Are online shoppers who use their toilets at home homophobes?

[as seen on tv]

I purchased a “Dyson Stick” vacuum for my mom this weekend. She’s had back problems the last several months. X rays. MRI scans. Percoset. Physical Therapy. Culminating with s spinal steroid injection last week. Yes, she’s doing better now – thanks for asking. But no more heavy lifting. Don’t take that heavy corded bathroom up and down stairs. That sort of thing.

So we schlepped out to the department store, which was advertising “1/3 off all Dyson vacuums”. The ones that usually cost 2 paychecks because they’re made by elves in England. Oh wait. . . they’re not anymore? Dyson moved all production to Malaysia? Well, perhaps that’s why they’re 1/3 off. Anyway, $399 (on sale) is still an eye popping price to pay for a rechargeable vacuum you can lift with one finger, no?

They didn’t have it in stock. The original story from Connie Clerk was “we keep them in the back so customers don’t steal them and run out the door”. 15 minutes later more bad news. “The $399 isn’t in in the backk either. Would you like to buy the $549 one? It’s also on sale, originally priced $799”

Um, thanks but no thanks. Don’t worry mom. I think we can get the one you wanted at Amazon. And while we sat in the parking lot at Wendys (the 4 for $4 meal) a short time later I ordered the Dyson of her desire for $398. Free shipping because I’m joining Amazon Prime.

“But when will I get it?” Mom asked. Her cats are shedding up a storm – it’s spring. And she hasn’t been able to vacuum since this back thing started.

“Not to worry mom – it’s free two day shipping. It’ll be here no later than Monday afternoon”.

“That fast? Oh my goodness.”

Of course I didn’t share the bad news with mom. We wouldn’t be able to use the transgendered bathrooms at the store, as a show of support for the LGBT community. And the Dyson order would be fulfilled by some warehouse clerk in Amazon City earning $10 an hour. Rather than the clerk earning $10 at the local store that didn’t even have it in stock. And of course, let's not forget all those former Dyson workers in Wiltshire, England who were replaced by workers in Penang Malaysia. Is there a way I can check and see if there are locally made, non-GMO vacuums made with sustainable practices in my own community? No? Stop laughing at me - it's a legitimate question.

It wasn’t too long ago that hard core activists were ranting against “big box stores” like Target and Wal-Mart for “destroying main street”.

Now the political left, as well as the middle and the right, are all online shoppers. Target's recent announcement that anyone can use the bathroom that seems most interesting to them isn’t going to reverse the online trend. Gay activists are unlikely to march in favor of Target while simultaneously carrying “I hate North Carolina” placards.

Just so you know, my mom and I are NOT anti-gay. When a gay person comes to mom’s house, or my apartment, they’re free to use any bathroom they want. Please just don’t insist that we come inside while they do their business, as a show of solidarity, though.

That’s what the activists and Target are missing here. What (most) people want when they use the bathroom is privacy. Not a political statement made by someone who wants to turn an unfamiliar restroom into a podium for their politics.

 

[Arkady]

What (most) people want when they use the bathroom is privacy.

Yes. The same is true for transgender people. If you want to pry into their genitals before granting them access to the bathroom of the gender they identify as, isn't the breach of privacy on your part?

On a side note, I love Amazon Prime. It makes shopping so cheap and convenient, while giving you streaming media, too.

 

[as seen on tv]

Yes. The same is true for transgender people. If you want to pry into their genitals before granting them access to the bathroom of the gender they identify as, isn't the breach of privacy on your part?

On a side note, I love Amazon Prime. It makes shopping so cheap and convenient, while giving you streaming media, too.

I want to make sure my daughter is safe when she uses a "public restroom". I don't see how that's possible if any man can enter it for any reason.

 

[Arkady]

I want to make sure my daughter is safe when she uses a "public restroom". I don't see how that's possible if any man can enter it for any reason.

I don't think that's what's on the table. Instead, what's on the table is allowing people who identify as women to use a women's bathroom regardless of which set of chromosomes and genitals they have.

 

[marvin martian]

I don't think that's what's on the table. Instead, what's on the table is allowing people who identify as women to use a women's bathroom regardless of which set of chromosomes and genitals they have.

So are you saying that a man who "identifies" as a woman, despite having male chromosomes and male genitalia, isn't a man?

 

[Arkady]

So are you saying that a man who "identifies" as a woman, despite having male chromosomes and male genitalia, isn't a man?

No. What makes you think that I'm saying that, exactly? I made no claim one way or the other about whether a person who identifies as a woman, despite having male chromosomes and genitals, is a man. I simply said that the question that's on the table is whether to allow people who identify as women to use the women's bathroom regardless of which set of chromosomes or genitals they have.

 

[marvin martian]

No. What makes you think that I'm saying that, exactly? I made no claim one way or the other about whether a person who identifies as a woman, despite having male chromosomes and genitals, is a man. I simply said that the question that's on the table is whether to allow people who identify as women to use the women's bathroom regardless of which set of chromosomes or genitals they have.

OK, so which way do you fall on that issue?

 

[Arkady]

OK, so which way do you fall on that issue?

On which issue? The issue of who should use which bathroom? I'm a big fan of individual choice, so absent a strong argument for government intervening to impose a specific definition of gender, I'd just leave it to individuals to decide which gender they identify as, and thereby which facilities they'll use. Perhaps my mind could be changed by a good argument for having Big Brother impose some other rule from the top down, but I haven't heard it yet.

How about you? Where do you fall on the issue?

 

[marvin martian]

On which issue? The issue of who should use which bathroom? I'm a big fan of individual choice, so absent a strong argument for government intervening to impose a specific definition of gender, I'd just leave it to individuals to decide which gender they identify as, and thereby which facilities they'll use. Perhaps my mind could be changed by a good argument for having Big Brother impose some other rule from the top down, but I haven't heard it yet.

How about you? Where do you fall on the issue?

So you're good with the "man in a dress" scenario.

I personally would prefer men with penises use the men's room, whether they consider themselves men or not. But, that's because I value the privacy and safety of women.

 

[Arkady]

So you're good with the "man in a dress" scenario.

I don't know what you mean.

I personally would prefer men with penises use the men's room, whether they consider themselves men or not. But, that's because I value the privacy and safety of women.

How about the privacy and safety of people who identify as women but have penises?

Just to be clear, would you set the rule based on the presence or absence of a penis? So, for example, if someone looked like this and had been living as a man for years, but didn't have a penis, would you want that person to use the women's bathroom?

Or say you're a veteran who lost his penis to a landmine in Afghanistan. Should you then be using the women's bathroom, even if you still consider yourself a man?

 

[marvin martian]

I don't know what you mean.

Of course not, because you're a weasel.

How about the privacy and safety of people who identify as women but have penises?

I'm much more concerned with the statistically significant group; women and girls who don't need to be subjected to men in dresses coming into their bathroom to prove a political point or commit a felony. Once we resolve that problem, we can move on to dealing with the minuscule percentage of men living as women.

 

[Arkady]

Of course not, because you're a weasel.



I'm much more concerned with the statistically significant group; women and girls who don't need to be subjected to men in dresses coming into their bathroom to prove a political point or commit a felony. Once we resolve that problem, we can move on to dealing with the minuscule percentage of men living as women.

OK, you're more concerned with one group than the other. Got it. But that doesn't change the fact you dodged the questions. If we're to resolve the issue, we need to decide what the rule is going to be. So, what should it be, exactly? I asked if you would set it entirely based on the absence or presence of a penis. You didn't answer. How can we hope to resolve the issue if a good portion of the population is only interested in formless fear-mongering, rather than getting down to policy specifics?

 

[as seen on tv]

Of course not, because you're a weasel.



I'm much more concerned with the statistically significant group; women and girls who don't need to be subjected to men in dresses coming into their bathroom to prove a political point or commit a felony. Once we resolve that problem, we can move on to dealing with the minuscule percentage of men living as women.

I'm not sure what people "with penises" who identify as women and want to use the women's lavatory hope to accomplish - except for . ..

a - flashing their junk to women who were actually born as women, or

b - catching a free look at women who were actually born women.

arkady and his fellow travelers will always place the hurt feelings of a tiny sliver of minor viewpoints over the feelings of the vast majority who are weirded out by invasions of their privacy by cross dressers.

 

[as seen on tv]

On which issue? The issue of who should use which bathroom? I'm a big fan of individual choice, so absent a strong argument for government intervening to impose a specific definition of gender, I'd just leave it to individuals to decide which gender they identify as, and thereby which facilities they'll use. Perhaps my mind could be changed by a good argument for having Big Brother impose some other rule from the top down, but I haven't heard it yet.

How about you? Where do you fall on the issue?

it's the individual choice of millions and millions of women not to be forced to share a public restroom with some guy wearing a dress, flashing his junk at them.

 

[connieb]

OK, you're more concerned with one group than the other. Got it. But that doesn't change the fact you dodged the questions. If we're to resolve the issue, we need to decide what the rule is going to be. So, what should it be, exactly? I asked if you would set it entirely based on the absence or presence of a penis. You didn't answer. How can we hope to resolve the issue if a good portion of the population is only interested in formless fear-mongering, rather than getting down to policy specifics?

First of all - there should be no issue to resolve. This idea of "trans:" anything is only about the rest of the world playing along with some freak's versions of dress-up. Except in very very rare occasions of an unfortunate soul who is actually born with androgynous sex organs.

But, since you want an actual rule.

The rule should be this if you have a penis -you use the men's room.

If you WANT to have a penis or if your mental illness leads you to believe that you should have had a penis, you use the men's room.

All sorts of nasty disgusting things have been happening in the mens rooms for - well since mens rooms were invented. Freaks would attempt hook-ups, have sex, etc. Already - which is why every mother and father with a brain in their heads have already not allowed their boys - to use the room unaccompanied. The women's room by contrast rarely had such nastyness going on in there, and thus resulting in a safer less risky bathroom experience.

 

[Craig]

I'm not sure what people "with penises" who identify as women and want to use the women's lavatory hope to accomplish - except for . ..

a - flashing their junk to women who were actually born as women, or

b - catching a free look at women who were actually born women.

arkady and his fellow travelers will always place the hurt feelings of a tiny sliver of minor viewpoints over the feelings of the vast majority who are weirded out by invasions of their privacy by cross dressers.

Because...you know...

...Rudner speaks candidly about the things that worry him when it comes to raising a daughter — one of which is not whether she uses the bathroom with transgender women.

I worry about her being sexually assaulted, because that happens a lot. I worry about her being the victim of a drunk driver, because that happens a lot. I worry about her being the victim of gun violence, because lots of people die from gun-related injuries. Here's what I do not worry about: I don't worry about her being attacked in a restroom by a trans woman because (a) it has never happened; and (b) trans women are the most victimized group of people I've ever met, and the least likely to commit a crime of indecency in a restroom, because they are afraid of getting beat up when all they want to do is pee...


https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/dads-epic-takedown-anti-trans-174200679.html

all they want to do is pee...and to enter the men's room is dangerous. As you see, even here, physical threats are the norm.

 

[Craig]

OK, you're more concerned with one group than the other. Got it. But that doesn't change the fact you dodged the questions. If we're to resolve the issue, we need to decide what the rule is going to be. So, what should it be, exactly? I asked if you would set it entirely based on the absence or presence of a penis. You didn't answer. How can we hope to resolve the issue if a good portion of the population is only interested in formless fear-mongering, rather than getting down to policy specifics?

It seems an impossible task to get through to these folks. They are insistent these crimes will multiply a 1000 fold, even though 12 states have had these laws for years and sometimes decades and the instances of what the right here insists is happening...simply has not happened.

You often speak of understanding true dangers and this is yet another example. Family and Friend Danger is far far more common than Stranger Danger.

Here, a lost child was afraid of his rescuers...so greatly had "Stranger Danger" been inculcated into his psyche. Trust issues will likely haunt this individual their entire life.

Brennan Hawkins, the 11-year-old Utah Boy Scout who was found on Tuesday after going missing for four days, told his family that he was afraid rescuers "would steal him," perhaps delaying authorities from finding him in the mountains outside of Salt Lake City.

That leaves the question of whether society focuses too much on the wrong thing when teaching kids to protect themselves from being "stolen," as Brennan put it?

Consider these numbers: Every day in this country about 2,000 children are reported missing. That means close to 800,000 kids are reported missing every year, but only 115 kids a year are victims of what is viewed as classic stranger abductions. So is the stranger-danger lesson maybe outdated?...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8331335/#.VxuYIbBNPr4

As many on the right even contest the idea that homosexuals are hard wired and not just some perversion, they will never begin to accept the idea of transgenders.

 

[marvin martian]

arkady and his fellow travelers will always place the hurt feelings of a tiny sliver of minor viewpoints over the feelings of the vast majority who are weirded out by invasions of their privacy by cross dressers.

Exactly, and therein lies the problem. There will always be a minuscule minority "opposition" to any societal or cultural norm. Catering to that tiny fragment has become one of the central tenets of modern American progreSSivism. @Arkady and the other DNCers on the board have become the vanguard of that movement, to always, always vilify the societal/cultural norm in favor of the bizarre and shocking.

 

[as seen on tv]

First of all - there should be no issue to resolve. This idea of "trans:" anything is only about the rest of the world playing along with some freak's versions of dress-up. Except in very very rare occasions of an unfortunate soul who is actually born with androgynous sex organs.

But, since you want an actual rule.

The rule should be this if you have a penis -you use the men's room.

If you WANT to have a penis or if your mental illness leads you to believe that you should have had a penis, you use the men's room.

All sorts of nasty disgusting things have been happening in the mens rooms for - well since mens rooms were invented. Freaks would attempt hook-ups, have sex, etc. Already - which is why every mother and father with a brain in their heads have already not allowed their boys - to use the room unaccompanied. The women's room by contrast rarely had such nastyness going on in there, and thus resulting in a safer less risky bathroom experience.

good reply. I'd go a step further . . .

if you're dressed/tatted like the guy below, you cannot use a human restroom, since you are 100% committed to pretending that you're a lower life form.

 

[as seen on tv]

Exactly, and therein lies the problem. There will always be a minuscule minority "opposition" to any societal or cultural norm. Catering to that tiny fragment has become one of the central tenets of modern American progreSSivism. @Arkady and the other DNCers on the board have become the vanguard of that movement, to always, always vilify the societal/cultural norm in favor of the bizarre and shocking.

we need to get back to "let's hold a vote on that".

the idea that extremist special interest groups can dictate the norms of social behavior with the consent of the masses has to be challenged.