DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Surely, the only person who needs to consider it is the one at the centre of it.
Why would you judge another?
The Great Restroom Debate!
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
Why would you judge another?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. That's kind the point. Surgery isn't the heart of gender identification. That occurs inside. And it very often asserts itself when someone first becomes aware that there are genders.
Why do you think this door only swings one way?
You know trans-gender works both ways, right?
Mod Hat ― On second looks and questions answered
"It"?
Are you serious?
"It"?
The problem, here, Bowser, is your devotion to cruelty: Rein it in.
You've already tried this clodhopping routine to let us know how much you hate homosexuals (1↗, 2↗) and women (3↗, 4↗, 5↗). We've all seen it before; nobody's buying it.
To be specific: You do not get to pretend ignorance as an excuse to say stupid and cruel things about people you don't like.
Get yourself under control, sir.
Bowser said:
"It"?
Are you serious?
"It"?
The problem, here, Bowser, is your devotion to cruelty: Rein it in.
You've already tried this clodhopping routine to let us know how much you hate homosexuals (1↗, 2↗) and women (3↗, 4↗, 5↗). We've all seen it before; nobody's buying it.
To be specific: You do not get to pretend ignorance as an excuse to say stupid and cruel things about people you don't like.
Get yourself under control, sir.
Proper modern context... hmm.
So recognizing your biological gender isn't enough to maybe, well, provide a hint. Also, back to the point, how does one "transition" from one gender to another?
Again, I look forward to the day when a woman steps up to use the urinal
Tiassa, I'm only offering my opinions. If you feel that having an opposing view is stupid and cruel, I.ll simply abandon the thread. I've been trying for several hours but others were demanding my attention/
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
It's everyone's world equally, including transgender people too. Get used to it.
Your right I'm being unfair to previous societies. They understood gender is not a binary thing. So in comparing your understanding to theirs I was insulting them. Your understanding is worse than theirs
Bells
Staff member
If your opinion that a fellow human being becomes an "it" because they are transgender, then perhaps it is best if you keep your offensive, stupid and cruel opinions to yourself.
I could ask if you have been living in a cave for the last few decades, but I would concerned that the answer to that would be a 'yes'.
Yes, Bowser, surgeons have been doing this type of surgery for decades now.
The man in the post I posted before is a "man". He has a penis. He is a man. Yet he is now forced by the law, to use the women's bathrooms because he was born with a vagina. Like this guy:
He is now forced to use the women's bathroom by law. Now ask women if they prefer to have him in their bathroom or a transgender who is a woman use their bathroom.
By your reckoning, he is meant to be using the women's bathroom because of the genitals he was born with. Just as female transgender are now risking their safety because they are now forced to use the men's public restrooms instead of the women's restrooms. This is now a new reality for trans women because they are now being forced to use the men's room:
What a choice. And when coupled with the fact that they will encounter men like you, who refer to them as "it" and who are intent on figuring out what their gender happens to be, this is a human rights issue and absolute discrimination, not to mention an issue that risks their safety.
Attitudes like yours are literally forcing women to share their public bathrooms with men now. You have achieved what you apparently set out to prevent. Because now, you are literally forcing men to use women's bathrooms.
And what a shame men like you, and who believe like you do, are not listening.
The only people I have heard braying about 'men in women's bathrooms' are men and a few women who have bought into the baseless moral panic from the bigoted Right and as a result, they are now literally forcing women to share the women's bathrooms and change rooms with men.
The laws themselves are an infringement on people's privacy and personal rights because it is not enforceable. The only way to police it is to have police officers asking people to drop their pants and show birth certificates before they are to use a restroom.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If you woke up one day and looked down to discover you were physiologically female, do you think you could simply will yourself to be female on the inside?
Or is it possible that there's more to your "maleness" than simply what's between your legs?
One doesn't. That's the entire point.
One is born as a gender, but nature messed up, giving one the wrong body parts. Physiological gender and identity gender are distinct.
Don't be fooled. This is not new. It has been this way since the dawn of time; we just couldn't do much about it before.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I wouldn't say eloquent, more like euphemisms.
I have tried asking directions to the deficatorium and/or urinarium, but what I got was puzzled looks.(except for a very few kindred spirits)
"Toilet" usually seems to work.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Hormone therapy. You are aware that we all start off as gender neutral and change according to the hormones in our body don't you?
But Where's the Dog?
I actually think this is part of the point. The disaster that this policy can create at full implementation is a disaster; that's part of the point. And if a couple of get raped and beaten as a result, that's more than simply fine with North Carolina Republicans, Bowser, and others; they're hoping people get raped and killed.
That's what this is about.
The disaster itself is what this is about.
We've already seen provocateurs trying to make the point; it turns out the perverts women in locker rooms need to fear because society recognizes the transgendered are the allegedly straight, cisgendered bigots who keep reminding that this is about inventing any excuse to whip it out.
Will the Guardians of Female Chastity wonder what she was doing in a men's restroom?
Will the cisgendered woman harassed by the cops after someone called because she looks too manly to be using the women's restroom have any recourse? What about the trans man arrested for using the women's restroom?
And it is a hard accusation, that rape and other violence and general chaos is the point of these stupid bathroom politics, but that's the thing―how long are we supposed to presume good faith and intentions in the face of so much evidence suggesting otherwise?
A couple of notions teasing from the edge of conscience:
It is easy enough to joke about the idea of Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson putting on dresses in order to masturbate in the women's restroom↱, but there does come a point at which I genuinely wonder about the immediate functional dangers of the traditional-moralist perversity.
The strangest thing is that they really are settling a few things in society. I can think of any number of kinky behaviors people are generally loath to confess in public. Nobody really wants to know what another calls their lover in the heat of passion, unless they do, and all for the same reason a person wouldn't want to tell. And nobody really wants to know what people actually do when alone, unless they do, and again for the same reasons people don't like to tell. But here's the kick in the kink: Say what we will about consensual kink and paraphilia, the truly worrisome perversity turns out to hide in the traditional mores that have railed against the dangers of perversity. There are certainly practical reasons for keeping this stuff to ourselves. The British long used men in lingerie, spanking with a crop, and begging to Mommy as the basic theme for a joke that comes up over and over again. The Rev. Billy C. Wirtz wallows in perversity and strangeness all through "Roberta"↱ including the bit about the nurse's costume and being a groveling worm of a love slave. That is, we know the basic outlines of the stereotypical comedy sketch, and that suffices. A simple, obvious restraint ought to be sufficient: The last thing anyone wants, walking into the office on Monday morning, is the sudden flash in their mind depicting dude over there in flagrante; the last thing dude over there wants is to look up from his desk and know everyone has that image burned somewhere in their minds. This ought to be enough, but at the same time it is also imperative to note circumstances under which embarrassment is the least of a person's worries.
But the exploitative, predatory imaginings of these pervert prudes? This has been going on long enough that yes, I'm willing to accept they really do spend so much time and effort worrying about people's urogenital and sexual conduct. I've known people so concerned with guarding female chastity that their conduct becomes worrisome for appearance of being obsessed with the sexual conduct of young girls.
In the end, like everything else, these stupid zealots end up not only defeating their own purpose, but actually making things more dangerous for everyone else. People like that are a detriment to the human species, full stop.
In other words, no news.
Bells said:
I actually think this is part of the point. The disaster that this policy can create at full implementation is a disaster; that's part of the point. And if a couple of get raped and beaten as a result, that's more than simply fine with North Carolina Republicans, Bowser, and others; they're hoping people get raped and killed.
That's what this is about.
The disaster itself is what this is about.
We've already seen provocateurs trying to make the point; it turns out the perverts women in locker rooms need to fear because society recognizes the transgendered are the allegedly straight, cisgendered bigots who keep reminding that this is about inventing any excuse to whip it out.
Will the Guardians of Female Chastity wonder what she was doing in a men's restroom?
Will the cisgendered woman harassed by the cops after someone called because she looks too manly to be using the women's restroom have any recourse? What about the trans man arrested for using the women's restroom?
And it is a hard accusation, that rape and other violence and general chaos is the point of these stupid bathroom politics, but that's the thing―how long are we supposed to presume good faith and intentions in the face of so much evidence suggesting otherwise?
A couple of notions teasing from the edge of conscience:
(1) One of the reminders that this isn't about deeply-held, well-recognized, traditionally-organized beliefs is that people are making up the case on the fly. Let us take Bowser as an example; for months he's been recycling nonsense long since run through wringer, already squeezed for any political value. The point of posturing himself as an ignoramus is to simply recite old cruelties under a pretense of naïveté. We can't be offended if he doesn't know any better, right? Except I've been discussing these issues with him for well over a decade. The proposition that he is so clueless about the subject is an indictment of either intellect or character; it is the essence of an abstract question whether something is sinister or stupid, and to what degree the one becomes the other.
(2) There is this weird thing that happens sometimes in human rights discussions when some people start postulating various manners of detriment because they think they're making some sort of point; i.e., "rape fantasies" among the Guardians of Female Chastity poring over details of setting and circumstance that we might find cause to blame a woman for being raped and murdered. This weird apparent necessity has been asserting itself in the Bathroom Battle, as people speculate about various behavior in bathrooms. The bottom line that this fear we are to believe they feel is internally generated; it is a product of their own beliefs, thoughts, and information resources. That is, they are simply projecting themselves onto others.
(2) There is this weird thing that happens sometimes in human rights discussions when some people start postulating various manners of detriment because they think they're making some sort of point; i.e., "rape fantasies" among the Guardians of Female Chastity poring over details of setting and circumstance that we might find cause to blame a woman for being raped and murdered. This weird apparent necessity has been asserting itself in the Bathroom Battle, as people speculate about various behavior in bathrooms. The bottom line that this fear we are to believe they feel is internally generated; it is a product of their own beliefs, thoughts, and information resources. That is, they are simply projecting themselves onto others.
It is easy enough to joke about the idea of Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson putting on dresses in order to masturbate in the women's restroom↱, but there does come a point at which I genuinely wonder about the immediate functional dangers of the traditional-moralist perversity.
The strangest thing is that they really are settling a few things in society. I can think of any number of kinky behaviors people are generally loath to confess in public. Nobody really wants to know what another calls their lover in the heat of passion, unless they do, and all for the same reason a person wouldn't want to tell. And nobody really wants to know what people actually do when alone, unless they do, and again for the same reasons people don't like to tell. But here's the kick in the kink: Say what we will about consensual kink and paraphilia, the truly worrisome perversity turns out to hide in the traditional mores that have railed against the dangers of perversity. There are certainly practical reasons for keeping this stuff to ourselves. The British long used men in lingerie, spanking with a crop, and begging to Mommy as the basic theme for a joke that comes up over and over again. The Rev. Billy C. Wirtz wallows in perversity and strangeness all through "Roberta"↱ including the bit about the nurse's costume and being a groveling worm of a love slave. That is, we know the basic outlines of the stereotypical comedy sketch, and that suffices. A simple, obvious restraint ought to be sufficient: The last thing anyone wants, walking into the office on Monday morning, is the sudden flash in their mind depicting dude over there in flagrante; the last thing dude over there wants is to look up from his desk and know everyone has that image burned somewhere in their minds. This ought to be enough, but at the same time it is also imperative to note circumstances under which embarrassment is the least of a person's worries.
But the exploitative, predatory imaginings of these pervert prudes? This has been going on long enough that yes, I'm willing to accept they really do spend so much time and effort worrying about people's urogenital and sexual conduct. I've known people so concerned with guarding female chastity that their conduct becomes worrisome for appearance of being obsessed with the sexual conduct of young girls.
In the end, like everything else, these stupid zealots end up not only defeating their own purpose, but actually making things more dangerous for everyone else. People like that are a detriment to the human species, full stop.
In other words, no news.
Sometimes I feel that I will never participate in an online forum again. I just do - I mean, what's the point? Going on on ten years now...
Bigots, slow people, call them what you will - they will continue to be ignorant and incorrigible. This is a game... Bowser is a typical Trumpster, part of the fabric of 'Merica - doesn't let facts get in the way of his beliefs. Carry on, Sir Bowser - I shall forfeit this country rather than deal with your kind.
No, nevermind, what was going to be a threat isn't going to materialize - nah... How'bout, just don't cross me or mine ... Carry on.
If it helps, since the 1960s biologists have known that exposure to certain hormones (or blocking or changing timing) during development can change the brain of a rodent (rat in this case) from a female to a male or from a male to a female.
This means, rats will be born genetically male with the mating behavior of a female or genetically female with the mating behavior of a male.
Now, I hardly think you'd suggest psychotherapy for a rat!?
The fact is, some humans are born with brains that do not match their genetic sex. It's really not surprising is it? Not really. Now, life it tough enough as it is, so, let's not make it any harder. Agreed? Let them use the toilet they feel suits them best.
Acceptance in this case, is an act of virtue. These are adults, they're not harming anyone, there's even good biological evidence they have brains matching their subjective mating behaviors.
Anyway, there's always unisex bathrooms available.
Last edited:
If we had the good fortune of living in a society with a limited government, sound money, and basic common laws that protected your body, property and contract, my guess is, you'd be allowed the opportunity in life to move to an area (at the very least, within the USA) where you could provide value and work with like-minded people to create solutions to various social problems with those around you - - or even just make life that much more worth living, maybe opening a novel business, etc.... Which is sort of the same thing.
And, the same would be true of Bowser. He could move to a place in America where others think as he does.
Sadly, that's not the America we live in. Ours is a psychosis, a common where, where belief in using violence against innocent people, is aligned with the oxymoron meme 'for the Good of Society'. For various reasons, we're returned to the historical trend-line, as this seems to be a common trend historically.
Now, what's most important is who get's the carry the big stick. The Trump or The War Harpy or The Communist. Which one is it?
As an example, take this bathroom issue. The State has no business IMO passing a law regarding bathrooms. This is up to private people to solve for Christ's sake. We're talking bathrooms here.
Will some business owners refuse transsexuals the use of female or male facilities?
Maybe? Probably.
But that's good. Because then others in society can boycott their businesses and patron businesses that treat individuals caring and humanely. Why would I want to spend my good money, at an establishment owned by a bigot who's only reason in treating people fairly is because there's a law forcing them to do so. I'd even suggest such laws are beloved by the bigot. These laws acts as camouflage. Allowing them make money AND perpetuate their bigotry in their private lives, through their family and friends. They can say they'd otherwise not offer such and such services, except there's this law forcing them to do so.... IF they had to 'put up' or 'shut up', then we'd see just how'd they behave. And, you'll find, when money is lost, suddenly people change their bigoted tune. My guess is, even bigots don't like hypocrites.
But, of course, this all would require sound money, freedom to trade and limited government. None of which most people want. What's most important now is who get's to carry the big stick.
In the meantime, being American, you have the luxury to move to any country in the world. Anywhere on this Earth. You don't have to remain in the USA, and if you're a natural citizen by birth, then by law, you can always return. That's something to consider
Last edited:
Okay, I will jump back in and try to keep it within whatever limits are being enforced. First, the whole issue revolves around a self-image that a person holds in their head. Second, despite that they have normal, healthy bodies, they choose to morph themselves into something they are not. It's unhealthy. Taking hormones or opting for surgery is not a rational choice--doing so can introduce many problems down the road. By encouraging such actions I think people are doing more harm than good. It's a mental health issue, not a body issue. I feel for these people, but I don't see changing their body as being the fix.
An Extrapolation on the Unisex Proposition
Desegregation: In the end, it won't be the queers who are uncomfortable with restroom desegregation.
It really is a weird thing about societies, isn't it?
In history, various political―i.e., class―struggles have resulted in certain outcomes and assertions shaping society. We hear various justifications in our own contemporary period; some would assert timeless principle, some would demand honoring tradition, yet there exist certain ranges of issues in which societies (ahem!) "traditionally" lose their principles, traditions, and sensibilities simply by considering.
The larger paradigm has to do with women and their place under men, and if we don't figure this out it will be the last thing we fail to do. But the Gay Fray includes some of the most astounding self-betrayals I've witnessed in my American lifetime.
If we attend the traditionalist arguments, we might remember that "women's lib" also wrecked the sacred institution by winning such concessions as a woman's right to have a job outside the home or say no to sexual contact. Gay marriage, from a statistical outlook, actually reinforces marriage as a basic societal-organizational behavior demarcating family units within the larger common collective. From a poltical or class outlook, however, it is apparently the death of marriage such that states have dallied with the proposition of calling marriage off in general. That's how pissed off they are that their traditional societal advantages concomitant to paradigmatic presupposition within the prevailing culture are eroding. Rights are rights, and they don't get to decide who gets to have rights; in their temper tantrum, they are even willing to consider calling the whole thing off.
And we see it again, actually. To the one, you're not going to find much of the queer community objecting to the underlying principle of unisex bathrooms. To the other, a shift toward unisex bathrooms would represent a tantrum in which aspects of sex segregation rooted in traditional sociomoral aesthetics should be discarded if one cannot be in full control. That is, traditionnalists don't get to exclusively define the tradition anymore, so they would rather call the whole thing off.
Most of us comprehend why our society segregates bathrooms according to sex; traditionalists, however, have always had problems dealing with both sex and gender, and now that they cannot enforce their own problems against other people, it is striking to think this would be what finally starts undoing those segregationalist traditions.
So when you hear the traditionalists appeal to unisex bathrooms, that's part of what's going on. They can't define women and enforce their definition, so let's start calling the whole thing off.
The other part is that they're just a bunch of filthy perverts. Seriously, who spends that much time worrying about the who and how of getting off to the sounds and smells of a woman pinching a loaf?
Our tradtionalist neighbors. Because ... er ... ah ... you know, there comes a point where I would probably rather not know why, but I have a feeling we're going to actually have to give that some thought as this continues.
I don't know, do you think by the time women are strapping on and standing their ground in unisex restrooms because, well, you know, there's history to the question of why wouldn't one hit on her at this or that point, because, you know, if the idea that she's reading a book means she wants a guy to come interrupt her and hit on her, why wouldn't that guy hit on her in a bathroom? Yeah, that's how complex this complex gets. And, you know, if I sent you a scene in which our female hero blows a guy's head off for trying to chat her up in a unisex bathroom, would you send it on to production, or back for another try? Somewhere between where the discourse finds itself today for the sake of those perverted traditionalists and the idea of a scene even Family Guy won't do―and they will do voyeurism and even rape as a restroom joke―perhaps it would be easier on everybody if the traditionalists grew up.
To the one, sure, you and I might be fine with the proposition of unisex restrooms, but it seems significant to note why society would undertake this transtion. This isn't actually a healthy reason to start breaking down this particular segregation.
And when the business community finds it can maintain sufficient custom installing one large restroom instead of three, the business community isn't going to bother installing three. The traditionalists are asking for optional desegregation in order to preserve their own tightly-bound, sexually-neurotically driven supremacist discrimination.
Unisex restrooms are an inevitability in American society―well, as long as America doesn't call it's own whole thing off for the sake of a bunch of paranoid traditionalists bawling about having nobody to bully around―but we have a bit more work left to do before we're able to address sex deesegregation in a responsible and mature manner.
We might consider the tremendous overlap within the traditionalist arguments. Presently, they are enacting certain fears in order to tell us they told us so about behavioral deviance of which much is driven by neurotic tensions directly created by their own insistent and exploitative gendertyping. There is no aspect of the traditionalists' bathroom obsession by which they are not the problem.
So while unisex restrooms will eventually be the norm, it would seem rather quite amazing if we started down that road so the segregationists could continue to hurt people. As I said, it's not a healthy course.
Then again, I also wonder if they will keep up long enough to go their own way. It would be fascinating to witness a significant bloc of a dominance response to perceived social crisis transforming into flight. And the prospect that restrooms could be the break point? It would be astonishing. Captivating. It's something we rarely see in American society; indeed, it could verge on something unseen. Puritanism cracks up occasionally, though not as often as the economy. Still, our puritan streak has never completely collapsed.
Traditionalists are really pissed off about this restroom thing. And their whole problem isn't really the transgendered; it's that they are a bunch of self-loathing, dysfunctional perverts who have never grown up enough to learn how to not hate women. And they're not smart enough to understand what equality means in its most basic context; that is, in order to be equal, they need to have more.
They are everything they purport to fear.
Restrooms. Who'd'a thunk?
Seriously, though, I wonder how far they're going to take this.
Desegregation: In the end, it won't be the queers who are uncomfortable with restroom desegregation.
Michael said:
It really is a weird thing about societies, isn't it?
In history, various political―i.e., class―struggles have resulted in certain outcomes and assertions shaping society. We hear various justifications in our own contemporary period; some would assert timeless principle, some would demand honoring tradition, yet there exist certain ranges of issues in which societies (ahem!) "traditionally" lose their principles, traditions, and sensibilities simply by considering.
The larger paradigm has to do with women and their place under men, and if we don't figure this out it will be the last thing we fail to do. But the Gay Fray includes some of the most astounding self-betrayals I've witnessed in my American lifetime.
If we attend the traditionalist arguments, we might remember that "women's lib" also wrecked the sacred institution by winning such concessions as a woman's right to have a job outside the home or say no to sexual contact. Gay marriage, from a statistical outlook, actually reinforces marriage as a basic societal-organizational behavior demarcating family units within the larger common collective. From a poltical or class outlook, however, it is apparently the death of marriage such that states have dallied with the proposition of calling marriage off in general. That's how pissed off they are that their traditional societal advantages concomitant to paradigmatic presupposition within the prevailing culture are eroding. Rights are rights, and they don't get to decide who gets to have rights; in their temper tantrum, they are even willing to consider calling the whole thing off.
And we see it again, actually. To the one, you're not going to find much of the queer community objecting to the underlying principle of unisex bathrooms. To the other, a shift toward unisex bathrooms would represent a tantrum in which aspects of sex segregation rooted in traditional sociomoral aesthetics should be discarded if one cannot be in full control. That is, traditionnalists don't get to exclusively define the tradition anymore, so they would rather call the whole thing off.
Most of us comprehend why our society segregates bathrooms according to sex; traditionalists, however, have always had problems dealing with both sex and gender, and now that they cannot enforce their own problems against other people, it is striking to think this would be what finally starts undoing those segregationalist traditions.
So when you hear the traditionalists appeal to unisex bathrooms, that's part of what's going on. They can't define women and enforce their definition, so let's start calling the whole thing off.
The other part is that they're just a bunch of filthy perverts. Seriously, who spends that much time worrying about the who and how of getting off to the sounds and smells of a woman pinching a loaf?
Our tradtionalist neighbors. Because ... er ... ah ... you know, there comes a point where I would probably rather not know why, but I have a feeling we're going to actually have to give that some thought as this continues.
I don't know, do you think by the time women are strapping on and standing their ground in unisex restrooms because, well, you know, there's history to the question of why wouldn't one hit on her at this or that point, because, you know, if the idea that she's reading a book means she wants a guy to come interrupt her and hit on her, why wouldn't that guy hit on her in a bathroom? Yeah, that's how complex this complex gets. And, you know, if I sent you a scene in which our female hero blows a guy's head off for trying to chat her up in a unisex bathroom, would you send it on to production, or back for another try? Somewhere between where the discourse finds itself today for the sake of those perverted traditionalists and the idea of a scene even Family Guy won't do―and they will do voyeurism and even rape as a restroom joke―perhaps it would be easier on everybody if the traditionalists grew up.
To the one, sure, you and I might be fine with the proposition of unisex restrooms, but it seems significant to note why society would undertake this transtion. This isn't actually a healthy reason to start breaking down this particular segregation.
And when the business community finds it can maintain sufficient custom installing one large restroom instead of three, the business community isn't going to bother installing three. The traditionalists are asking for optional desegregation in order to preserve their own tightly-bound, sexually-neurotically driven supremacist discrimination.
Unisex restrooms are an inevitability in American society―well, as long as America doesn't call it's own whole thing off for the sake of a bunch of paranoid traditionalists bawling about having nobody to bully around―but we have a bit more work left to do before we're able to address sex deesegregation in a responsible and mature manner.
We might consider the tremendous overlap within the traditionalist arguments. Presently, they are enacting certain fears in order to tell us they told us so about behavioral deviance of which much is driven by neurotic tensions directly created by their own insistent and exploitative gendertyping. There is no aspect of the traditionalists' bathroom obsession by which they are not the problem.
So while unisex restrooms will eventually be the norm, it would seem rather quite amazing if we started down that road so the segregationists could continue to hurt people. As I said, it's not a healthy course.
Then again, I also wonder if they will keep up long enough to go their own way. It would be fascinating to witness a significant bloc of a dominance response to perceived social crisis transforming into flight. And the prospect that restrooms could be the break point? It would be astonishing. Captivating. It's something we rarely see in American society; indeed, it could verge on something unseen. Puritanism cracks up occasionally, though not as often as the economy. Still, our puritan streak has never completely collapsed.
Traditionalists are really pissed off about this restroom thing. And their whole problem isn't really the transgendered; it's that they are a bunch of self-loathing, dysfunctional perverts who have never grown up enough to learn how to not hate women. And they're not smart enough to understand what equality means in its most basic context; that is, in order to be equal, they need to have more.
They are everything they purport to fear.
Restrooms. Who'd'a thunk?
Seriously, though, I wonder how far they're going to take this.