Gender neutral restrooms?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Why should the whole world adapt to such a tiny demographic? The parallel to racial segregation is weak at best.

Also don't forget people CHOOSE to be transexual...They don't choose to be born black.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Most transsexuals and literature on the subject would disagree with you on that.

(at least with regard to homosexual transsexuals of course as opposed to those who simply dress that way for sexual kicks).

[Ron 10]

Quote

Most transsexuals and literature on the subject would disagree with you on that.

Old debate. Unless you can show me genetic differences in a Tranny that can account for the need to dress like a girl...It is still a choice to dress in drag.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

We don't know the genome in that much detail yet so that question can be neither proved nor disproved by that means right now.

The only evidence we have on the issue is all the homosexuals who say they were "born" gay as opposed to choosing to be gay. The same comments are made by those who consider themselves to have "been born in the wrong body" and thus cross dress or undergo gender change surgery.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

We don't know the genome in that much detail yet so that question can be neither proved nor disproved by that means as yet.

The only evidence we have on the issue is all the homosexuals who say they were "born" gay as opposed to choosing to be gay. The same comments are made by those who consider themselves to have "been born in the wrong body" and thus cross dress or undergo gender change surgery.

But that has nothing to do with this idiotic idea of having coed shitters.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Only in as much as they did not choose to be the way they are.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Only in as much as they did not choose to be the way they are.

If they have a penis, they go to the male shitter. If not, female shitter. End of debate.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Cool. No more debate. We shall now apply your exceptioanlly well thought out rules and all those who were born men and have now had gender realignment surgery shall go to the ladies shitter.

I'm personally quite happy with that. Nor do I care much if a bloke in drag goes to the same dunny as me cos he has a cock.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Only in as much as they did not choose to be the way they are.

How can you say they DIDNT choose then say:

Quote

We don't know the genome in that much detail yet so that question can be neither proved nor disproved by that means right now.

You go on to say:

Quote

The only evidence we have on the issue is all the homosexuals who say they were "born" gay as opposed to choosing to be gay. The same comments are made by those who consider themselves to have "been born in the wrong body" and thus cross dress or undergo gender change surgery.

And I can find you plenty of other sexual variants that claim the same thing...Child abusers claim to be that way, Guys that like big breasted women often claim they just like them.

Same thing with several other "issues". People who are in a group often claim they have always felt that way. That DOES NOT mean they were "born" that way. They may only think they were born that way. Them thinking so does not make it so.

Also several people make claims that they were born a certain way to justify their beliefs and actions.

Again that does not make it true.

If I said I was born to fly it would also be BS. Even though since I was born I have always played with flying toys over anything else....Since my days in the crib I am told even.

Still I was not "born to fly", and any claims would be BS no matter how much I think it true.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Them thinking so does not make it so.

You thinking they weren't does not make it not so.

Sorry Ron, but I'd take a couple the word of a couple of hundred thousand people who are actually in the situation over your guess on the matter. They're living it. You're guessing.

Once again - DNA does not yet conclusively prove anything either way. There are some studdies out there that do seem to be indicating a genetic link though:

Quote

Gay DNA Found

(Chicago, Illinois) In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is straight or gay.

UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

His research will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.

Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."

The University of California at San Diego, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of California at Los Angeles were also involved in the study which was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

[Kris 0]

Quote

Old debate. Unless you can show me genetic differences in a Tranny that can account for the need to dress like a girl...It is still a choice to dress in drag.

What about hermaphrodites and partial hermaphrodites?

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[Ron 10]

Quote

You thinking they weren't does not make it not so.

Sorry Ron, but I'd take a couple the word of a couple of hundred thousand people who are actually in the situation over your guess on the matter. They're living it. You're guessing.

You would be right IF I was the only one that thought that. But I'm not.

From your own source:

Quote

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

Environmental influences, best "guess"...not very scientific proof that it is genetic.

Like I said. You have proven nothing.

You are correct that me thinking it is not does not make it true, but you also must then agree that them thinking it is, is also not proof.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[KevinMcGuire 0]

I think Andrew Dice Clay said it best when he said To hell with Transexuals and bi-sexuals, what ever. there are only two types of people in the world. Those who suck dick and those who don't.

[billvon 2,989]

>Have you ever considered their pro-segregationist feelings . . .

No. I don't really care about segregationist's feelings, whether they are applied to blacks _or_ women. Why do you?

> . . . you rampage on with your gender blind jiihad?

I like that! "gender blind jihad rage!" Throw "terrorist" in there and you might have something.

[Steel 0]

Quote

>Have you ever considered their pro-segregationist feelings . . .

No. I don't really care about segregationist's feelings, whether they are applied to blacks _or_ women. Why do you?

> . . . you rampage on with your gender blind jiihad?

I like that! "gender blind jihad rage!" Throw "terrorist" in there and you might have something.

I think there should be a Cuban only restroom. Cause I know it would be cleaner and I would appreciate not having to wait if the restroom were busy. Except in Miami, there we need a Cuban restroom and a Spanish restroom, cause I can identify with Spaniards if I have to and the lines are too long in the Cuban bathroom. The only problem here is the Spanish restroom will probably not smell as nice but when you got to go, thats all that matters. Now this unisex bathroom idea is a about as stupid as they come, any man who supports this needs to have his head examined. A third bathroom is fine as long as I don't have to pay for it, directly or indirectly.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

Selective bolding can twist a sentance many ways.

As for proof - it all depends on the degree of proof one is looking for. You commonly seem to require of people a criminal standard of proof on here - somewhere above 95%.

Thankfully this isn't a criminal matter - the relevant standard of proof is the balance of probablilities - 51%.

When you consider you have your pure guess plus the guesses of a few others who do not live this life vs. the opinions of all the people who do live the life AND scientific studdies which show that a sexuality is likely linked to genetics and spread over a number of genes (ie there is no one individual "gay gene" but many - again nice selective bolding) you end up with a pretty good conclusion that the weight of evidence is swung heavily in favour of these people having very little choice in the matter.

So Ron. Why did you choose to be attracted to women instead of men? (on the assumption you're heterosexual of course). It's a choice right? So we must each exercise it. Why did you exercise your choice in favour of women?

If you didn't exercise a choice - you're just that way - then why are homosexuals not just that way from birth?

Perhaps you feel there is an inherrant preferrence for heterosexualism... well where is that preferrence to be found? DNA? What if the "preferrence genes" are missing or corrupted? Might some term those missing/corrupted genes "gay genes"?

At the end of the day though - this is something of an asside to the dunny argument. Feel free to split it off if you feel the need to re-hash this old argument once more.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

Selective bolding can twist a sentance many ways.

As for proof - it all depends on the degree of proof one is looking for. You commonly seem to require of people a criminal standard of proof on here - somewhere above 95%.

Thankfully this isn't a criminal matter - the relevant standard of proof is the balance of probablilities - 51%.

When you consider you have your pure guess plus the guesses of a few others who do not live this life vs. the opinions of all the people who do live the life AND scientific studdies which show that a sexuality is likely linked to genetics and spread over a number of genes (ie there is no one individual "gay gene" but many - again nice selective bolding) you end up with a pretty good conclusion that the weight of evidence is swung heavily in favour of these people having very little choice in the matter.

So Ron. Why did you choose to be attracted to women instead of men? (on the assumption you're heterosexual of course). It's a choice right? So we must each exercise it. Why did you exercise your choice in favour of women?

If you didn't exercise a choice - you're just that way - then why are homosexuals not just that way from birth?

Perhaps you feel there is an inherrant preferrence for heterosexualism... well where is that preferrence to be found? DNA? What if the "preferrence genes" are missing or corrupted? Might some term those missing/corrupted genes "gay genes"?

At the end of the day though - this is something of an asside to the dunny argument. Feel free to split it off if you feel the need to re-hash this old argument once more.

I think you're confusing sex orientation and gender. Think about it this way. Think of the movie basic instinct. Two hot women were doing something beutiful and artistic together. That was based on their sexual orientation. There gender meanwhile was normal as they looked and acted like women. Now think of these nasty diesel dikes that like to drive trucks. I have had the misfortune of seeing them. There problem is there gender. Honestly I don't even care if their sexual orientation is screwed up. Now I am not going to say trannies are the same but they are similar. Some transexuals have been know to live as lesbians after their operation. Why they do this may be a mistery to me. However I would much rather see them and their significant other's acting intimately in public, than the ordinary run of the mill male gay couple, that needs to be kept private as it can make one's lunch come up. I find it funny that the ordinary gays seem to have more rights. It proves that majority rules, because the only reason they are more accepted is because their numbers are larger and therefore their lobbies are more powerful. Still what they do is far more repulsive. In any case there once again you have the clear difference of sexual orientation and gender.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[kelel01 1]

WHOA.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Selective bolding can twist a sentance many ways.

Quote

Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

OK take the whole quote....Seems they are quessing and it will also take environmental influences.

The addition of "Environmental influences" in that sentance removes that it IS genetic.

Quote

As for proof - it all depends on the degree of proof one is looking for. You commonly seem to require of people a criminal standard of proof on here - somewhere above 95%.

Thankfully this isn't a criminal matter - the relevant standard of proof is the balance of probablilities - 51%.

BS something is either true or it is not. You can clain 51% all you want, but thats for a vote, not for proof of genetic drive.

Quote

When you consider you have your pure guess plus the guesses of a few others who do not live this life

Do you know all that feel the same way I do don't live the lifestyle? Or are you guessing?

Quote

you end up with a pretty good conclusion that the weight of evidence is swung heavily in favour of these people having very little choice in the matter.

You seem to ignore all the evidence that says otherwise, and focus only on the stuff that goes your way (Or just seems to). There have been tons of studies done that say sexuality is mostly a by product of environment. You ignore those since you don't like the findings.

Also, until you can prove a GENETIC link, not a guess..Then you have the words of a sub-group that are trying to explain their actions and likes.

It is VERY common to try and put your reasons for a choice on something you can't control.

Quote

So Ron. Why did you choose to be attracted to women instead of men?It's a choice right? So we must each exercise it. Why did you exercise your choice in favour of women?

I can assume that I am attracted to women since my family life was "normal". If I was sexually abused, or some other mental anguish, I might have been gay by choice.

As it was my life had no such tragic events.

Quote

If you didn't exercise a choice - you're just that way - then why are homosexuals not just that way from birth?

N/A, see above.

Quote

Perhaps you feel there is an inherrant preferrence for heterosexualism... well where is that preferrence to be found? DNA? What if the "preferrence genes" are missing or corrupted? Might some term those missing/corrupted genes "gay genes"?

Never said that either, see above.

Quote

At the end of the day though - this is something of an asside to the dunny argument. Feel free to split it off if you feel the need to re-hash this old argument once more.

You brought it up.

But if you must know. Darwinism states "survival" as a major focus in the continuation of a species. Animals with traits that are better will survive and reproduce and those traits will be strengthend. By the very definition of homosexual they are unable to reproduce. Therefore if homosexuality is genetic, it is a defect according to Darwin.

Edit: I don't care one way or the other..you can be straight or gay for all I care...I DO care when your "lifestyle" starts to effect others. If you are a guy and gay and want to use the womens john, you should not be allowed.

Really simple and I think DM said it best....If you have a penis, use the mens room, Vagina Womens room.

How freaking hard is that? If you have a Penis, but want a vagina....Well you HAVE a penis...Use the mens room. If you get your dick whacked off, and have a vaginia installed...Then you can use the womens room.

How hard is that?

As for gereral restrooms....Have fun. I am not sure I would want an 13 yo girl going into a restroom full of guys to piss. If it were a stand alone restroom...Have a great shit.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,989]

>I think there should be a Cuban only restroom

I think there should be an idiots-and-criminals rest room and an everyone-else rest room. That way law abiding people who can actually hit the toilet get a clean and safe bathroom, and all the other people can just fight it out. Maybe we should add an "icky girl/boy" bathroom with floor-to-ceiling soundproof stalls so no one has to hear the opposite _or_ the same sex doing anything. Problem solved!

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

>I think there should be a Cuban only restroom

I think there should be an idiots-and-criminals rest room and an everyone-else rest room. That way law abiding people who can actually hit the toilet get a clean and safe bathroom, and all the other people can just fight it out. Maybe we should add an "icky girl/boy" bathroom with floor-to-ceiling soundproof stalls so no one has to hear the opposite _or_ the same sex doing anything. Problem solved!

Now THAT'S using your noggin! I wish I had that kind of problem-solving ability...

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Trent 0]

Or maybe we should just not worry about fixing what isn't broken.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,989]

> Or maybe we should just not worry about fixing what isn't broken.

There's no "fixing" or "broken" about it, I think. There are unisex bathrooms that work just fine. There are male/female bathrooms that work just fine. Neither one is broken. Take your pick.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Them thinking so does not make it so.

You thinking they weren't does not make it not so.

Sorry Ron, but I'd take a couple the word of a couple of hundred thousand people who are actually in the situation over your guess on the matter. They're living it. You're guessing.

Once again - DNA does not yet conclusively prove anything either way. There are some studdies out there that do seem to be indicating a genetic link though:

Quote

Gay DNA Found

(Chicago, Illinois) In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is straight or gay.

UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

His research will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.

Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."

The University of California at San Diego, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of California at Los Angeles were also involved in the study which was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Please provide a link and a date this article was written. This sounds like it's from some research back in 1993-1995 that has been largely debunked.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Have you ever considered their pro-segregationist feelings . . .

No. I don't really care about segregationist's feelings, whether they are applied to blacks _or_ women. Why do you?

> . . . you rampage on with your gender blind jiihad?

I like that! "gender blind jihad rage!" Throw "terrorist" in there and you might have something.

Just messin with ya, Bill. I thought you might see the tongue in cheek in the post.