Nancy Mace’s Women’s Bathroom Bill

[Anonymous]

The truth is that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male priest, a coach, an employer, a fellow college student (male), or a male relative than she is by a mythical wig-donning male perv who is trying to use women's bathrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You really think transwomen haven't been going into female restrooms gasp undetected for years and years, leading completely normal lives? Not every transwoman looks like Mrs. Doubtfire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male priest, a coach, an employer, a fellow college student (male), or a male relative than she is by a mythical wig-donning male perv who is trying to use women's bathrooms.

Not according to this obviously mentally stable person.

[Anonymous]

jsteele 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.

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.

Bring back the Jeff who doesn’t like genocide. This Jeff loses national elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male priest, a coach, an employer, a fellow college student (male), or a male relative than she is by a mythical wig-donning male perv who is trying to use women's bathrooms.

Not according to this obviously mentally stable person.

She’s a bigot for not wanting that person in a bathroom with her.

/s obviously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You really think transwomen haven't been going into female restrooms gasp undetected for years and years, leading completely normal lives? Not every transwoman looks like Mrs. Doubtfire.

We can still tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male priest, a coach, an employer, a fellow college student (male), or a male relative than she is by a mythical wig-donning male perv who is trying to use women's bathrooms.

Not according to this obviously mentally stable person.

She’s a bigot for not wanting that person in a bathroom with her.

/s obviously

I know! Women should be falling over themselves to welcome these type of people into their locker rooms!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reps have their own private bathrooms in their offices.

LOL Mace is such a buffoon.

Sucks that you democrats are in the 15% minority on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male priest, a coach, an employer, a fellow college student (male), or a male relative than she is by a mythical wig-donning male perv who is trying to use women's bathrooms.

Not according to this obviously mentally stable person.

Why is it always privileged white men demanding to take up space and violently lashing out when told no? Never understood how this group became a rallying cry for progressives for whom white men are the enemy. Really bizarre.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male priest, a coach, an employer, a fellow college student (male), or a male relative than she is by a mythical wig-donning male perv who is trying to use women's bathrooms.

Not according to this obviously mentally stable person.

This person should be arrested and I hope will be. But acting like Mace's bill has anything to do with that individual and not an elected member of Congress is disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

If you asked voters who is right, Nancy Mace or the person in the video, 99.9% are going to say Nancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a male priest, a coach, an employer, a fellow college student (male), or a male relative than she is by a mythical wig-donning male perv who is trying to use women's bathrooms.

Yes, now what is the common thread among all these populations? The problem is that you never know which one will harm you until its too late

[Anonymous]

Where I get confused is why do red states get all upset about this issue but then do nothing to increase funding to process all the rape kits sitting there untested? Or why push through the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a known rapist, if you are concerned about women being assaulted? I don't think this has anything to do with women being afraid men will use this as a loophole to gain access to women's restrooms to assault women. Men who are going to do that are going to do it no matter what. I think this is about people who hate people who are transgender. The "oh I'm so afraid" act is old and thin.

[Anonymous]

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.

The people who are trying to dismiss and minimize the issues here do not care about the increased risk to women. If some women get physically hurt in the service of protecting the feelings of transwomen, they’re fine with that tradeoff.

But "being a predator in a woman's restroom" is already illegal, right? What's the point of passing a law/regulation disallowing something that already is illegal? Isn't this what the 2A nuts always say when there are proposals out there to increase firearms regulations? "Nothing needs to happen, it's already illegal to murder, only the illegals/murderers are going to do that, and hey, murderers gonna murder, amirite?" So by that same logic, this bill is trying to regulate the "what ifs" of the male predators, when predators are going to be predators, and no bill is going to keep them from doing that.

Because it's not what the bill is regulating. It's designed to humiliate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you asked voters who is right, Nancy Mace or the person in the video, 99.9% are going to say Nancy.

This! I think Dems should start out the new year campaigning as the resistance to this bill. Go to Deerborn, Bucks County, and Maricopa County and tell suburban women they’re bigots and Nazis for opposing it.