to the urinal.

 

[Ransom]

Or just instruct the girls to look the other direction and boys to hide their penises by stepping closer to the urinal.

Ahem. Those are girls' penises.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Or just instruct the girls to look the other direction and boys to hide their penises by stepping closer to the urinal.

I didn't realize that girls' bathrooms were equipped with urinals...

 

[FSSL]

Other way around, in Michigan, a 9 year old girl uses the boy's bathroom. The school does not prevent her.

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/community/howell/2016/05/25/girl-9-boys-bathroom-angers-southwest-parent/84927622/

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Or just instruct the girls to look the other direction and boys to hide their penises by stepping closer to the urinal.

I didn't realize that girls' bathrooms were equipped with urinals...

You just underestimated the bounds of liberal idiocy....

 

[Ransom]

I didn't realize that girls' bathrooms were equipped with urinals...

And men's bathrooms aren't equipped with tampon vending machines. I feel discriminated against.

 

[HeDied4U]

Or just instruct the girls to look the other direction and boys to hide their penises by stepping closer to the urinal.

I didn't realize that girls' bathrooms were equipped with urinals...

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they start showing up. It will probably be Target stores leading the charge, seeing as how they love all things transgendered.

 

[brianb]

It's more of a concern in change rooms and showers where there's nudity. In the men's washroom we don't take a peek at other guys' genitalia - unwritten guy code is "eyes on your own work".

 

[subllibrm]

It's more of a concern in change rooms and showers where there's nudity. In the men's washroom we don't take a peek at other guys' genitalia - unwritten guy code is "eyes on your own work".

Having cleaned my share of bathrooms, I would like it if the guy code mentioned doing the "work" well. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Frightened children!?
How can that be?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/state-leader-quits-aclu-after-children-were-visibly-frightened-by-transgend