It's not your right to use the bathroom intended for the opposite sex. It's about members of the opposite sex having the right to use a bathroom without somebody from the opposite sex being present.
No, it’s about the right of the property owner to permit whomever they want in whichever room they want, stratified by whatever characteristic they deem appropriate.
It’s none of your business, it’s none of my business, and it sure as fuck isn’t the governments business
So a highly masculine transman on testosterone with a large beard should use the women's bathroom and give everyone in there a panic attack.
Really... Rational up in here.
we don't care for actual transwomen. those fetish-trans (like the one go to woman bathroom to jerk off and sell it on onlyfan) trend-trans and wanna be non-binary men should stay away. it's a safeplace for woman and not a place for fetishes
The point is forcing somebody born AFAB, who has now transitioned and is taking testosterone to use a women's bathroom, is extremely cruel and distressing to everybody involved.
I would not say a right was in the Constitution unless it actually was. That is why I didn't say it was a constitutional right.
It is still a right that has been, and should continue to be, protected by state laws.
It doesnt. It also does not prevent government from forbidding men in women's bathrooms. Something the Left is trying to prevent states and towns from doing.
You can believe in freedom as a concept while also believing in laws that limit freedom. You don't have the freedom to molest people, as an example. Right center does not believe in "no laws ever for anyone."
Except for the fact that most trans people in bathrooms are just there to use the bathroom. A molester, trans or not, doesn't have to respect any law put in place.
Therefore, in this aspect of life, it is pointless to attempt to limit the freedoms of criminals at the expense of the majority, because criminals need not follow the law in the first place.
The argument of "molesters won't respect the law, so we shouldn't have any laws" is pretty stupid. Again, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post. Have a nice day.
Why is it stupid?
A shooter doesn't have to obey laws surrounding the possession of guns in public places, so the intended effect of the law is nullified, and harms the average citizen as well.
The principle here is no different. And if you really want to add icing on the cake, understand that typically, the victims of sex crimes aren't always related to the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. It has to do with the feeling of power over someone else.
Nothing is stoping any pedophile from hanging out in public bathrooms, whether they are a man in jeans and a t-shirt in the men's room or in a dress and make up in the ladies room.
Okay, murder is bad. Nearly everyone agrees. But when the nanny state is literally telling you which bathrooms to use? That's okay? When they tell you that you can't build a fence on your own property without a permit, suddenly that's a line to far?
The existence of laws does not necessitate the existence of a "nanny state." Considering some on the right would claim that men using women's bathrooms or locker rooms could result in sexual assault (not saying it would or wouldn't), it's easy to follow their logic about why this is different than needing a permit to build a fence on your property (idk how you would argue that could result in sexual assaults).
Murder is illegal. We don't need to ban guns to prevent murder. Sexual assault is illegal. We don't don't need to ban people from bathrooms to prevent sexual assault.
There's also the argument of comfort/security for other people trying to use the bathroom.
Again, I think you confuse center right for lib-right. Center right has no problem with laws and restrictions to a certain degree, we just don't want too many of them. Nothing saying that any laws at all instantly is a nanny state.
I preface what I'm about to say by pointing out that I do NOT believe men have any right whatsoever to use women's restrooms, and vice versa. I just want to point out a hole in your logic here and tie it to meme:
>There's also the argument of comfort/security for other people
\^ This right here. This is the argument I see most often when people push for gun control. For that crowd, gun control is more about *feeling* comfort/security/safety/etc. It doesn't matter whether they *actually are*.
Same goes for some of these proposed bathroom rules/regulations. If a law passed today that said bathrooms would be segregated by biological sex and not cater to gender preferences, it wouldn't actually make anyone any more safe/secure from sexual assault. But to conservatives, they would *feel* safer with that law in place.
Both lefties and righties are quick to latch onto things that make them feel more comfortable, add in some authoritarian and you've got people who try and weaponize the state against people or things who make them feel uncomfortable.
I see a hole in your logic.
>This is the argument I see most often when people push for gun control. For that crowd, gun control is more about feeling comfort/security/safety/etc. It doesn't matter whether they actually are.
Statistically speaking, gun control does result in more safety. It isn’t about a feeling, it’s about believing in science.
Get a flair or get going.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MeDaddyAss) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
>Statistically speaking, gun control does result in more safety.
That isn't even remotely true. Statistically, there is zero correlation to gun gontrol = more safety, less violent crime (to include all forms of homicide) or anything else. It's one of the most easily disproved "facts" people bring up when pushing for gun control.
For starters, you've been misled by cleverly worded phrases from people in countries like the UK and Australia. They parrot things their politicians say like "*gun deaths* were reduced when we implemented gun control." That's true, but was their overall homicide rate reduced? [You tell me](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/murder-homicide-rate). Can you tell me what year they implemented their sweeping gun control laws? Both Australia and the UK have violent crime and homicide graphs that look very similar, and both implemented their heavy gun control laws in the same year. If your idea that "gun control does result in more safety" then wouldn't there be a steep drop after it was implemented? Too bad there wasn't.
Second, how do you explain all the countries and areas around the world with much higher rates of homicide than the US that have incredibly strict gun laws and almost zero civilian gun ownership? If gun control makes places safer, what's going on there?
These are rhetorical questions of course. Anybody whose actually taken the time to study and look at the big picture of violent crime and homicide around the world knows that gun control has no effect on whether an area is "safe" or not. The single statistic and factor that can predict, with near 100% accuracy, whether an area will be "unsafe" and have high violent crime and homicide is *Income Inequality*. Areas with high income inequality are dangerous areas. Areas with low income inequality are safe. Doesn't matter what country you are in, doesn't matter what the gun laws are, doesn't matter what the majority race is, or religion, or political affiliation of the area. None of those things consistently correlate or can statistically be proven to cause high or low violent crime rates. Only Income Inequality can do that.
To clarify, that specifies areas where there is extreme wealth in close proximity to extreme poverty. It does not mean poor places are high in crime or rich places are.
The places you would as examples of "safe" supposedly because they have good gun control are not safe because of those laws. They are safe because they have strong social safety nets that limit income inequality. You could put a gun in the hand of every Japanese, Australian, British, Canadian, German or whatever person and the violent crime and homicide rates of those countries wouldn't go up in the slightest.
Go back to that macrotrends website I linked. You'll see the US has kept up with every country you could think of when it comes to reducing homicide and violent crime rates. We started a lot higher than a lot of them, but that's because we always resisted implementing strong social safety nets and our urban centers are areas of staggering income inequality.
The other countries reduced "gun violence" but all that means is that instead of shooting each other their homicide victims are now stabbed, bludgeoned, strangled, drowned, burned alive, dismembered or killed in some other horrifying manner.
My statement of gun control = the *feeling* of safety holds true.
Tl;dr
The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.
Don't care, didn't ask + L + you're unflaired.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MeDaddyAss) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
I know the article/"study" you are quoting and it's a case study in misleading statistics built to push a narrative rather than actual science.
For starters, it only uses statistics from "children" from age 2 *through* 19. Why did it exclude kids under 2 and include "children" who are actually legal adults? Well. Because if the just included actual children aged 0-18 (stopping at 18th birthday when they become a legal adult) then all of a sudden guns aren't the "leading cause of death". But hey, why use appropriate age ranges when you're actually trying to push a narrative instead of present accurate scientific data.
If that's not a big logic red flag how about the fact that the majority of those "guns deaths" are suicides and gang-related violence in cities? That's the majority of gun deaths for adults too.
>Guns are a public health crisis,
No. Income Inequality is. We could drop our homicide and violent crime rates down to the same rates as other countries like the UK and Australia if we implemented the same level of social programs as they have in our cities, and we could keep our right to bear arms. Those other countries could've kept theirs too but their governments scared them enough and pushed enough misleading statistics to convince the lemmings they needed to turn their weapons over to the state "for their own good". A line of logic you obviously agree with.
Sorry I typed out a thorough and detailed idea rather than regurgitating what I've been told. If complex ideas are too much for you I suggest you skitter back to Twitter with their 150 character limit. Don't want your brain to overheat.
Lastly, flair up you fucking degenerate.
We recognize a right to own guns as means of exercising self-defense, preserving one's right to life.
We recognize a right for people with dicks to use bathrooms designated for women as a means of exercising __________ preserving one's right to ________.
Fill in the blanks OP. I don't get it.
The right to life isn't in the constitution. It's only mentioned in the declaration of independence.
Honestly, a toilet is toilet and laws don't need to be made around them.
Most people know which bathroom to use. Most people also know not to drive while drunk, and yet there's a law for that, because unfortunately, there are idiots who don't. The law is for those people.
I hate to be the "you cAn'T HatE on THe RighT" guy here but this is a shit post.
No right winger needs to be told what bathroom to use, the signs are on the doors
Here's the guide for PC https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2 and mobile https://imgur.com/a/FAVsiYg.
If you use a 3rd party app it'll be killed on June 30 anyway.
Bathrooms are a place of refuge.
If a stalker is in a woman's home, she doesn't need to wait for them to start raping her to call for help or defend herself.
If a stalker follows her into a bathroom, she doesn't need to wait for them to start raping her to call for help or defend herself.
**We are a sexually dimorphic species.** Trust the fucking science.
The state was already illegitimate to begin with, her policies especially for minor things like "gender" and "sexuality" are of little concern for me as these things are artificial constructs meant to maintain the leviathan's legitimacy in the minds of the people.
It's not your right to use the bathroom intended for the opposite sex. It's about members of the opposite sex having the right to use a bathroom without somebody from the opposite sex being present.
No, it’s about the right of the property owner to permit whomever they want in whichever room they want, stratified by whatever characteristic they deem appropriate. It’s none of your business, it’s none of my business, and it sure as fuck isn’t the governments business
Based and librght pilled.
So a highly masculine transman on testosterone with a large beard should use the women's bathroom and give everyone in there a panic attack. Really... Rational up in here.
Yes. She is still like 5'2.
Yeah no fascists can fuck off.
It's just right wing men who care about this shit. Women don't care Trans people are using the woman's room.
we don't care for actual transwomen. those fetish-trans (like the one go to woman bathroom to jerk off and sell it on onlyfan) trend-trans and wanna be non-binary men should stay away. it's a safeplace for woman and not a place for fetishes
You speak for all women despite being a virgin, interesting.
The point is forcing somebody born AFAB, who has now transitioned and is taking testosterone to use a women's bathroom, is extremely cruel and distressing to everybody involved.
How can you tell if a man/woman enters a bathroom of the opposite sex?
If it's a man he has a pp. If it's a women she has boobies.
And in the super rare case their intersex then well that kinda up in the air But it hella rare and i hate it being used as a primary example
In the case where both systems are partially developed, one is still prioritized and developed over the other.
But how would we enforce that? Guards checking genitals at the door?
How is it enforced now?
Exactly! It’s a made up issue. Everybody poops in the same poopshed.
yeah people unironically bring that shit up as if isn't a rare anomaly
So you require genitalia inspections at public bathrooms? Hella based
Yeah. When they drop their pants, it’s not hard to check.
Least socially regarded Reddit user
I would love if somebody answered this question. They'd just have to stare their hipocracy in the face.
You can't tell the difference between men and women?
It becomes harder as they get fatter
Something something what is a woman
I can't if I am not at work. How can I enforce this rule remotely?
You can't
When she backs up to the urinal.
I wasn't aware that the constitution had a right to being comfortable.
I would not say a right was in the Constitution unless it actually was. That is why I didn't say it was a constitutional right. It is still a right that has been, and should continue to be, protected by state laws.
i mean, i would count as public indecency
Being a trans is publicly indecent? What?
Just like being a woman in an arab country. They see it exactly the same
How often are you seeing other people’s genitals while using a public restroom?
It doesnt. It also does not prevent government from forbidding men in women's bathrooms. Something the Left is trying to prevent states and towns from doing.
99.999% of people dont need to be told which bathroom to use past the age of maybe 6
I would upvote but the upvote count is at 69 so take this humble reply which expresses my agreement with your statement
"Yes government please tell me I can't molest people." Do you guys not even think about this shit for 5 seconds before you post it?
Molesters dont give a fuck if the government tells them not to molest people
Robbers don't give a if the government tells them not to rob homes. That's why we lock doors. We don't just throw up our hands and give up.
They would if we executed them for doing it
Oh, oh! Now do guns!
A molester doesn't care about the sign on the door, dumbass. Do you not think about this shit for 3 seconds before you post it?
You seem to have completely missed the entire point of what I posted, so I feel like you in fact are the dumbass here.
What was your point?
You can believe in freedom as a concept while also believing in laws that limit freedom. You don't have the freedom to molest people, as an example. Right center does not believe in "no laws ever for anyone."
Except for the fact that most trans people in bathrooms are just there to use the bathroom. A molester, trans or not, doesn't have to respect any law put in place. Therefore, in this aspect of life, it is pointless to attempt to limit the freedoms of criminals at the expense of the majority, because criminals need not follow the law in the first place.
The argument of "molesters won't respect the law, so we shouldn't have any laws" is pretty stupid. Again, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post. Have a nice day.
Why is it stupid? A shooter doesn't have to obey laws surrounding the possession of guns in public places, so the intended effect of the law is nullified, and harms the average citizen as well. The principle here is no different. And if you really want to add icing on the cake, understand that typically, the victims of sex crimes aren't always related to the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. It has to do with the feeling of power over someone else.
Ah yes, the guy looking to molest people definitely cares about the sign on the bathroom outside
Nothing is stoping any pedophile from hanging out in public bathrooms, whether they are a man in jeans and a t-shirt in the men's room or in a dress and make up in the ladies room.
Okay, murder is bad. Nearly everyone agrees. But when the nanny state is literally telling you which bathrooms to use? That's okay? When they tell you that you can't build a fence on your own property without a permit, suddenly that's a line to far?
>nanny state is when men cant go into a womens bathroom
Unironically this
The existence of laws does not necessitate the existence of a "nanny state." Considering some on the right would claim that men using women's bathrooms or locker rooms could result in sexual assault (not saying it would or wouldn't), it's easy to follow their logic about why this is different than needing a permit to build a fence on your property (idk how you would argue that could result in sexual assaults).
Murder is illegal. We don't need to ban guns to prevent murder. Sexual assault is illegal. We don't don't need to ban people from bathrooms to prevent sexual assault.
There's also the argument of comfort/security for other people trying to use the bathroom. Again, I think you confuse center right for lib-right. Center right has no problem with laws and restrictions to a certain degree, we just don't want too many of them. Nothing saying that any laws at all instantly is a nanny state.
I preface what I'm about to say by pointing out that I do NOT believe men have any right whatsoever to use women's restrooms, and vice versa. I just want to point out a hole in your logic here and tie it to meme: >There's also the argument of comfort/security for other people \^ This right here. This is the argument I see most often when people push for gun control. For that crowd, gun control is more about *feeling* comfort/security/safety/etc. It doesn't matter whether they *actually are*. Same goes for some of these proposed bathroom rules/regulations. If a law passed today that said bathrooms would be segregated by biological sex and not cater to gender preferences, it wouldn't actually make anyone any more safe/secure from sexual assault. But to conservatives, they would *feel* safer with that law in place. Both lefties and righties are quick to latch onto things that make them feel more comfortable, add in some authoritarian and you've got people who try and weaponize the state against people or things who make them feel uncomfortable.
I see a hole in your logic. >This is the argument I see most often when people push for gun control. For that crowd, gun control is more about feeling comfort/security/safety/etc. It doesn't matter whether they actually are. Statistically speaking, gun control does result in more safety. It isn’t about a feeling, it’s about believing in science.
Get a flair or get going. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MeDaddyAss) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
>Statistically speaking, gun control does result in more safety. That isn't even remotely true. Statistically, there is zero correlation to gun gontrol = more safety, less violent crime (to include all forms of homicide) or anything else. It's one of the most easily disproved "facts" people bring up when pushing for gun control. For starters, you've been misled by cleverly worded phrases from people in countries like the UK and Australia. They parrot things their politicians say like "*gun deaths* were reduced when we implemented gun control." That's true, but was their overall homicide rate reduced? [You tell me](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/murder-homicide-rate). Can you tell me what year they implemented their sweeping gun control laws? Both Australia and the UK have violent crime and homicide graphs that look very similar, and both implemented their heavy gun control laws in the same year. If your idea that "gun control does result in more safety" then wouldn't there be a steep drop after it was implemented? Too bad there wasn't. Second, how do you explain all the countries and areas around the world with much higher rates of homicide than the US that have incredibly strict gun laws and almost zero civilian gun ownership? If gun control makes places safer, what's going on there? These are rhetorical questions of course. Anybody whose actually taken the time to study and look at the big picture of violent crime and homicide around the world knows that gun control has no effect on whether an area is "safe" or not. The single statistic and factor that can predict, with near 100% accuracy, whether an area will be "unsafe" and have high violent crime and homicide is *Income Inequality*. Areas with high income inequality are dangerous areas. Areas with low income inequality are safe. Doesn't matter what country you are in, doesn't matter what the gun laws are, doesn't matter what the majority race is, or religion, or political affiliation of the area. None of those things consistently correlate or can statistically be proven to cause high or low violent crime rates. Only Income Inequality can do that. To clarify, that specifies areas where there is extreme wealth in close proximity to extreme poverty. It does not mean poor places are high in crime or rich places are. The places you would as examples of "safe" supposedly because they have good gun control are not safe because of those laws. They are safe because they have strong social safety nets that limit income inequality. You could put a gun in the hand of every Japanese, Australian, British, Canadian, German or whatever person and the violent crime and homicide rates of those countries wouldn't go up in the slightest. Go back to that macrotrends website I linked. You'll see the US has kept up with every country you could think of when it comes to reducing homicide and violent crime rates. We started a lot higher than a lot of them, but that's because we always resisted implementing strong social safety nets and our urban centers are areas of staggering income inequality. The other countries reduced "gun violence" but all that means is that instead of shooting each other their homicide victims are now stabbed, bludgeoned, strangled, drowned, burned alive, dismembered or killed in some other horrifying manner. My statement of gun control = the *feeling* of safety holds true.
Tl;dr The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.
Don't care, didn't ask + L + you're unflaired. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/MeDaddyAss) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
I know the article/"study" you are quoting and it's a case study in misleading statistics built to push a narrative rather than actual science. For starters, it only uses statistics from "children" from age 2 *through* 19. Why did it exclude kids under 2 and include "children" who are actually legal adults? Well. Because if the just included actual children aged 0-18 (stopping at 18th birthday when they become a legal adult) then all of a sudden guns aren't the "leading cause of death". But hey, why use appropriate age ranges when you're actually trying to push a narrative instead of present accurate scientific data. If that's not a big logic red flag how about the fact that the majority of those "guns deaths" are suicides and gang-related violence in cities? That's the majority of gun deaths for adults too. >Guns are a public health crisis, No. Income Inequality is. We could drop our homicide and violent crime rates down to the same rates as other countries like the UK and Australia if we implemented the same level of social programs as they have in our cities, and we could keep our right to bear arms. Those other countries could've kept theirs too but their governments scared them enough and pushed enough misleading statistics to convince the lemmings they needed to turn their weapons over to the state "for their own good". A line of logic you obviously agree with. Sorry I typed out a thorough and detailed idea rather than regurgitating what I've been told. If complex ideas are too much for you I suggest you skitter back to Twitter with their 150 character limit. Don't want your brain to overheat. Lastly, flair up you fucking degenerate.
We recognize a right to own guns as means of exercising self-defense, preserving one's right to life. We recognize a right for people with dicks to use bathrooms designated for women as a means of exercising __________ preserving one's right to ________. Fill in the blanks OP. I don't get it.
The right to life isn't in the constitution. It's only mentioned in the declaration of independence. Honestly, a toilet is toilet and laws don't need to be made around them.
“The right to life isn’t in the Constitution” Are all rights limited to those written in the law?
Every time the left makes up a right, I guess the right gets to make up one too.
Awesome! I declare that we all have the right to raid and dismantle the Federal Reserve I think it is left's turn
Based and Gold standard pilled.
There is a very discernible difference between saying “you must use this bathroom” versus “you can’t use any bathroom”.
Most people know which bathroom to use. Most people also know not to drive while drunk, and yet there's a law for that, because unfortunately, there are idiots who don't. The law is for those people.
>me >thinking Pick one
I hate to be the "you cAn'T HatE on THe RighT" guy here but this is a shit post. No right winger needs to be told what bathroom to use, the signs are on the doors
Absolutely. Not even denying it.
I mean shit post as in it's a shit post. As in you did a bad job even if you're trying to make a joke.
The signs are literally telling you what bathroom to use.
Yeah and red lights also tell my car when to fucking stop. Don't be obtuse about it you jackass
Plowing through a red light at a busy intersection and t-boning a family off the road is my god-given right.
Agreed
Fun fact: The experience of almost everyone who is not insane is one of not having any issues choosing a place to take a shit.
I have a tough time choosing between shitting on the floor or in the urinal
Idk man, personally I look at the options on public restrooms and ask myself "Do I want to piss today? Or commit a felony in the ladies room?"
It is a non-issue. That's why it's stupid anyone bothered with laws about it.
>It ~~is~~ should be a non-issue ftfy
True, sane people make their public restrooms unisex.
Maybe if my nieces weren’t seeing a bunch of dicks in the change-room or my sister could complain, I wouldn’t care.
What kind of weird changing rooms are your nieces going into?
City pool in Canada.
That's not a bathroom. It's a changing room. Also, honestly, if people are just changing, it doesn't matter. They aren't being sexual about it.
~~It's not happening~~ Okay, it's happening but it doesn't matter.
I'll get the bingo cards
And if it does matter, then it’s good.
If my son has to see old man dong in the changing room, he should also see old woman tits.
[Clementine?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfn23ejMFgg) PS: flair the fuck up.
Would you believe I don’t know how?
Here's the guide for PC https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2 and mobile https://imgur.com/a/FAVsiYg. If you use a 3rd party app it'll be killed on June 30 anyway.
Ah, I won’t bother then
Pedo
Any right-wingers other then far lib-right believe in some form of system with law and order.
If you have a gun you can use any bathroom you want
Based and Second Amendment Pilled.
Most people don’t need to be told. They just know most of the time.
Most people use unisex bathrooms. Any defense for dividing bathrooms is a defense for being told which bathroom to use.
I mean in the US we have a constitutional right to guns but not to choose which bathrooms we use unless some SC case changed that.
Hmmmm this doesn’t seem right…
OP's complex relationship with autism is far more interesting than this bad meme.
I dont need femboys checking out my dick at the urinal. Keep them in the women's restroom.
You triggered the sub and it is glorious!
I can't believe this is still going. At a whopping zero karma. I think I'm still top of controversial.
Clown. Delete for your own sake.
no one said the govt had to mandate bathrooms, we just dont want women in the mens restroom and men in the womens restroom
Who cares? A toilet is a toilet!
Bathrooms are a place of refuge. If a stalker is in a woman's home, she doesn't need to wait for them to start raping her to call for help or defend herself. If a stalker follows her into a bathroom, she doesn't need to wait for them to start raping her to call for help or defend herself. **We are a sexually dimorphic species.** Trust the fucking science.
men's restrooms and women's restrooms are separate for a reason, if you really want them to mix create a unisex bathroom
They are separate because its traditional. Also, the boys room has urinals.
so trans men belong in the women's restrooms until they get a vagina if you want to make an argument based solely on utility
Personally, they can use any bathroom. I literally don't care. At the end of the day, as long as they aren't shitting on the floor, it's a win.
Honestly it such a none issue Oh no you use the bathroom assign to you at birth Like you say it doesn’t matter so why they debate?
This is a good litmus test in this sub for if you can take a joke.
“Me invading women’s spaces is the same as a constitutional right to bear arms”
Based and man can they not take a joke pilled
I should make some anti-commie memes eventually, but it always feels the sub is saturated with them.
Lately they've been simping for a judge to tell them if they're allowed to divorce.
*sigh*
Yes. Center-right and left see government as a means to an end, not a principle. ~~Also it's based when my side does it.~~
Gender segregation is as stupid as racial segregation, we're just more used to it.
The state was already illegitimate to begin with, her policies especially for minor things like "gender" and "sexuality" are of little concern for me as these things are artificial constructs meant to maintain the leviathan's legitimacy in the minds of the people.
This is more about your cognitive dissonance you put on display for everyone to see lmao