• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

In Houston nondiscrimination is on the line (beheadings to follow)

uke2se said:
But is the issue that biological men will enter women's bathrooms, or is it that creepy men will expose themselves to children? If it's the latter, there are other laws against that. So, my question stands. Why do creepy men apparently care about the rules regarding men in women's bathrooms, but not the law against exposing themselves to children?
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer and I am merely speculating, but I guess that if a man and a child were in a setting where complete or partial nudity were expected (like a nudist colony) then laws about exposing one's genitals would not apply. Similarly, if they were both legally in a locker room (where changing clothes is the primary function) then those laws would not apply. I also suspect that most public businesses would use trespassing laws to legally keep men out of women's locker rooms.
 
It appears the HERO ordinance has been voted down. Yea for Houston - protecting itself from dem' dere preverts. At least when God's wrath rains down on 'murika in a hail of fire and brimstone, Houston will be spared!

:shocked:
 
This is the way it's supposed to work. I am a big advocate of local government as it's more representative of the people. Thus we have legal MJ, less restrictive abortion laws and homosexuals as protected classes in various jurisdictions as their people see fit. Overarching federal jurisdiction doesn't work for everything.
 
Can I propose a thought. What if a little girl sees a penis in a locker room? I'm trying to understand just how seeing a penis is somehow a violation in and of itself. Was the little girl unaware they exist? If so would this not be a good way to understand not everyone is the same?
 
Travis said:
Can I propose a thought. What if a little girl sees a penis in a locker room? I'm trying to understand just how seeing a penis is somehow a violation in and of itself. Was the little girl unaware they exist? If so would this not be a good way to understand not everyone is the same?
Click to expand...

PERVERT !!!!! :rolleyes:

The first time a woman should see a penis is on her wedding night and to be honest probably not even then because the lights should be off. :rolleyes:
 
xjx388 said:
This is the way it's supposed to work. I am a big advocate of local government as it's more representative of the people. Thus we have legal MJ, less restrictive abortion laws and homosexuals as protected classes in various jurisdictions as their people see fit. Overarching federal jurisdiction doesn't work for everything.
Click to expand...

That's fine right up to the point where generally agreed human rights within a country are breached by local legislation. A local ordnance to allow race segregation, child labour or remove the right for women to vote (or be educated) is IMO not acceptable.
 
The Don said:
That's fine right up to the point where generally agreed human rights within a country are breached by local legislation. A local ordnance to allow race segregation, child labour or remove the right for women to vote (or be educated) is IMO not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Do you think this is a generally agreed upon human right in the US? I doubt it.
 
CynicalSkeptic said:
Currently, it's not acceptable for men to go into women's dressing rooms. If this law passes, then any man can self identify as a woman, and if he enters the women's restroom, and someone tries to stop him, that person is subject to a $10K fine for discrimination/harassment.
Click to expand...

And of course if that person is a transman and obeying this law and not using the mens room he will also then get arrested until they establish his genitals. This is why I say all public restrooms should require genital inspection before entry.
 
xjx388 said:
This is the way it's supposed to work. I am a big advocate of local government as it's more representative of the people. Thus we have legal MJ, less restrictive abortion laws and homosexuals as protected classes in various jurisdictions as their people see fit. Overarching federal jurisdiction doesn't work for everything.
Click to expand...

Yep all antidiscrimination laws are fundamentally wrong on an other than local level. Unless of course you are in a state that bars municipalities from adding more protections to minorities.
 
applecorped said:
Do you think this is a generally agreed upon human right in the US? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Yep and that is why interacial marriage should have been illegal until the 90's when a majority of people accepted it as OK. That is why Loving V Virginia is so wrongly decided, it wasn't popular enough to pass at that time. This is in general why courts overturning laws is a wrong thing, be they gun laws or marriage laws.
 
The Don said:
PERVERT !!!!! :rolleyes:

The first time a woman should see a penis is on her wedding night and to be honest probably not even then because the lights should be off. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


If the children are in a ladies changing room, aren't they in danger of seeing breasts (or worse!!) in an unclad condition? I'm given to understand that the mere sight of an unclothed female is a 'very bad thing' for children...
 
3point14 said:
If the children are in a ladies changing room, aren't they in danger of seeing breasts (or worse!!) in an unclad condition? I'm given to understand that the mere sight of an unclothed female is a 'very bad thing' for children...
Click to expand...

Yes, it's been scientifically shown to undermine their morals*



* - actually this is a complete lie but when has the truth ever been important in matters like this ?
 
3point14 said:
If the children are in a ladies changing room, aren't they in danger of seeing breasts (or worse!!) in an unclad condition? I'm given to understand that the mere sight of an unclothed female is a 'very bad thing' for children...
Click to expand...


Established tradition does not support that.

This is a completely double-standard standard. Separate locker rooms are to protect the modesty of women from male eyes , in addition to safety factors.

No man cares if a women goes into a men's locker room or bathroom. Men would be fine peeing in a bush in front of people. But again women seeing it offends delicate nature.

Shall we declare a new standard simply to satisfy some other rare adult's sensibilities, sacrificing many masses of current ones? Who decided one person's sensibility is more important than many, many others?

:popcorn1
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
People have the strangest notions of what goes on in public bathrooms and locker rooms.
Click to expand...

In all my years of using public restrooms I've never seen another man's penis in one. Maybe I'm using them wrong?
 
Someone clarify for me:

Are you supposed to be using the restroom of the gender you were assigned at birth? If you have had a gender reassignment surgery FTM and you are using the Women's locker room, mightn't someone theoretically see your appended male appendage? If you are MTF and still using the Men's locker room, wouldn't you be displaying a female-appearing body?
 
Travis said:
In all my years of using public restrooms I've never seen another man's penis in one. Maybe I'm using them wrong?
Click to expand...

The women's bathroom is even more boring--they're all stalls, and nobody gets the least bit undressed until they are inside the stall with the door closed. Anybody who goes to the effort of changing sex in order to ogle women's bits in a public bathroom is going to be very disappointed.

But just try telling that to people who are determined to panic, with or without cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom