Nancy Mace’s Women’s Bathroom Bill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Harris voter who hates Trump and I also have trans friends and colleagues and I want their rights protected. So those are my bona fides if you choose to believe them.

I think people who dismiss and put down the trans bathroom issue often don't really understand the argument being made. I think people are actually discouraged from engaging the argument at all and that this is to the detriment of Democrats because if you can't understand the argument you can't propose a solution to it that is consistent with Democratic values.

The argument is NOT that trans women should be barred from womens bathrooms because there is something scary about being the next stall over from someone with a penis or being in an enclosed space with someone with a penis. Women are around people with penises all the time including in a workplace like Congress.

The argument is that if we affirmatively allow trans women into womens restrooms, it opens the door for men who are perverts and predators to use that as a "loophole" for gaining access to a women's space where women might be vulnerable. If having a penis is not a disqualifer for entering a womens bathroom (since many trans women have penises) then, so people like Nancy Mace argue, there is no way to prevent men (just men, not trans women) from posing as women in order to go into womens bathrooms and attack women.

There are good arguments against this argument. Make them. But when you just roll your eyes and say things like "omg are you afraid of penises? you know people don't get naked in public bathrooms right?" you actually hand people like Mace a gift. Because it shows you don't actually understand the underlying concern (which is shared by plenty of Americans) and are unwilling to actually engage the argument being made so you throw up straw men instead. It's not helpful.

Best post of the thread.

I hear what you're saying but the reality is that if a man--any man, including one posing as a woman--wants to attack women in a pubic bathroom, there's not much stopping him. They don't need to pose as a woman to do it. The can just choose an out-of-the-way bathroom at off-peak hours, watch women enter and leave, and then go in and jam/lock the door shut to prevent entry. That could happen anywhere--in a mall, in a gas station, in a school, pretty much anywhere. Remember the straight teen in Massachusetts who followed his HS math teacher into the bathroom, raped and murdered her, and then smuggled her body out of the school in a janitor's barrel?

But if a man tries and enters the bathroom now, women are discouraged from challenging his intentions. We are told to be nice and inclusive and ignore millennia of self-preservation instincts.

We shouldn't have to question if that man coming in is ok versus that obvious male who is trans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Harris voter who hates Trump and I also have trans friends and colleagues and I want their rights protected. So those are my bona fides if you choose to believe them.

I think people who dismiss and put down the trans bathroom issue often don't really understand the argument being made. I think people are actually discouraged from engaging the argument at all and that this is to the detriment of Democrats because if you can't understand the argument you can't propose a solution to it that is consistent with Democratic values.

The argument is NOT that trans women should be barred from womens bathrooms because there is something scary about being the next stall over from someone with a penis or being in an enclosed space with someone with a penis. Women are around people with penises all the time including in a workplace like Congress.

The argument is that if we affirmatively allow trans women into womens restrooms, it opens the door for men who are perverts and predators to use that as a "loophole" for gaining access to a women's space where women might be vulnerable. If having a penis is not a disqualifer for entering a womens bathroom (since many trans women have penises) then, so people like Nancy Mace argue, there is no way to prevent men (just men, not trans women) from posing as women in order to go into womens bathrooms and attack women.

There are good arguments against this argument. Make them. But when you just roll your eyes and say things like "omg are you afraid of penises? you know people don't get naked in public bathrooms right?" you actually hand people like Mace a gift. Because it shows you don't actually understand the underlying concern (which is shared by plenty of Americans) and are unwilling to actually engage the argument being made so you throw up straw men instead. It's not helpful.

Best post of the thread.

I hear what you're saying but the reality is that if a man--any man, including one posing as a woman--wants to attack women in a pubic bathroom, there's not much stopping him. They don't need to pose as a woman to do it. The can just choose an out-of-the-way bathroom at off-peak hours, watch women enter and leave, and then go in and jam/lock the door shut to prevent entry. That could happen anywhere--in a mall, in a gas station, in a school, pretty much anywhere. Remember the straight teen in Massachusetts who followed his HS math teacher into the bathroom, raped and murdered her, and then smuggled her body out of the school in a janitor's barrel?

You are not making the case for biological men in private women's spaces that you think you are. This is exactly why they should have separate spaces.

What is to prevent any man intent on harming a woman from entering a woman's multi-stall bathroom? They are not locked. Only the individual stalls inside are locked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Harris voter who hates Trump and I also have trans friends and colleagues and I want their rights protected. So those are my bona fides if you choose to believe them.

I think people who dismiss and put down the trans bathroom issue often don't really understand the argument being made. I think people are actually discouraged from engaging the argument at all and that this is to the detriment of Democrats because if you can't understand the argument you can't propose a solution to it that is consistent with Democratic values.

The argument is NOT that trans women should be barred from womens bathrooms because there is something scary about being the next stall over from someone with a penis or being in an enclosed space with someone with a penis. Women are around people with penises all the time including in a workplace like Congress.

The argument is that if we affirmatively allow trans women into womens restrooms, it opens the door for men who are perverts and predators to use that as a "loophole" for gaining access to a women's space where women might be vulnerable. If having a penis is not a disqualifer for entering a womens bathroom (since many trans women have penises) then, so people like Nancy Mace argue, there is no way to prevent men (just men, not trans women) from posing as women in order to go into womens bathrooms and attack women.

There are good arguments against this argument. Make them. But when you just roll your eyes and say things like "omg are you afraid of penises? you know people don't get naked in public bathrooms right?" you actually hand people like Mace a gift. Because it shows you don't actually understand the underlying concern (which is shared by plenty of Americans) and are unwilling to actually engage the argument being made so you throw up straw men instead. It's not helpful.

Best post of the thread.

I hear what you're saying but the reality is that if a man--any man, including one posing as a woman--wants to attack women in a pubic bathroom, there's not much stopping him. They don't need to pose as a woman to do it. The can just choose an out-of-the-way bathroom at off-peak hours, watch women enter and leave, and then go in and jam/lock the door shut to prevent entry. That could happen anywhere--in a mall, in a gas station, in a school, pretty much anywhere. Remember the straight teen in Massachusetts who followed his HS math teacher into the bathroom, raped and murdered her, and then smuggled her body out of the school in a janitor's barrel?

You are not making the case for biological men in private women's spaces that you think you are. This is exactly why they should have separate spaces.

What is to prevent any man intent on harming a woman from entering a woman's multi-stall bathroom? They are not locked. Only the individual stalls inside are locked.

And we all know how strong those locks are too. I would also like to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nancy Mace says she has PTSD because she’s a survivor of rape and doesn’t want anyone with a penis in women’s private spaces.

Dems are going to have a hard time with this one.

How does Mace know whether 1) McBride has a penis (McBride could be post-op) and 2) why does she think that said penis, if it exists, will be displayed in the bathroom? Women's bathrooms have private stalls.

Let’s play a thought experiment. How far do you want to take this? By your logic, Travis Kelce could just put on a wig and stand around a women’s locker room ogling everyone as long as he kept his clothes on and that’d be totally fine, right?

Crazy town.

Let's continue the thought experiment shall we. Is Travis Kelce living his life as a woman 24/7/365/ year after year or just putting a wig on to go into women's locker rooms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Harris voter who hates Trump and I also have trans friends and colleagues and I want their rights protected. So those are my bona fides if you choose to believe them.

I think people who dismiss and put down the trans bathroom issue often don't really understand the argument being made. I think people are actually discouraged from engaging the argument at all and that this is to the detriment of Democrats because if you can't understand the argument you can't propose a solution to it that is consistent with Democratic values.

The argument is NOT that trans women should be barred from womens bathrooms because there is something scary about being the next stall over from someone with a penis or being in an enclosed space with someone with a penis. Women are around people with penises all the time including in a workplace like Congress.

The argument is that if we affirmatively allow trans women into womens restrooms, it opens the door for men who are perverts and predators to use that as a "loophole" for gaining access to a women's space where women might be vulnerable. If having a penis is not a disqualifer for entering a womens bathroom (since many trans women have penises) then, so people like Nancy Mace argue, there is no way to prevent men (just men, not trans women) from posing as women in order to go into womens bathrooms and attack women.

There are good arguments against this argument. Make them. But when you just roll your eyes and say things like "omg are you afraid of penises? you know people don't get naked in public bathrooms right?" you actually hand people like Mace a gift. Because it shows you don't actually understand the underlying concern (which is shared by plenty of Americans) and are unwilling to actually engage the argument being made so you throw up straw men instead. It's not helpful.

Best post of the thread.

I hear what you're saying but the reality is that if a man--any man, including one posing as a woman--wants to attack women in a pubic bathroom, there's not much stopping him. They don't need to pose as a woman to do it. The can just choose an out-of-the-way bathroom at off-peak hours, watch women enter and leave, and then go in and jam/lock the door shut to prevent entry. That could happen anywhere--in a mall, in a gas station, in a school, pretty much anywhere. Remember the straight teen in Massachusetts who followed his HS math teacher into the bathroom, raped and murdered her, and then smuggled her body out of the school in a janitor's barrel?

You are not making the case for biological men in private women's spaces that you think you are. This is exactly why they should have separate spaces.

Not only this, but there are hundreds of thousands of peeping Tom / flashers out there who would jump at the opportunity to just don a wig and hang out in a women’s locker room at a gym. And what is the recourse for the gym owner or women at the gym if they don’t want this pervert around? According to PPs they should just shrug it off and be proud to take one for progress? Are you serious?!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who don't want to change in front of a transgender female, how do you feel about changing in front of a lesbian??

Since women don't generally rape and they don't have rape equipment on their bodies, it is not a problem at all.

So then vulnerable men are fair game but as long as women don’t have the “equipment” then everything is cool?

I suspect you agree with the idea that white people need to fix racism, so why don’t you agree that men need to fix male violence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Harris voter who hates Trump and I also have trans friends and colleagues and I want their rights protected. So those are my bona fides if you choose to believe them.

I think people who dismiss and put down the trans bathroom issue often don't really understand the argument being made. I think people are actually discouraged from engaging the argument at all and that this is to the detriment of Democrats because if you can't understand the argument you can't propose a solution to it that is consistent with Democratic values.

The argument is NOT that trans women should be barred from womens bathrooms because there is something scary about being the next stall over from someone with a penis or being in an enclosed space with someone with a penis. Women are around people with penises all the time including in a workplace like Congress.

The argument is that if we affirmatively allow trans women into womens restrooms, it opens the door for men who are perverts and predators to use that as a "loophole" for gaining access to a women's space where women might be vulnerable. If having a penis is not a disqualifer for entering a womens bathroom (since many trans women have penises) then, so people like Nancy Mace argue, there is no way to prevent men (just men, not trans women) from posing as women in order to go into womens bathrooms and attack women.

There are good arguments against this argument. Make them. But when you just roll your eyes and say things like "omg are you afraid of penises? you know people don't get naked in public bathrooms right?" you actually hand people like Mace a gift. Because it shows you don't actually understand the underlying concern (which is shared by plenty of Americans) and are unwilling to actually engage the argument being made so you throw up straw men instead. It's not helpful.

Best post of the thread.

I hear what you're saying but the reality is that if a man--any man, including one posing as a woman--wants to attack women in a pubic bathroom, there's not much stopping him. They don't need to pose as a woman to do it. The can just choose an out-of-the-way bathroom at off-peak hours, watch women enter and leave, and then go in and jam/lock the door shut to prevent entry. That could happen anywhere--in a mall, in a gas station, in a school, pretty much anywhere. Remember the straight teen in Massachusetts who followed his HS math teacher into the bathroom, raped and murdered her, and then smuggled her body out of the school in a janitor's barrel?

You are not making the case for biological men in private women's spaces that you think you are. This is exactly why they should have separate spaces.

What is to prevent any man intent on harming a woman from entering a woman's multi-stall bathroom? They are not locked. Only the individual stalls inside are locked.

For starters seeing a man entering a women's restroom is a huge red flag. If transwomen in women's restrooms becomes normalized, there is no red flag.

Also, your example scenario isn't likely. Women know not to go to secluded spaces alone because unfortunately some men have been animals since the beginning of time. We teach our girls the dangers of men very early.

[Anonymous]

Can’t men dress up as females right now to get into a women’s bathroom? Is this some widespread occurrence? Trans people have been using bathrooms since they existed. Why do we need to legislate this? Does Mace feel that Sarah McBride will assault her? Or is she worried about a male congressman dressing in drag to try and rape her? Really curious about the thinking here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nancy Mace says she has PTSD because she’s a survivor of rape and doesn’t want anyone with a penis in women’s private spaces.

Dems are going to have a hard time with this one.

How does Mace know whether 1) McBride has a penis (McBride could be post-op) and 2) why does she think that said penis, if it exists, will be displayed in the bathroom? Women's bathrooms have private stalls.

Let’s play a thought experiment. How far do you want to take this? By your logic, Travis Kelce could just put on a wig and stand around a women’s locker room ogling everyone as long as he kept his clothes on and that’d be totally fine, right?

Crazy town.

Let's continue the thought experiment shall we. Is Travis Kelce living his life as a woman 24/7/365/ year after year or just putting a wig on to go into women's locker rooms?

Travis Kelce just “identifies as a woman.” There is no way to ferret out the hundreds of thousands of male perverts out there if they decide to just put on a wig and hang out indefinitely in an LA Fitness women’s locker room. They can just claim they identified as a woman as of 5 minutes ago and sue the gym if anyone asks them to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can the magas go after the stores that have unisex changing rooms. That's a real perv fest.

Use of changing rooms are voluntary. Using the restroom is not. Especially after you've had multiple children!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Harris voter who hates Trump and I also have trans friends and colleagues and I want their rights protected. So those are my bona fides if you choose to believe them.

I think people who dismiss and put down the trans bathroom issue often don't really understand the argument being made. I think people are actually discouraged from engaging the argument at all and that this is to the detriment of Democrats because if you can't understand the argument you can't propose a solution to it that is consistent with Democratic values.

The argument is NOT that trans women should be barred from womens bathrooms because there is something scary about being the next stall over from someone with a penis or being in an enclosed space with someone with a penis. Women are around people with penises all the time including in a workplace like Congress.

The argument is that if we affirmatively allow trans women into womens restrooms, it opens the door for men who are perverts and predators to use that as a "loophole" for gaining access to a women's space where women might be vulnerable. If having a penis is not a disqualifer for entering a womens bathroom (since many trans women have penises) then, so people like Nancy Mace argue, there is no way to prevent men (just men, not trans women) from posing as women in order to go into womens bathrooms and attack women.

There are good arguments against this argument. Make them. But when you just roll your eyes and say things like "omg are you afraid of penises? you know people don't get naked in public bathrooms right?" you actually hand people like Mace a gift. Because it shows you don't actually understand the underlying concern (which is shared by plenty of Americans) and are unwilling to actually engage the argument being made so you throw up straw men instead. It's not helpful.

Apparently there is currently no rule preventing people with penises from entering women's bathrooms. Otherwise, Mace would not need to offer such a bill. Has there been a rash of penises showing up in the women's bathrooms so far? If so, nobody has said anything about it. Clearly this bill is aimed squarely at the one trans woman who was just elected. I would urge you to rethink deploying your trans-ally credentials in support of anti-trans efforts, especially when they are made in bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Women’s bathrooms don’t have urinals. How is she seeing penises —or vaginas for that matter? I have gone to the restroom many times with my trans friend. I have never seen her naked. What is Mace doing in the bathroom?

[Anonymous]

Um so where should my 12 year old son pee? I don't want him raped in the men's room And you've all made a really good argument that being around men is not safe.

[Anonymous]

So there are a few women at work that I'm not sure how to put this nicely. Probably could be confused as men think Janet Reno type.
Am I supposed to do a penis check every time I see one of these women trying to go into a woman's restroom out in public. If I'm not sure I guess I don't understand how this is supposed to play out in reality when even biologically female individuals do not always look female based on societies interpretation of what that should be

[Anonymous]

The too long didn't read version of this thread is men pose existential threats to women and we should ban them from every area that we are in order to protect ourselves.