lostboy

So a pervert straight guy... dresses as a women to get into the ladies restroom to attack them.

Exactly.

And that is why the good people of North Carolina passed this common sense legislation.

You really don't get it do you? That guy will still do that.... he won't care if there is a law to stop transgendered people using the female restroom.

He'll now be able to do it legally, that is a pretty big difference.

And maybe there are those who will be emboldened by the new law to follow suit.

The downsides outweigh the upsides.

What downside. You posit a bunch of maybes with nothing else. Have you even taken the time to find out the contents of the religious discrimination laws? You have any evidence to demonstrate that Trans people are sexual perverts and pose a risk to women and children in female bathrooms. Of course you don't You just have a bunch of weird fantasies about disgusting things and project them onto LGBT people in an attempt to incite and promote discrimination.

What is it about sexual perverts and female toilets that excites you so?

My senior daughter went to a Bangkok university several years ago, after being educated in Eastern Europe and Austria.

On the first week at the college she went home from the university enraged. She was at a ladies toilet, without shower facilities, when she noticed a young man went to the mirror and, ignoring my daughter, he started to comb his hair. My daughter confronted the man. During the heated word exchange she realized the he was she, a tomboy, and had to apologize.

In the following months she got used to tomboys and ladyboys at the university. It took time to accept that tomboys can use the ladies'.

Those who live in Bangkok might know the university. TIT. lol.

Maybe the USA legislators shall be sent to a fact finding mission to LOS.

A tomboy is a woman that dresses like a man.

So it was a woman in the womens toilets.

How does that relate to allowing men into womens toilets?

You tell us. You've elected yourself the toilet police and are trolling this issue on a topic about anti-LGBT hate legislation.

You can establish your credentials on the issue of policing female toilets of course. You have a long tradition of fighting this cause in previous posts on TVF? You education in gender related issues is clearly from the gutter.

Typical. An off topic poster attacking another poster for being off topic.

This is a debate.

Nobody has to bring credentials, just opinions.

You seem to be unable to grasp that and so predictably fall back on attacking the poster and not the points raised.

It is very simple. There is already a toilet for everybody.

Sometimes my 6 year old daughter will insist on using the womens toilets while I wait outside. Thank heavens I can wait outside with the confidence there are no men in there.

And if a few trannies get upset about it, well rather that than my daughters safety.

OK, so you have zero credibility on the issue of female toilet usage. Good that you admit that but the whole victim thing is a bit sissy isn't it? Complaining about being called out as a bigot for saying bigoted things? On no, the ad hominem, how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance!

<removed|>

Well how does your <removed> view explain the need for a law that allows employers to fire straight employees who support marriage equality? How does a Trans person using a bathroom that is consistent with that persons gender have any bearing on this? No matter how many infantile postings of genitalia shaped baked goods you post or penetrating comments <removed>, you cannot defend your position on any basis other than your hatred of LGBT people and your support for discrimination against them. Personal attack? Like I said, you don't want to be called a bigot, don't say bigoted things.

Trainee has already been ruled by the moderator as unacceptable language. Your persistent use of it demonstrates exactly what you think of the issue and it has nothing to do with protecting women using female toilets.

Since our newest cousin hasn't been around but one week he can't be expected to know very much.

However, for the record, the 2008 sub-prime mortgage recession was due, in large part, to the actions of the federal government mandating lenders make loans to less then qualified home purchasers using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as their primary weapon of choice. This act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Carter. Bill Clinton then put it to good political use by forcing quotas on lenders to make sub-prime home loans. Bush warned against it and the Democrats in Congress rallied in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest is history.

By the way, the 2008 recession was declared officially over in June 2009, barely five months into Obama's administration. He had little to do with ending the recession but has now been in charge of the longest recovery in the history of the federal government. Not exactly anything remarkable to add to his CV.

Your other posts concerning adding to the national debt have been discounted several times on the forum. The positions you take are ridiculous, even though they are the main talking points for those liberal Democrats with nothing else.

Look it all up on the forum. Spend a little time catching up and less time offering an opinion. You'll be surprised how much real information this forum actually contains.

Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. Can you tell us Charles, does the Act require sub prime mortgage obligations to be bundled with AAA rated mortgage obligations and such CDO's sold on to investors by banks essentially committing a fraud? Blaming Jimmy Carter for the Global Financial Crisis is a bit rich.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or economically risky about sub prime mortgage lending. I am not really a fan of Prahalad but his book 'The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid' is a primer on poverty alleviation through wealth generation http://www.amazon.com/The-Fortune-Bottom-Pyramid-Eradicating/dp/0131467506 and of course De Soto is internationally renowned for his work on the eradication of poverty through the creation of capital http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Hernando-Soto-ebook/dp/B004FV4XTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460521884&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mystery+of+capital

However any legal, regulatory and economic framework directed towards alleviating poverty will not work when there is outright fraud taking place. Read the Big Short http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine-ebook/dp/B004JXXKWY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460522036&sr=1-1&keywords=the+big+short or go watch the excellent Steve Carell movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Dear Gay-Trans Bullies: Sorry, the Rest of Us Still Have Rights…

...You are the definition of intolerance. You embody hate. You see someone with a traditional lifestyle, and rather than taking your business elsewhere, rather than going on with your gay or trans life, you attack them. You harass them. You force your will, your way of life upon them. “Tolerance” isn’t enough for you. You want full compliance, full acceptance or HATE BE UPON THOSE WHO DISAGREE.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/dear-gay-trans-bully-pulpit-sorry-the-rest-of-us-still-have-rights/#ixzz45g0cqJmz

I am sure you are proud of yourself promoting hatred against minorities. Why is it not surprising that your link takes us to a site with a picture of Hitler on it?

You don't want to be branded a bigot? Then don't say bigoted things. Don't promote bigotry. Respect diversity. The whole Straight White Right Victim thing is pretty infantile. Maybe time for you white boys to man up.

Yes it did - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case.html

You think the gay couple just happened upon this? Of course not - it's part of a campaign. Gay activists actively looking for trouble.

It is NOT helping the cause. People are waking up to it. The activists do not want equality, they want special treatment.

That wasn't about a penis cake. Not sure why it took so long, but this is too much. Repeated LIES about penis cakes. For what purpose? Do you think you're fooling anyway? Ignore list time.

No - it is about LGBT activists looking for publicity by requesting things that they KNOW will be refused and then claiming victim hood.

I like this wedding cake. I think it's a swan - or maybe a pair of mushrooms.

The legislation passed in Mississippi allows employers to fire employees for supporting marriage equality. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/04/08/3767449/the-laughable-incompetence-of-mississippis-anti-lgbt-lawmakers/ Your trivialisation of these issues with stupid photographs of cakes is an exercise in dishonesty. Businesses and other organisations are not boycotting states like Mississippi or North Carolina because they support the right to purchase genitalia shaped baked goods. You may get some prurient pleasure from ogling such photos but your promotion of hatred towards LGBT people clearly places you in the minority.

This is much needed push back...brought on by LGBT people purposely targeting business of people of Christian faith... demanding service...such a being forced to make a penis cake for a gay wedding...

Never happened.

Yes it did - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case.html

You think the gay couple just happened upon this? Of course not - it's part of a campaign. Gay activists actively looking for trouble.

It is NOT helping the cause. People are waking up to it. The activists do not want equality, they want special treatment.

What people are waking up to what? And where? You continue talking out of your lower orifice.

Most Americans supported marriage equality, which is the same as saying most Americans support LGBT rights http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx

That, by the way is actual data. You silly penis cakes and links to Fox News are really quite a nonsense. We do not need the advice of a bigot about what helps our cause of LGBT rights to equality.

For year 2015, The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year.

The deficit fell to 2.5% of GDP.

Now you know.

Please can you tell us why you keep saying "Now you know" ?

"Now you know?" I borrowed that from Trink.

I say it for the benefit of our friends here that watch the fake conservative news. They just don't know. Clueless.

Over to you.

Just for you and the lost boy

Fake? Illiterate? Clueless? 10 out of 10 for hyperbole. Careful those words don't turn around and bite you on the bum.

But don't worry about me, argue with the Congressional Budget Office, ("Non partisan" not "fake conservative news")

You believe that the US exists in a perpetual green zone

Your ideas assume there is no economic cost to carrying debt.

You assume that there will never be any upward pressure on interest rates.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50250 The 2015 Long-Term Budget Outlook

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19253 National Bureau of Economic Research Off Balance sheet Federal Liabilities

OK then

Don't worry, be happy

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

My senior daughter went to a Bangkok university several years ago, after being educated in Eastern Europe and Austria.

On the first week at the college she went home from the university enraged. She was at a ladies toilet, without shower facilities, when she noticed a young man went to the mirror and, ignoring my daughter, he started to comb his hair. My daughter confronted the man. During the heated word exchange she realized the he was she, a tomboy, and had to apologize.

In the following months she got used to tomboys and ladyboys at the university. It took time to accept that tomboys can use the ladies'.

Those who live in Bangkok might know the university. TIT. lol.

Maybe the USA legislators shall be sent to a fact finding mission to LOS.

A tomboy is a woman that dresses like a man.

So it was a woman in the womens toilets.

How does that relate to allowing men into womens toilets?

You tell us. You've elected yourself the toilet police and are trolling this issue on a topic about anti-LGBT hate legislation.

You can establish your credentials on the issue of policing female toilets of course. You have a long tradition of fighting this cause in previous posts on TVF? You education in gender related issues is clearly from the gutter.

Typical. An off topic poster attacking another poster for being off topic.

Enlightened countries have freedom of speech especially against government leaders. It's almost impossible for a "public figure" to sue for defamation and if they do it's for money and it's not a crime. The government would never bring an action for defamation on behalf of itself or anyone else.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to be objectionable or people wouldn't need that freedom as a guarantee.

What the hell happened to Germany?

I almost considered liking one of your posts. Then I remembered your quite vigorous support for this guy:

Donald Trump vowed to ‘open up’ libel laws to make suing the media easier https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/

Donald Trump pledges to curb press freedom through libel laws http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment

You don't see some disconnect here?

Debt now $19 Trillion and climbing. Perhaps numbers speak clearer than comparing inter party percentages?

Why are debt hawks such size queens? Really. All this alarmism about how big the number is. The US government is not run like your granny's checking account. The US dollar is a reserve currency. It underpins most of international trade. Debt is used to invest and facilitate economic growth. Such investments generate wealth. If these investments are not made correctly and do not stimulate growth the markets will quickly punish such policies. The total size of aggregate debt is irrelevant to the issue of the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden.

All these silly graphs and nonsense about debt during George Washington's Presidency. Load of rubbish.

You want a discussion about debt management. I'm up for it. You want to continue with economically illiterate scare tactics, then fine. Have at it.

would this allow heterosexual male sexual predators easier access to these facilities by simply claiming to be "Transgender" and by wearing a dress?

Of course it would. Those that attempt to minimize or simply dismiss this increased risk should be ashamed of themselves. That is if they're capable of shame.

The good people of North Carolina passed this legislation because it's a common sense approach at crime prevention that doesn't make special absurd allowances for an insignificant (but extremely vocal) minority group.

The question that has yet to be answered is how many brutal sexual assaults on women and girls would be enough for these strident activists to admit their agenda is not in the best interest of society as a whole.

Pity that you have never been able to present one piece of evidence that supports your fantasy.

Patently false.

The poster Celer et Audax asked, "would this allow heterosexual male sexual predators easier access to these facilities by simply claiming to be "Transgender" and by wearing a dress?"

And I have posted a video which has multiple example of that very thing.

Previously you have argued that these predators were not really transgender ( ), which may or may not be true Who knows? What is undeniably true is that these heterosexual male sexual predators had easier access to these facilities by simply claiming to be "Transgender".

This is why the danger is real and that the good people of North Carolina passed this common sense legislation to help keep society safe from deviants.

Your purported defence of women is a sham. You now admit that the sex offenders that you throw at us with your off topic links and VDO's are likely not Trans people. You are only talking about straight male sex offenders. Well good for you. Why don't you go out and do something about it and stop bothering LGBT people with your hysteria.

Trans people do not need to announce that they are trans when entering a bathroom. Straight people do not do this. Gay people do not do this. Yet your sex offenders all seem to have the need to announce their 'gender identity' when they enter a woman's toilet.

Well isn't that something. What a massive beat up you have generated. To what purpose? The potential risk to women of sexual attack outside a female bathroom will be exactly the same as the potential risk to women of a sexual attack inside a female bathroom. Nothing to do with Trans people performing natural bodily functions. The good people of North Carolina are facing a backlash of momentous proportions - social, economic, financial and soon to be legal because of their blatant stupidity in using anti LGBT hate to retain the ability to discriminate against minorities on the basis of religion. Your hatred of Trans people and efforts at fear mongering are a complete and utter red herring.

You have never been able to present one jot of evidence that supports your claim that there is an increased risk of sexual assault due to allowing Trans people to access female toilets. None. Zero. Zilch. Keep those little fingers flying over the keyboard with Google. Maybe you will strike bingo.

One singer canceling a tour won’t stop a hate bill, but these actions add up. Make no mistake, these are hate bills.

These bills are written to give carte blanche to a wide variety of professionals to discriminate against LGBT people in the course of their jobs.

Why would these crackers do something like this? Hate, ignorance and fear. These are your local Republican governments in action.

Pathetic.

This is much needed push back...brought on by LGBT people purposely targeting business of people of Christian faith...demanding service...such a being forced to make a penis cake for a gay wedding...crying foul when they are politely asked to take their business down the street...where they will be accommodated...

What is hateful...is the lack of respect for all people...not just gay people...

Your people just do not know when to give it a rest...bringing lawsuits against people of faith causes the LGBT more harm than good...

Hate...is in the eye of the beholder...if you could be honest...you would acknowledge that the hate and unreasonable witch-hunt comes from the LGBT community...IMHO

Do I really need to ask what's up with old men and their penis cake fetish? I have been to many weddings for straight couples. Not one of them had a wedding cake in the shape of any genitalia. Not one. Where do you old men get this idea that same sex couples are fixated on genitalia shaped baked goods? Can gay people not eat hot dogs now without looking like Rick Perry 'going down to downtown'? Are gay people not allowed to eat donuts because they are not anatomically appropriate to gay men. So they can only be eaten by straight men and lesbians?

Your push back is as limp as Little GGT appears to be. It is a last gasp of the religious bigots. There are not enough of them to sustain this advance. The numbers of old white reactionaries are diminishing daily. The religious bigots, if not inventing hate, certainly employ it for the benefit of the propagation of their lunacy.

Many countries now have anti hate legislation. Even in America. Kathryn Knott, the daughter of a local police chief jailed fro 5 - 10 months for gay bashing http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Kathryn-Knott-Convicted-in-Center-City-Gay-Bash-Attack-to-Learn-Fate-368025551.html

This is your push back? We LGBT people should give it a rest? And let ourselves be victimised by gangs of people on the street? Just allow any bigot to come up and bash us if they please? If you think hate is in the eye of the beholder, then you have zero moral compass. Don't bother looking to religion to provide one since that is the font and well spring of LGBT hatred. May you continue to enjoy your fantasies about genitalia shaped baked goods.

I have in my head this image: the sexual predator, all dolled up in his dress stalking the women's bathrooms.

A more ludicrous image is hardly imaginable.

Really?

Watch this video which has many horrific examples of exactly that.

The fourth time you have posted this rubbish. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. It is pure scaremongering by people who want to promote anti LGBT hatred.

No data is presented on the context of each offence. No data is presented on the prevalence of this offence. No data is presented on the location or any other contextual element of any of these offences. It is a scam designed to promote ignorance and hate.

would this allow heterosexual male sexual predators easier access to these facilities by simply claiming to be "Transgender" and by wearing a dress?

Of course it would. Those that attempt to minimize or simply dismiss this increased risk should be ashamed of themselves. That is if they're capable of shame.

The good people of North Carolina passed this legislation because it's a common sense approach at crime prevention that doesn't make special absurd allowances for an insignificant (but extremely vocal) minority group.

The question that has yet to be answered is how many brutal sexual assaults on women and girls would be enough for these strident activists to admit their agenda is not in the best interest of society as a whole.

Pity that you have never been able to present one piece of evidence that supports your fantasy. The only shame I feel is that I live in the same country as a bunch of reactionary bigots who spread deliberate falsehoods to promote hatred of LGBT people.

Afghanistan is a conglomeration of ethnicities of which the Taliban is one. Despite the grotesque atrocities they committed under the reign of Mohammad Omar before the NATO led invasion, they are a domestic political entity. The only way to deal with them is to recognise this fact.

ISIS is a foreign import to Afghanistan. It is based in the Sunni sect. The Taliban is Sunni. The majority of Pakistan muslims are Sunni. ISIS defeats in Syria and Iraq have been pushing them more and more into Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I would think that it would be easier to come to a political agreement with the Taliban, which has some political structure and vested interest in domestic politics rather than ISIS which is a regional political opportunistic entity at the moment. In any case, the above posters preference for ISIS to engage the Taliban is pretty much advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing. Since I have some projects in Afghanistan and travel there regularly, I do hope that nobody takes that comment seriously.

I'm in no way advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing as the Taliban are not ethnic to Afghanistan. The majority of Afghans are lovely people and I have many friends there. The Taliban are an import from Pakistan. They are not Afghans. I would like to see every last sorry one of them dead.

If you have some connection with Afghanistan then you know that there is no Afghan ethnicity. It is a multi-ethnic country and the Taliban are from the Pashtu, which is the largest ethnicity with over 40%of the population. Many of the Taliban fighters post ISAF engagement are young villagers who are fighting for a wage or compensation based on injuries inflicted. Saying that you want to wipe out the Taliban is saying that you want to 'cleanse' Afghanistan of the Pashtu.

I think some political settlement is a better solution. They did it in Norther Ireland. They can do it in Afghanistan.

Oooh look - a regressive liberal telling someone what they should and shouldn't say.

How predictable.

What's next? Name calling?

I am gay. I also have a sense of humour. I banter and crack funnies with my friends and work colleagues and sometimes people I hardly know. This is not the case here. It is political speech. Your trivialisation of the issue and stereotyping of a minority was not humorous. It was offensive. I am also anti-religious and an atheist. This is not a function of my sexual orientation. My objection to religious pro-discrimination laws is again a political statement and not related to spirituality at all.

My sexual orientation should not matter at all (in a just world) but the fact that I have to admit that in response to your boorishness is telling. No doubt you think yourself fair minded because you have gay friends? Are you really sure what they think of you?

You believe that anti PC means you can say any stupid thing that you want? Well go to any African American and use the N word. Nothing regressive or liberal about that observation. It is a matter of cultural power. But I guess you are just being humorous here also?

How predictable.

Many of these issue are trivial.

But regressive liberals like you are typical in many ways:

- you like to tell people what they can and cannot say

- you are anti-religion

- you pretend to be offended at a whim

You have only fallen short in not calling me a homophobe - but that is surely around the corner, as is a non-Christian cock-cake shop.

There is no need to force people to participate in gay events. Yet that is what LGBT activists try to do. They go beyond anti-discrimination to forcing people to participate and that is where the line needs to be drawn.

So - if your house is also your hotel, and you are deeply religious - be it Muslim or Christian, then you should be able to refuse gay couples. Similarly, if you make wedding dresses, you should be able to refuse to make a wedding dress for a transgender in a same sex ceremony. Otherwise you are being forced to participate in something you truly believe to be sinful.

And of course, this is why LGBT activists trawl the earth looking for Christian bakeries, hotels looking for the tiny minority that refuse their business so that they can make a big thing about it. They are not content to live and let live, they must force every last person on the planet to actively support their sexuality as opposed to ignoring it.

I am trying to work out which bigotry is operating here. So much bigotry characterise your postings but I cannot work out which bigotry you feel gives you the right of personal abuse. Delivering personal abuse, by the way, at the same time as accusing your antagonist of being about to use personal abuse. I think this is clearly the case of not being able to fix stupid. Trying to have a dialogue with someone who is basically arguing with themselves and projecting what others will say is pretty much a waste of time.

BTW I call BS on the notion that you have any gay friends.

You may keep your assumptions about me and your quite trivial examples of 'religious freedom' for dress makers and bakers. Religious people believing that a gay person is sinful for being gay. Well no point at all responding to that kind of ignorance and Sunday School mentality. Good luck with your Gay friends and your fairy tales.

it is the creepy, sex offender who would wouldn't shy away from pretending to be Trans to his advantage. No one can honestly think that it would never happen.

How real of a risk is it, sex offenders taking advantage of the situation? Is it worth finding out? How many assaults would be ok? Maybe if were someone else's wife/daughter/girlfriend, that would be worth the risk? As a man, I couldn't care less if I was followed into a public toilet late at night by a trans-man (sorry, don't know the proper terms). But I can understand a young woman or teenage girl feeling uncomfortable if she were followed in by a trans-woman.

Great points raised in this post.

Of course no one could reasonably think that it won't happen. In fact, to deny that the number of horrifically violent sexual assaults in women's bathrooms will increase is patently absurd.

Some, however, are more than willing to throw caution to the wind in order to further their political agenda that will allow special rights and privileges to an insignificant minority.

Best question in the post above: How many assaults would be ok?

Is there a number or is it simply unlimited?

There are no verifiable accounts of Trans people assaulting women or girls in female toilets. You have provided no examples in any link or video. This is a non issue because there is absolutely no evidence of what you claim. People in law enforcement, in the legal profession, in LGBT activism all acknowledge that this is not an issue. It is not happening.

Your insistence that there is a link between Trans people and sexual assaults on women and children is off topic. It has been ruled off topic. It has been rejected by everyone.

The number of assaults by Trans people? Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.

Correct, however the debate I believe and I stand to be corrected is not about any link between sexual assaults commuted by "transgender people" but actually about whether "Men" should be allowed access to ladies toilets and changing rooms

Ergo would this allow heterosexual male sexual predators easier access to these facilities by simply claiming to be "Transgender" and by wearing a dress?

I think you stand to be corrected. The topic is about fears created by Transgender access to toilets. It is not about showers. It is not about male sex offenders. It is about a group of Trans activists and supporters trying to raise awareness of Trans issues in response to the religious hate laws adopted in a small number of US states. These activists printout that the more people understand Trans issues, the more accepting they are.

The issue of male sex offenders was introduced by a poster promoting bigotry and hatred towards Trans people. A recent link from that poster shows that this tactic is employed by professional hate groups to incite and inflame feelings against Trans people through the perpetuation of ignorance and stereotyping.

I had responded to another poster who wanted a valid reason why the issue of male sex offenders should not be a concern of people discussing the issue of Trans access to female toilets. So I will ask you - what protections do people who are potential targets of male sex offenders take in going about their every day lives in public and in private? Every such person will probably do an automatic risk assessment based on their own knowledge and experience and the context in which they find themselves. I cannot see that this scenario changes as a result of Trans people using toilets.

I further believe that since all public toilet facilities or facilities in institutions available to the public are under management by some form of authority. The primary responsibility of managing those facilities, including the safety and protect of users of these facilities is in the hands of these authorities. How can they do this? Not being a facilities manager, I don't have all the answers, but usually the provision of information, the application of awareness, the appropriate allocation of resources can all provide solutions. Maybe something as simple as a sign on the door saying this facility is trans accessible and if you don't like it, there is another facility upstairs. I made the reference to the issue of handicapped access to public facilities and the impact that had on facilities management.

I reject the correlation between male sex offenders and trans people using female toilets. It is a political stunt to reinforce bigotry and hatred against the LGBT community. If people are concerned about heterosexual male sex offenders, there are a whole range of things that can be done in terms of law enforcement, public policy and mental health.

Further, not all Trans people identifying as female do so by wearing a dress. Some butch guy wearing a Shirley Temple tutu as shown in one of those provocative, off topic VDO's is clearly not a Trans person but some opportunist trying to get out of trouble. Most sensible people who are aware of risks are able to recognise real threats and have the ability to mitigate these risks without the need of infringing on the dignity of a minority.

This would marginally be news if Brennan was a run of the mil public servant who, after attaining a very, very high level of SES (Senior Executive Service) offered this information upon request or to steady public policy during a change of administrations. However, Brennan is not that man!

Brennan is hand in glove with Obama on disassembly of radical islam. He is instrumental in blinding US policy and training to the unique threat of radical islam and jihad- jihad, a phenomena that has variously haunted many over the ages simply no longer exists at all, according to Brennan. The idea that Brennan would tell a siting president that he would not do something not only seeks to undermine the election process but establish some quasi standard as if he had the power to stop it. Brennan could step down as he offered but could not prevent his agency from doing the will of the Executive. ...another example of misrepresenting the nature of government to Americans! Brennan is a servant, and a poor one at that.

A former aggressive supporter of Enhanced Interrogation, he changed his views when enticed by politics. This alone makes him most repugnant of men but there is more, plenty more. There is a reason there is so much smoke around Brennan's Saudi Time; it constantly leaks out in conjecture, first person accounts, and connect the dots. This man is a chief architect of America's Losing War by Jihad. IMO, when/if the facts are out, Brennan will make Philby look like a patriot!

Brennan

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/22/cia-director-brennan-islamic-state-is-ideology-of-/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/raymond-ibrahim-cia-chief-john-brennans-deceptions-about-islam

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=334_1432700212

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=2577

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/15993

You defend torture but don't have the courage to use the word? Been using the Dick Cheney Book of Doublespeak I see.

You also seem to believe that the People, you know, the Voters in the Electoral Process, and their primacy trumps the law. Pun not intended. If the People elect a person who decides to use torture then it would be most appropriate for any senior official to say, well Mr. President, there is a law against that. But your version of Wild West Democracy is to say that the People have Spoken and the President is unrestrained by any other factor.

Radical Islam is an 'ism'. You can't fight it with tanks, air craft carriers or stealth bombers. Like the war on drugs or the ever present war on minorities, you can't shoot your way to a solution. Criminal activities inspired by what you call radical Islamists is a law enforcement matter. The events in Belgium demonstrate this. Beyond a doubt. You are a big fan of self-evidentiary revelations. Here is one. The EU puzzles are going to sort out terrorists by using the criminal justice system. No Guantanamo needed. No renditions. No 'with us or against us' arrogance. Plain old, solid, steady law enforcement. Using law enforcement techniques will allow them to go from a reactive posture to a more preventative posture in time as their skills and intelligence systems develop.

And guess, what, I do not believe that they will be using torture.

Radical Islam as represented by entities is political. You can try engaging them militarily but this has been demonstrated time after time to be ineffective. 15 years of war in Afghanistan. The war will cease in Afghanistan when a political solution is reached. Don't need you cowboys and your water boards. I've seen enough of those dicks in Kabul to last a lifetime. Fortunately now I deal with State Department people there and not the crazy eyed, gun toting mercenaries, although I still run across a few of them at ISAF.

Your anti Obama polemic doesn't work. How many defeats does the US military need to endure before you realise this? Your military can only destroy. It cannot create or build. Your military does not have the tools nor the culture for it.

I am sure that US agencies will keep their torture. They do after all believe themselves to be above the law. That the end justifies the means. That they are Patriots. But don't be surprised if your antagonists use the same treatments on your forces.

Fake red herring issue.

There is no movement to force religious cake bakers to bake obscene baked products for ANYONE!

Never has been. Never will be.

Geez, the twisted games the opponents of GLBT civil rights play are seemingly endless.

Some bakeries do erotic baked products and it's fair to assume none of them are religious fundamentalists of ANY flavor.

Can you really imagine a bakery that does penis cakes discriminating based on the sexuality of the customers? Come on now.

Duh. Double Duh.

Next ...

Nobody said they were, you klutz.

It was merely injecting a little humor into the debate.

What IS happening is that homosexual couples are suing cake shops for not making cakes with (for example) two male figurines on and "well done Ben and Joe" on them.

Now - the reason you should be allowed to refuse to make the cake is simple. The act of making the cake is participating in the event. It's not refusing someone because you don't like them. It's refusing to participate. There is a huge difference.

If you are devoutly religious and your religion tells you that homosexuality is a mortal sin (something I do not believe), then you should not be forced to participate in any way in a homosexual event.

It is not about prejudice it is about forced participation.

The LGBT community very much has it in for Christians. Muslims get a free pass for some reason, so we don't see LGBT activists trawling southern states looking for Mulsim bakeries to sue. Christians are very much a target.

At the end of the day, I'll bake the bloody cakes. They won't look much - but these Christians have their beliefs. I don't agree - but honestly, it's hardly saving the world forcing them to cook your dick-cake is it?

Deriving humour from debasing other people's dignity. Very funny. Perhaps you should do this in the jokes section or the gay forum and see what response you get. It was and is not very amusing in the context of a political discussion.

Oooh look - a regressive liberal telling someone what they should and shouldn't say.

How predictable.

What's next? Name calling?

I am gay. I also have a sense of humour. I banter and crack funnies with my friends and work colleagues and sometimes people I hardly know. This is not the case here. It is political speech. Your trivialisation of the issue and stereotyping of a minority was not humorous. It was offensive. I am also anti-religious and an atheist. This is not a function of my sexual orientation. My objection to religious pro-discrimination laws is again a political statement and not related to spirituality at all.

My sexual orientation should not matter at all (in a just world) but the fact that I have to admit that in response to your boorishness is telling. No doubt you think yourself fair minded because you have gay friends? Are you really sure what they think of you?

You believe that anti PC means you can say any stupid thing that you want? Well go to any African American and use the N word. Nothing regressive or liberal about that observation. It is a matter of cultural power. But I guess you are just being humorous here also?

How predictable.

You know, honestly, I'm sure some people in the more MAINSTREAM gay and lesbian part of the civil rights movement (especially those who are wealthy white gay men) may think there is too big a political price to pay for including TRANSGENDER people into the movement. After all, sexual orientation and gender I.D. are NOT the same thing.

Transgender people are even more stigmatized and their numbers indeed are quite low. But, bottom line, it's the RIGHT thing to do (as opposed to right WING). Basic CIVIL RIGHTS for all citizens, even the most unpopular.

Anyway ... to borrow from Thai politics: STRONGER TOGETHER.

I agree and I have witnessed the internal arguments about this issue among activists. I am also frank about my own uncomfortableness with engaging with Trans people and Trans issues, so it is not surprising the many non LGBT people and LGBT people alike have to confront their prejudices. Thailand is a good place to start. In most other countries they are marginalised geographically to red light districts and many are restricted to finding employment in entertainment related industries. It really wasn't until Priscilla, Queen of the Desert came out in Australia in 1994 that talking about Trans people moved from the dark alleys to more mainstream there. But for all that is wrong with the Kardashians, Caitlin's coming out was probably a signature event for Trans people. Not that some will admit it!

Sexual Assault Victims Speak Out Against Washington’s Transgender Bathroom Policies

OLYMPIA, Wash.—A group of women who say they are former victims of sexual assault are making an emotional plea to Washington state legislators to reverse a bathroom policy that they say leaves them and their young children vulnerable, exposed and unsafe.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/25/sexual-assault-victims-speak-out-against-washingtons-transgender-bathroom-policies/

Again, nothing to do with Trans people using toilets. Anecdotes of male sexual offences against women. No mention of Trans people. Just the same tactics that are being used to promote hate against LGBT people." Trans people are only 1% so why cater for them". "There will be increased risk to women (while presenting absolutely no evidence)." All the same hate speech we have seen from a tiny number of posters on this thread.

People wanting to maintain the right to discriminate against LGBT people. The very type of people who promote the religious anti LGBT laws in the first place. You want us to believe these people? When they present their stories that have nothing to do with Trans people?

Google Bingo Desperation. Increased risk to women and children through Trans people using toilets is not an issue. Law enforcement acknowledges this. The legal community acknowledge this. Everyone but the religious bigots acknowledge this.

Afghanistan is a conglomeration of ethnicities of which the Taliban is one. Despite the grotesque atrocities they committed under the reign of Mohammad Omar before the NATO led invasion, they are a domestic political entity. The only way to deal with them is to recognise this fact.

ISIS is a foreign import to Afghanistan. It is based in the Sunni sect. The Taliban is Sunni. The majority of Pakistan muslims are Sunni. ISIS defeats in Syria and Iraq have been pushing them more and more into Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I would think that it would be easier to come to a political agreement with the Taliban, which has some political structure and vested interest in domestic politics rather than ISIS which is a regional political opportunistic entity at the moment. In any case, the above posters preference for ISIS to engage the Taliban is pretty much advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing. Since I have some projects in Afghanistan and travel there regularly, I do hope that nobody takes that comment seriously.

Just caught up with this thread.

Goodness me, what a load of codswallop!

Someone on here indicates that because I am not an American citizen I should not comment. Well, if you stayed within your own borders and stopped messing up half the world you might have a point!

Another poster states that the situation was a combination of animal farm and George Orwell! Laugh? I nearly did.....

Look, the rest of the world don't whether to be embarrassed or worried that you might choose someone as unsuitable, abhorrent even, as Trump or Cruz

I am genuinely appalled that so many Americans here could support such people. I do hope that you are not a representative sample.

It seems to me that The USA is going downhill. The education system is dreadful and inequality is frightening.

Please choose a grown up to be president

Nothing forcing you to go to the US. So you don't need to deal with all the riff raff you so disdain. BTW, the ONLY candidate promising to pull the US back from its involvement abroad, where both the Dems and Reps have "mess[ed] up half the world" is, guess who? Donald Trump. Proof again, you really don't understand the country or its candidates. Stay home.

Multiple non sequiturs I'm afraid. What makes you think I want to go to to the states again? The issue was whether it was reasonable for non American citizens to comment. In fact, and at the risk of boring other contributors I have been fortunate enough to live there on three separate occasions ( Austin, Texas; Cambridge, Mass and Los Gatos, Ca since you ask). Great times - I still stream KLBJ FM 94! But no place to bring up kids sorry to say. No miss the point. I thing it's reasonable for the rest of the world to take a view and yes, feel worried about what's going on. Your are the super power and I wish you would take the responsibility seriously. I, for one look forward to seeing Bill back on the White House.

Non sequitur does not mean what you seem to think it means. BTW, nobody asked where you lived.

So prove him wrong. Tell us what non sequitur means and how it was misused by the poster? Pretty obvious that you are making statements unrelated to the posters earlier comments.

Always amusing when foreign immigrants to Thailand tell other foreigners to stay home! Pretty much proves an absence of substance hence the need for non sequiturs.

it is the creepy, sex offender who would wouldn't shy away from pretending to be Trans to his advantage. No one can honestly think that it would never happen.

How real of a risk is it, sex offenders taking advantage of the situation? Is it worth finding out? How many assaults would be ok? Maybe if were someone else's wife/daughter/girlfriend, that would be worth the risk? As a man, I couldn't care less if I was followed into a public toilet late at night by a trans-man (sorry, don't know the proper terms). But I can understand a young woman or teenage girl feeling uncomfortable if she were followed in by a trans-woman.

Great points raised in this post.

Of course no one could reasonably think that it won't happen. In fact, to deny that the number of horrifically violent sexual assaults in women's bathrooms will increase is patently absurd.

Some, however, are more than willing to throw caution to the wind in order to further their political agenda that will allow special rights and privileges to an insignificant minority.

Best question in the post above: How many assaults would be ok?

Is there a number or is it simply unlimited?

There are no verifiable accounts of Trans people assaulting women or girls in female toilets. You have provided no examples in any link or video. This is a non issue because there is absolutely no evidence of what you claim. People in law enforcement, in the legal profession, in LGBT activism all acknowledge that this is not an issue. It is not happening.

Your insistence that there is a link between Trans people and sexual assaults on women and children is off topic. It has been ruled off topic. It has been rejected by everyone.

The number of assaults by Trans people? Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.

And then there are people who are getting tired of the small special interest groups who insist that they are entitled to special treatment. Enough already.

Well that's your problem. The rest of us don't care. Deal with it.

No, not a problem at all. The problem lies with the 5% of the population that thinks the other 95% should give in to their demands, lol. Asinine outlook on life, really.

5%? Is this the gay marriage thread? I think the trans part is much closer to 0.005%.

I have no problem with gay marriage but at the time opponents were saying that demanding marriage was only the beginning and that the next demand would be for people to marry pets or children. After all, these people are born with those desires, they aren't learned...true?

Well, we are now in the middle of that next demand, toilet rights. I'm curious what the demand after this one will be.

Springsteen & Bryan Adams - looking for some added publicity? Or an excuse not to play a gig? They could certainly do more using the stage as a pulpit rather than not going at all.

Yes, those pesky gays. Even worse than your father's generation of uppity blacks. All that marching and demanding their rights. Well with the Scalia SCOTUS gutting the Voter Rights Act, the good ol' boys are putting a stop to them. Same with the gays right. They got the marriage ruling but they won't stop. All the fears will come true. People will want to marry their dogs or their lawn-mowers.

This nonsense was nonsense back during the marriage equality discussions. It remains nonsense now. It merely serves to trivialise the issue of respecting the dignity of LGBT people. So what if the numbers are small. You have no grounds for assuming any percentage. You are just pulling that number out of your bum. In any case, it has no relevance.

Where does it stop? Easy, when minorities have equal protection under the law as any other person. When minorities cannot be discriminated against in terms of access to public facilities or public funds on the basis of their minority status. Not really such a big concept to get your head around. And not related at all to the promotion of bestiality or necrophilia or any other non conformist sexual practice. Just equality under the law. In such an environment, people who promote discrimination will have to face consequences. I look forward to that day.