Ah.....
You nailed it, yet, you missed the irony of it....
It's ok to make others uncomfortable for the sake of them being comfortable  

You can't see that?

Yes, you are right, it has existed  all along, and as the Clinton's said, don't ask, don't tell. Seemed to work in an ignorant is bliss mentality  

I think the gay movement is about acceptance, not really about peeing in a bathroom.
Use to be said they wanted the government to stay out of their bedroom, but now it seems all are invited  

I believe it all boils down to wanting to be accepted and acknowledged, and it's a fact our system smiles upon a heterosexual married white couple with a white picket fence around their house of 2 and a half kids and a dog and cat......
However, I feel laws forcing anyone to accept that of which they are against in a belief will ever achieve its desired goal.
It only serves to keep bigotry alive and well, no matter how well meaning it is.....
You have to change people's hearts, and folks ain't willing to be that vulnerable!

The issue is, can they choose
Why do they 'get to choose', but the others in the vast majority, do not get to choose? When this issue first popped up here in my town, all the girls (real girls that is)signed a petition stating they did not way a boy to use their bathroom. I don't recall how that situation ended but thanks to a recent case, a judge decided those 100 girls who said no, don't  matter. They don't get to choose. Their feelings get tossed aside as not being valuable. If those 100 feel uncomfortable, too bad because this one guy feels uncomfortable so we're gonna put him ahead of you. Why?

Which is my bigger point. Why? Why are we even having a discussion in a court of law? How did we get here? This is not 'progress'; this is decay.

It's really all too confusing... but... these people do exist... and they will use a bathroom...
It's not confusing at all, it's very black and white. If you stand up to pee, don't go in the girls room. Pretty simple. Hey, I'm sorry a few people have this affliction. And it is an affliction. We should look for ways to help, not enable. Given a choice between cutting off a finger and getting laid, most teenage boys would say, 'aw hell, I can work with 9 fingers' and start unzipping. Seriously, teenagers don't have the capacity to think beyond their noses which is why we have put in place all kinds of efforts to help them get past those years. Why in the hell then are we allowing a boy to make a decision like this that will follow him for life?

That boy can't even walk into a bar and have a drink, but you think it's a good idea for him to say "I'm a girl and I want to $hit next to the other girls.  I want to change in their locker rooms." You think it's a good idea to let a 16 year old make that call?

...but it won't change the fact that there are people that don't feel that either door applies...
There are mentally disturbed people that don't feel all kinds of things apply but we don't change common sense actions with the history of mankind behind them to accommodate 1 out of 10,000 or 100,000.

You want to face reality, or bury your head in the sand?...
I am facing reality. The reality is the 100 other high school girls who don't want a mentally disturbed boy in their bathrooms, locker rooms and showers have the right to say no.

WebsterMark wrote on 04/19/16 at 18:09:26:


Yea. Find any loop hole to exploit the system.

I identify as a canine. I'm going to lift my led and urinate on a fire hydrant near a school. Let's see if my individual rights are upheld.


--Steve

She has servants cover mirrors at eight pm. A glimpse of that face and even she can't sleep.

Let's go simple Bot.....
Are they both bigots then?

I read these comments below a little while ago. Your position Sew is this woman's point of view is meaningless. The position of girls in high school who object to the boy who sued and won to use their bathroom and locker rooms is meaningless. The feelings of 100's get dismissed to accommodate the very specific feelings of one boy who we pass laws saying he isn't even competent enough to enter into a contract, drink alcohol, own a gun, maybe be drive a car at night with passengers, yet we say he can claim the feelings he has give him the right to insert himself in the private lives of hundreds of others with a different gender than his. Does that even make sense?

When I was 20 I moved to an idyllic New England town where I was working a college internship.  A few weeks in I needed some things from a grocery store a mile or so away from where I lived.  It was a beautiful day so I decided to enjoy some fresh air and sunshine on a walk to the store.  Part way to the store two guys were talking in a driveway that I passed.  The men said, “Hey little girl, do you want to play?”  Then they walked toward the street where I was walking.  I pretended to not hear what they said and quickly walked past the driveway.  Luckily, the men just stopped and laughed and didn’t come all the way to where I was.  But I also knew I still had to come home, and that was the only way to go that I knew.  It was a scary situation for me and I never enjoyed a solo walk in that town again.  A man doesn’t understand that type of experience.  The difference in muscle mass from a man to a woman makes some things more threatening to me than they would be to a man.  To this day my husband teases me about taking mace with me when I walk.

Then there’s the guy who doesn’t like it when you aren’t interested in him and starts showing a jerky side and you hope it doesn’t turn too aggressive.  Or when there’s a rape very nearby where you live.  You don’t let security concerns rule your life but you try to be realistic and think ahead about the safeness of situations that you put yourself in.  So you make choices like not being alone in a parking garage, especially at night.  You carry mace, or whatever, and try not to draw attention to yourself in some situations.  It’s just common sense and, sadly, a small part of being a woman.

In 2012 Canada passed their own “bathroom bill” similar to the one the city of Charlotte passed recently.  The bill guaranteed that men who “identify” as women had the right to use public women’s facilities (not limited to locker rooms and bathrooms).  In 2014 a man was placed in the women’s shelter of a homeless shelter in Toronto because he identified as a woman and, pursuant to the law passed in 2012, had the right to be in the woman’s shelter.  Immediately women in the shelter complained of him peeking in the cracks of showers, etc.  And there were several sexual assaults.  Who knew this could happen?  The LGBT lobbyists said that anyone who had security concerns about a “bathroom bill” was saying that transgender people were pedophiles and that there were no legitimate concerns with having transgender people in the bathroom.  But any woman could have told you this was a possibility, it’s just common sense that we deal with every day.

In 1999 a convicted murderer in Australia used the Australian laws to force authorities to move him to a women’s prison because he identified as a woman.  While in women’s prison he raped his cell mate and after several other assaults, and one person pregnant he finally got moved back to the men’s prison.  Who could have seen that coming?  Duh, any woman you asked.

The list goes on and on.  From a college that had to change back from unisex bathrooms after peeping and cell phone videotaping, to the 45 yr old transgender “woman” who keeps exposing his male genitalia to the swim team in the locker room of newly enlightened Washington State.  These incidents are surprising to no woman, only common sense is required to foresee a problem.

the point is,.. there are men that identify as woman, and there are women that identify as men... there are also people that are literally something in between...
Either way you decide the issue,... all granddaughters and grandsons will have to deal with one type or the other...
Do you honestly have a preference?...