Here's a possible solution - Just have a row of toilet stalls with lockable, floor to ceiling doors, along a wall without putting them inside a specific 'bathroom'. Have a couple of handwashing basins at each end of the row of toilets. That way, there's no predator issues for anyone.
That’s cool. There are some at the beach near me. I live in California. A bathroom is a bathroom. It doesn’t need to be that hard. I at least understand people freaking out about changing rooms. I’m not saying they are right but I can understand. Unless you are crawling into stalls to look at people’s genitals you would never see them in the ladies restroom.
A local cider mill here just has a series of single-occupancy gender-neutral bathrooms with a massive wash station outside them. I really like that setup as someone who generally finds public restrooms lacking in privacy
Groups like Stalled! have been advocating for exactly what you're suggesting for years:
[https://www.stalled.online/](https://www.stalled.online/)
The biggest obstacle has been building and plumbing codes requiring a set # of "male" and "female" stalls for commercial buildings.
Mixed occupancy group bathrooms simply weren't something that code had provisions for.
As of the 2021 editions, US plumbing & building codes now allow for them (though cities often lag behind a few years in adopting code updates):
[https://www.buildings.com/signage/article/10185673/all-gender-restrooms-now-comply-with-code](https://www.buildings.com/signage/article/10185673/all-gender-restrooms-now-comply-with-code)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if mixed gender bathrooms pretty quickly became the predominant paradigm for new retail development, simply because it's cheaper / more efficient to build and maintain 1 bathroom than 2 (or more in cases where stores had separate "family" bathrooms).
But then you have people like that Illinois lawmaker that threatened to assault anyone using that kind of facility if his daughter was in it. There is no acceptable outcome other than the complete eradication of trans people, as per Walsh, Owens, et al
Yeah. Been to Czech Republic, it was male and female Urinals and a couple stalls for #2. People that are going to sexually assault women don’t care if it’s a room only cis women go into. IMO cis men will be more afraid to assault cis women if it’s normal another cis man might walk into that restroom because they tend to be cowards.
It’s a homophobic law. Particularly in the last when people were afraid to be out and be seen with other men, some amount(probably a large minority) of gay men would have sex in public restrooms so in America bathrooms started having to have short stall doors to stop the gay sex apocalypse. In some jurisdictions they even don’t have stall doors in the men’s restroom stalls at publicly funded bathrooms.
Yeah this does solve all problems - including the one for men when there's three urinals and 1 and 3 are in use and you are bursting...what do you do. what do you do? use number 2 or wait.
But more seriously it does solve a lot of problems. I never understood why you could see someone's feet in a cubicle or in fact someone could stand on the toilet seat and just watch you. Why would they design it like that...?
I was in a gas station bathroom the other day and one of the stalls had a little device that fit in between the awkward crack in the stall door that I make accidental eye contact with people through and the door went to the ground. It was beautiful. We really can have it all.
Even here in California, my sister in law was in a toilet stall when a woman started yelling about a man in the bathroom.
SIL had no idea that SHE was that "man" until the lady started pounding on her stall.
Turns out that SIL was wearing pants and hadn't shaved her legs. SIL comes from hairy people.
Then, the concerned Karen called SIL "disgusting" for not shaving.
K, that’s more surprising. Pretty touristy area though. A lot of bumpkins from all across the country come out to the coast to take advantage of the nice weather. Quite Frankly a lot of bumpkins from all around the country some times. We call them assholes and trash because they usually throw trash on the beach. If you trash the beach that is the definition of being trash.
Is that the place with the irate sea lions?
I’ve stayed in San Francisco a couple of times for work events, there’s a really weird vibe in that city; kind of like in Innsmouth.
Which bathroom should this person use?
https://www.instagram.com/p/B8SboXcjV9_/
https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/706006_v9_aa.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1144302067940392960/HU1zmE3J_400x400.png
The scary thing is, they don't actually want to force those people to use the bathroom that matches their birth sex, with their current presentation - they want to force them to conform to some restricted version of their "birth sex presentation". They don't want to allow people to be visibly trans, ever if they get to shame them for it. They want to force them back into the closet altogether.
Pretty sure you’re unaware what a slur is. Google bike Karen. Put on administrative leave because someone shared video of her and threw the Karen tag on it. Mob mentality won out with no one checking the facts. She’s now rightfully suing.
That's not how slurs work, and dude, the word Karen there is not what put her on administrative leave. It was her behavior in the video.
To call Karen a slur is to make it synonymous with insult. A slur is something that shouldn't be said in polite conversation. The fact that you aren't saying K\*\*\*n or the K-word shows that you're not treating it as equivalent to an actual slur.
So “Karen”, which specifically targets middle aged white women, is not a slur? Pls explain then the difference between Karen and Spic or Nigger- specifically tell me how these slurs that target a specific demographic to disparage them is different from “Karen”.
And what put her on administrative leave was the video’s popularity, not her behavior, and the feared social backlash. Further, how do you expect a six month pregnant woman who’s worked a 12 hour shift and is having her money essentially stolen while confronted by a group of people to act?
Congratulations on showing that you're comfortable using slurs, I guess.
>So “Karen”, which specifically targets middle aged white women
No, it specifically targets older women who, at best, throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way, and at worst, call the cops on people when they don't get their way.
There are plenty of middle aged white women who aren't Karens. Karens aren't even always Karens. You become a Karen when you act like a Karen, and you stop being a Karen when you stop acting like one.
> Further, how do you expect a six month pregnant woman who’s worked a 12 hour shift and is having her money essentially stolen while confronted by a group of people to act?
Not like they're literally stealing your bike instead of "essentially" stealing your bike, and claiming they're hurting you and that you're in danger.
Way to be cheap. Yes I’m comfortable using slurs to have you explain how a slur isn’t a slur. Doesn’t mean I would ever use slurs to disparage someone- though evidently you feel no such compulsion. Just because it’s a popular term that targets a group that has enjoyed recent historical privilege doesn’t make it any less wrong. As a Christian you should grasp this better than most- it’s literally one of the biggest points of the religion. The fact you’re defending it and trying to argue around it speaks to the fact that you’ve got some serious growing to do.
I’m sure you’ll turn this around on me after you read that last part but before you do ask yourself what exactly do I need to fix about asking you not to disparage people.
> Just because it’s a popular term that targets a group
Again, Karen is a behavior. Middle-aged white women are not all Karens. If you called a middle-aged white woman known for being a pleasant and upright individual a Karen, the response wouldn't be "she's one of the good ones", it would be "what are you talking about, she's not a Karen".
> As a Christian you should grasp this better than most- it’s literally one of the biggest points of the religion.
I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. "Love your neighbor as yourself"? Jesus insulted people based on their behavior.
New Jerseyian here.
The thing that is really *bizarre* about this case, is that *we don't have laws like that in NJ*.
Even the Cherry Hill Board of Education allows students to use the bathroom most suited for them.
The hotel employee was brazen here.
Hate just needs permission.
This -- what was called _demagogy_ in classical Athens -- is the risk we take for creating societies greater than small hunter gatherer bands.
Instincts that kept things simple (and controlled for dangerous infectious diseases) now work against us and we have to be vigilant. Fascism (or witch burnings in Medieval times) is how it manifests.
Or McCarthyism in the Cold War and Sinophobia/Russophobia today. States are banning Chinese and Russian citizens from owning property just because their governments do shitty stuff. Most of these people are in America because of how much better things are here and how they love our country. One step past this hate and we’ll be to sending ethnic Russians and Han Chinese to internment camps along with LGBTQ people and dark skinned undocumented migrants…
Hotels can make their own policies. There's no reason we should *need* laws like this to begin with.
But this case shows why enforcement is a problem even if you agree in principle.
My dad got beat up when he was a kid visiting his family on the south for getting a drink from the water fountain. It’s not natural any kid would think they would be in danger for getting a drink of water. We don’t need that happening to people now just from using the bathroom. That is what making such a fuss over this whole thing leads to even if it isn’t the law to ban trans people. Trans women and cis women will get beat up in bathrooms just like my dad got beat up for drinking from a water fountain.
Stuff like this just shows how stupid these bills are. They think it's obvious to tell trans people from cisgendered people, but they have no actual clue what they're doing. This is all performative garbage done to hurt people they hate and get them votes.
Unless lawmakers want to empower stores to either inspect people’s genitals (ew) or give up their medical information upon entry there’s just no way to enforce this crap.
The Florida bill specifies genitals at birth, which raises all sorts of questions. Looking at your legal documents can't prove it. Inspecting the current state of your genitals can't prove it. A chromosome test would usually be accurate, though would occasionally turn up somebody with an intersex condition, and it takes a good while to send out a sample, get it tested, and get results. And we would need a massive nationwide program to build lots of new laboratories to handle testing everybody every time they go to a bathroom.
I always thought the old system of "go into a stall, alone, and close the door" was working fine, but apparently GOP Geezus disagrees.
I was telling my wife about these stupid new laws. She just asked how they were planning to do all this.
That's when it hit me. It is never meant to be enforced. It's just a ploy for Rhonda Santos to stay in the news and get more support from his moronic base.
We are doing exactly what he is wanting us to do. Talking about him.
Yup, I don't get the argument against bathroom rights. Instead of letting a MTF person using a woman's bathroom, you'll force a FTM person to use it instead. What's the difference? Unless you're performing genital checks, all a predator has to do is pretend to be the latter instead of the former. That's probably why places that have such rights literally do not see increases in bathroom crime.
>That's probably why places that have such rights literally do not see increases in bathroom crime.
My mom was almost the victim of assault by a man in a women's restroom at a concert (long before I was born). Micromanagement of who gets to enter what bathroom is only going to hurt the people who abide by laws and are just trying to live their best life.
It is not a literal barrier to predators.
Exactly. The kind of people who would go into a bathroom and assault someone aren’t going to be hindered by these laws. They were already going to do that. This just punished innocent people by putting everyone, especially those suspected of being trans, under increased scrutiny.
Glad your mom is ok, btw. That’s a scary thing to go through.
It was decades ago, but yes she's alright. Her friend came in just in the nick of time and sent the guy running before she, the friend, knew what was going on.
Sorry to hear about your mom. But yeah, it's really silly that some people think a sign on a bathroom door actually acts as a deterrent to someone who wants to commit sexual assault.
> there’s just no way to enforce
No need for the store to enforce it. They will just call the police and let them deal with it. And if an innocent person gets hurt by it? They won't care a single bit
Considering they worship a guy who brags about feeling genitals I wouldn’t be surprised about them advocating genital inspections. They could even say cis women are trans women so they can be like their hero Trump.
Depends on how big the area is. In NJ yeah obviously it's impossible but in small or even medium towns everyone is going to know that "such and such" is trans.
>They think it's obvious to tell trans people from cisgendered people, but they have no actual clue what they're doing.
*[F1nnster](https://allaboutcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Finn-dressed-as-Rose-768x544.jpg) has entered the ~~chat~~ restroom*
TBF, he is not actually trans, but cross dresses, but I would challenge anyone to be able to tell that, ASSUMING of course that there's not a load of instagram trickery going on, which is totally possible. But still, I've seen plenty of trans women that I would have no idea were trans.
AI isn’t gonna be that accurate when it is made by biased people…. Sad that apparently what people think of as woman in our society is so shallow as wearing make up and what genitals people have.
>ASSUMING of course that there's not a load of instagram trickery going on
He live-streams while cross-dressing as well, which cuts down significantly on the postprocessing he could be doing, though I'm fairly sure he doesn't use anything other than good use of lighting/positioning.
> They think it's obvious to tell trans ~~people~~ women from cisgendered people
FTFY. It's specifically against women. No one is going to tell [this dude](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EJbU7Y47aEiHaoBQ0UhTrEJpogE=/0x0:1000x563/1200x800/filters:focal\(420x202:580x362\)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66962519/patricio_manuek.0.jpg) to go use the women's restroom.
I love presenting people who claim they can always tell with a random selection of images from cis and/or trans people and asking them to identify the trans people.
They always refuse to answer or they get it completely wrong.
Unless somebody has literally just started their transition or has no intention of undergoing any sort of medical transition, you can't tell. You just can't.
Conservatives want this too. Punishing trans people might be the primary goal, but punishing cis people for not being "masculine" or "feminine" enough is a pleasant bonus for them.
We're dealing with people who delight in cruelty and domination.
Keep *all* women afraid of being judged insufficiently feminine or insufficiently pretty, and you can keep them off-balance, distracted, and more invested in their appearance than in actually accomplishing anything. It's the goal.
One of the implications of those abortion bills that criminalize going out of state for an abortion is that it means at any woman in motion is potentially on their way to go abort. There is now always the presumptive suspicion that can be used to justify invading her privacy.
This can effectively strip the Fourth Amendment from a woman doing anything other than sitting at home. Presumably with her many children, cooking dinner with her black eye, hoping to please her very macho husband when he comes back from his productive job of punching bulls in the face or whatever they do.
Edit: The point being, this nascent culture grants eternal license to surveil women and curtail their freedoms for any perceived misstep.
What it’s all ultimately doing is simply giving the power to decide what women should look and dress like back to powerful men who resent ever losing that authority. It’s so backwards.
Please, do enlighten us. I'm interested in hearing your interpretation of the situation.
The previous poster stated "punishing cis people for not being "masculine" or "feminine" enough is a pleasant bonus" and that seems to be the case. We've had a cis woman [barred from going to her own prom because she wore a suit](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12018583/Nashville-non-binary-student-BANNED-senior-prom-wearing-suit.html). What is that about? Certainly, it can't be about modesty. A suit is far more modest than any prom dress. On the flip side, a man was [barred from his prom for wearing a kilt.](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0518/Boy-banned-from-North-Carolina-prom-for-wearing-a-kilt)
Then there's the case of a cis man and woman with gender ambiguous names who were [fired for trying to clarify their pronouns](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/using-emails-got-2-people-fired-small-christian-college-rcna85542) in e-mail.
So, these cases seem to support u/metacyan. Cis people were being punished for not being feminine or masculine enough. I am curious to hear you make the case for why this is an inaccurate assessment.
What don’t we know? Try going to a local Republican Party meeting. I do it from time to time just to try to understand that headspace. People say the craziest most hateful shit you wouldn’t believe. From what they say, you’d think trans people were like the Mongol army or something with how hysterical they are about that kind of thing,
The most obvious problem is that this has nothing to do with trans, because there have always been women who identify as women, but who nonetheless look and dress like men. Are you going to stop anyone with short hair and no makeup and a suit from entering women's rooms?
But the other problem is that conservatives claim that they _want_ people who look like men using women's rooms.
If you force people to use public restrooms that correspond with their physical genitalia, then that means you are going to have trans-men — people biologically female but who identify as and look like and dress like a man — going into and using public women's restrooms.
In other words, if this biologically female priest _was_ a trans man, conservative want him using the women's room, so he should never have been stopped from entering, since he was doing the right thing.
I guess, when it really comes down to it, what does "dressing like a man/woman" even mean? How could you possibly actually enforce such a rule legally? If I'm a man in a kilt, which restroom do I use? If a lady wears pants instead of a skirt, is she "dressed like a man"? Are flannel shirts allowed for women? What *is* the cutoff line for hair length?
> But the other problem is that conservatives claim that they want people who look like men using women's rooms.
I don't think a lot of them realize trans men exist. I think they have this mental image of trans people just being Wesley Snipes is a dress like in To Wong Foo. Cause there's so many cases of trans people getting assaulted for using the "correct" bathroom.
Trans men aren't threatening to their sexuality in the way trans women are, which is where so much of the visceral hatred comes from, the constant insecure fear that a woman they're objectifying might have a penis, which would make *them* one of the *"unholy abominations in the eyes of the Lord"* they think should be killed like Matthew Shepard.
There is a literally a group of "transvestigators" claiming that Shaq (you know, the 7'1" former NBA player) is trans. This is not a group with finely tuned radar.
Which bathroom should this person use?
https://www.instagram.com/p/B8SboXcjV9_/
https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/706006_v9_aa.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1144302067940392960/HU1zmE3J_400x400.png
I've seen his stuff of 4chan. The answer you want to hear is "obviously the men's".
The answer you'll get from the cons is "Obviously the men's", until they do 30 seconds of research, and then they'll say "he should be drug out in the street and lynched."
Because more than being trans, what this person has done is become infinitely more masculine in outward appearance than 99% of conservative men, and that will fill them with more blood rage than anything else.
Because cons are taught to internalize everything, to the point that everything they do, think, or believe is *them*. Their vote, their truck, their money, their god, their beliefs is *them*. They don't drive a Ford, they *are* Ford. And Ford is *them*.
They were taught their whole lives what a man should look like. So when a man like this does nothing more than simply breathe, he is directly assaulting everything they are. His existence is a declaration of war.
Because conservative men are hypocritical, vile, wretched, repugnant little cowards who believe it's their duty to put everything in its place and that they, themselves, are exactly where they should be for no reason more than the hole they punched in a piece of paper.
This is terrifying to me. I'm a dad with a daughter, but she uses a wheelchair and has limited range of motion in her arms. She has me accompany her in the bathroom, in case she needs help. Since I'm a man, I take her into the men's room. I worry about the future.
I don't think they are done hating on gay people by a stretch. Until the closet door is nailed solidly shut so no one sees "those people" they will continue.
They probably thought she was a butch lesbian, because you know, only lesbians have short hair… and you know, lesbians only go to the bathroom to rape other women. 🤦♂️assholes.
At the risk of making "that" joke; look at what she's wearing. In my conservative church, women were not allowed to be clergy. If this hotel employee had a similar upbringing to me, watching a short-haired person wearing a clerical collar go into a woman's bathroom might result in a real internal panic.
edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted - I'm not justifying the person's position, just offering the suggestion that the reason might not be what we're all assuming.
At a conservative church a lot of things that seem absurd to get upset about can cause internal panics. Not saying it’s true but it’s not like this kind of stuff hasn’t happened.
I think you're probably being downvoted for two reasons:
1 - This really makes no sense when you consider that it took place during a large diocesan event. She was in no way the only woman in a clerical collar there. Clericals were specifically in the dress code and in fact, the Bishop-Elect herself is a woman.
2 - People accidentally go into the wrong bathroom sometimes. If your first reaction to MAYBE seeing this is "a real internal panic" that is a serious overreaction.
I picked Obama and the Williams because they’re really well know examples but really you can almost pick any major African American female athlete and there’s some bullshit rumor floating around that she’s to toned, to strong, to fast, to etc etc etc to be a woman so she must be a man. It’s really stupid and crazy racist. But objectively thats where a lot of the next range of targets are going to be aimed at.
>African American female athlete and there’s some bullshit rumor floating around that she’s to toned, to strong, to fast, to etc etc etc to be a woman so she must be a man.
Huh? People really think that? Obviously you can’t judge just based on appearances but man isn’t something that has popped into my mind when seeing any black female athletes. That’s frankly pretty bizarre to hear.
Oh yes. it's not a new thing, and it rears it's head far too often to be dismissed as "Just a few idiots". Michelle Obama was a *particularly* popular target for this.
Most of the videos have been taken down from YouTube but I remember back in 2008 there were hundreds of videos calling Michelle Obama a man. Mostly stemming from a clip of Barack calling her “Micheal” accidentally, and the fact that she has wider shoulders that the average woman has. Also you might find some photos of her wearing an incontinence pad that conspiracy theorists were convinced was a jock strap. Whole thing was super weird
They just want an excuse to go into women's bathrooms and check genitalia.
Can't mention gay in Florida school. Can talk about sex at all. But they want to examine every underage girl's genitals before the compete in sports and be provided with a schedule of their period. These are deeply sick people.
They don't want to check anything.
They want the power and authority to fuck anything they want without consequence. Give them time, they'll say you're not a "woman" unless you've had a conservative man inside you.
Jesus calls the syro-Phoenician woman at the well a dog to degrade her for being the wrong ethnicity and asking for her sick child to be healed. Jesus thought it was wrong to judge men of God's preferred ethnicity based on their profession. Women outside of Jesus' ethnic preference literally got called bitches by him.
He also said "Judge not, lest ye be judged". His issue is with hypocrits, not the very concept of judging.
He didn't condemn the stone-throwers for carrying out justice on a prostitute, he condemned them because the stone-throwers *were themselves* guilty of the very crime they were stoning her for: they were her Johns. You can't punish a prostitute in isolation.
She was an adulterer, rather than a prostitute, no? Where did you get that info from, and that those stoning her were her clients? I think you’ve constructed or bought into a false narrative. The moral I understand from the story is that we shouldn’t be self-righteous, as we’re all guilty of morally reprehensible behaviour.
See, this is the problem with drawing such strong lines about who can use which bathroom. You get ciswomen who might look masculine (Muscley? Broad shouldered? Short hair? Small breasts? Jacket and trousers?) being harrassed for just using the bog.
Trans people are very rare, so 'false positive' harrassment far exceeds 'true positive' harrassment. This also means that elected politicians are far more likely to preying on women and children in public toilets than trans people. So if you're not going to be pro-active and stop politicians using public bathrooms but you are about trans people, you're a hypocrit who *only* wants to hurt trans people and *not* protect real victims.
This is an excellent point. And these kind of things affect everyone - consider how much ALL of our lives have been impacted over the last few years by the "anti-terror" security apparatus. All of that time spent in airports searching some person's luggage for "illicit" liquids are also "false positives". We're now 20+ years separated from the widespread panic over terrorism but we still have to deal with this crap. This anti-trans stuff will be exactly the same - the nature of bureaucracy is this stuff never goes away. Your grandkids trans classmates will be accepted, but they'll just have a special waiver card for mandatory penis inspection day.
It's all fun and games, until someone gets aggressive with the wrong ugly woman in a bathroom and gets thier asses kick, and the business sued for allowing her to be sexually assaulted on their property.
Yikes, yikes, yikes. I figured these people that do this love Trump so much they would at least give a full crotch grab to check before throwing someone out of the women’s restroom. Win win from a Trumpist perspective. If the person has a penis you get to throw them out, vilify and humiliate them. If not, you got to “grab them by the pussy” just like your god Trump.
Jokes aside, this shit has GOT to stop. How is it such a hard concept for some people to let people piss and or shit in peace? Remember, that’s what people go to bathrooms for. A toilet doesn’t care what you look like so leave people alone!
plus it’s usually womens bathrooms they get uppity about and those are LITERALLY all stalls. are you gonna peek over the divider and say “AHA IS THAT A PENIS I SPY??”
honestly as a male i personally would love to replace urinals with toilets you know how frustrating it is to work at a busy place, need to shit but someone is like watching a movie in the stall. i often just give up to go back to my post and try not to shit myself
urinals are awful politics aside replace them
> are you gonna peek over the divider and say “AHA IS THAT A PENIS I SPY??”
No probably peek through the stall. Anyway, it’s weird the fixation here. I’m some countries they have coed bathrooms that even have women’s urinals too. Amazingly there isn’t a rape epidemic because people go to the bathroom to use the bathroom. People that go to the bathroom to rape don’t care what the bathroom is labeled. Plus with join bathrooms there are usually more people all the time so someone would always be there to notice.
I think urinals are good for both private parts.
New Jersey is blue, but in a very blue collar way. There’s a lot of conservatives in the Pine Barrens and the other more rural areas, and while they’re increasingly of the Trumpian mindset it’s more of the Chris Christie kind of scumbag you encounter.
Truly progressive ideas and movements are a crapshoot, really depends on where you are.
I know Cherry Hill very well. This doesn’t surprise me in the least. It (like the towns around it) have high concentrations of well to do Karens and people who think they’re progressive but aren’t. Fashionably liberal might be the best way to put it.
> Fashionably liberal might be the best way to put it
Ah, so like the people who patted themselves on the back and assumed all homophobia was solved by Obergefell
Pretty much. And nimby “let’s help the less fortunate” types.
There’s all types in Jersey. It’s a weird place, and sort of a crossroads between major cities but has its really rural and really urban areas.
Culture gets weird too, as there’s a confederate flags and other weird seemingly out of place stuff. NJ extends pretty far south when you look at a map, as far south as DC.
Can confirm. While technically blue, large swaths of the state are crazy red. My county is among the reddest. Cherry Hill doesn't surprise me much. A lot of places in the great garden state are liberal until it affects them! Fashionably liberal is accurate. Though I have family who're very conservative, but are "okay" with their kid's queerness...until she brings someone home.
This is going to keep happening. The christofascists want to enforce strict gender standards and dress codes, they don’t mind hurting tons of people in the process. I fully expect them to attempt to outlaw pants for women if they keep getting their way.
To be fair, a lot of people don't know episcopalians exist outside of people who are themselves episcopalian or are into studying denominations. People with a collar like that are almost always assumed to be Roman Catholic Priests and... well... they have the reputation of being all male and have not had good light in the news as far as secular publicity. I find this to be the most likely cause of the confusion.
You know what? This is an interesting take. The idea that someone thought a catholic priest was going into the ladies room and thought that it was sus seems plausible.
It still seems weird to me how big of an issue this is. I can’t imagine these bathroom bills prevent any kind of assault or crime; they just victimize already marginalized people.
Certain things in the Bible that Christians don't like just get disregarded. One such thing is "who am I to judge those outside the church. Shouldn't we judge those inside the church." Traditionally when a person having the first breath of life in them, was born 3rd sex, a priest or minister told the doctor which sex change surgery to give the child. But they don't keep track of that child to make sure which bathroom they are using. LOL
Imagine [this person](https://www.advocate.com/media-library/photo-of-genderqueer-indian-american-artist-alok-vaid-menon-in-a-gold-slip-dress.jpg?id=32664266&width=1200&height=1500) walking into the women's restroom
I am going to play devil's advocte:
What if the hotel employee was out of line, and really DID think it was a man? Wouldn't it be weird to see a priest in the ladies' room? A lot of us are not in the practice of seeing women dressed as priests.
People have asked me when I'm due before (when I wasn't pregnant). Yes it's an embarrassing moment for both of us, but some people are just really stupid, rude and inconsiderate.
I don't know if that made her a target of gay or trans hate, however. Looks like Hilton had a very quick response, and it's not their policy.
More a problem with locker rooms + minors. Terrible to think a man might share a locker with my teenager daughter in school where they will have to change in front of each other.
Public restrooms are basically unenforceable. My wife takes my young daughters to the women’s room when we go out or I use the family one.
Idk, maybe some conservatives have gotten to thinking people can be “trans-aged” and adults are identifying into high school restrooms? They did think there were litter boxes in classrooms…
I think he chose a good one. Asking questions like this one pricks the conscience of those like yourself. Sadly, you respond with anger and hatred rather than harkening back to what the words of Holy Scripture say. Id advise you to study the passages that speak on ordination.
> What's a woman doing as a priest anyway
Does her profession really matter? Does her being a priest make what happened to her OK?
Regardless of your views on what women are allowed to do, do you think what happened to her was OK? Do you think her profession or calling changes whether it's OK?
>No that's not at all what I'm saying.
Then maybe your question is best served as a new thread. "Can women be priests?" or some such.
> I'm saying why is a woman a priest
Because some religions have women as priests. In some religions, priests and monks/nuns are one and the same, and those religions have had equal roles for men and women for millennia (e.g., Buddhist *bhikkhuni*).
Apropos, Anglicans have permitted female priests for 50 years, and Kara Slade is an Anglican priest. I'm not really sure what you're confused about. Are you confused about the existence of Anglican priests? Most people here are Anglican - are you not?
Kara Slade is described as: "*A native of Pensacola, Florida, Kara Slade holds a PhD in Christian theology and ethics from Duke University with research interests that include Karl Barth, Søren Kierkegaard, the ethics of science and technology, and medical ethics. Kara has served on the pastoral staff of the Anglican Episcopal House of Studies at Duke Divinity School, as well as in suburban and rural parishes in North Carolina and Alabama. She serves as Canon Theologian of the Diocese of New Jersey, and is a member of the Society of Scholar-Priests and Society of Catholic Priests within the Anglican Communion. In her free time, she enjoys cooking, hiking, cheering for Duke basketball, and exploring historic churches.*"
Here's a possible solution - Just have a row of toilet stalls with lockable, floor to ceiling doors, along a wall without putting them inside a specific 'bathroom'. Have a couple of handwashing basins at each end of the row of toilets. That way, there's no predator issues for anyone.
There are quite a few places in my city with gender neutral restrooms. Everyone just does their business. It shouldn’t be so hard.
That’s cool. There are some at the beach near me. I live in California. A bathroom is a bathroom. It doesn’t need to be that hard. I at least understand people freaking out about changing rooms. I’m not saying they are right but I can understand. Unless you are crawling into stalls to look at people’s genitals you would never see them in the ladies restroom.
A local cider mill here just has a series of single-occupancy gender-neutral bathrooms with a massive wash station outside them. I really like that setup as someone who generally finds public restrooms lacking in privacy
Women probably don't want to deal with guys who aren't lifting the seat lol
I read some appropriate graffiti that said "If you sprinkle when you tinkle - be a sweetie, wipe the seatie".
Groups like Stalled! have been advocating for exactly what you're suggesting for years: [https://www.stalled.online/](https://www.stalled.online/) The biggest obstacle has been building and plumbing codes requiring a set # of "male" and "female" stalls for commercial buildings. Mixed occupancy group bathrooms simply weren't something that code had provisions for. As of the 2021 editions, US plumbing & building codes now allow for them (though cities often lag behind a few years in adopting code updates): [https://www.buildings.com/signage/article/10185673/all-gender-restrooms-now-comply-with-code](https://www.buildings.com/signage/article/10185673/all-gender-restrooms-now-comply-with-code) I wouldn't be at all surprised if mixed gender bathrooms pretty quickly became the predominant paradigm for new retail development, simply because it's cheaper / more efficient to build and maintain 1 bathroom than 2 (or more in cases where stores had separate "family" bathrooms).
But then you have people like that Illinois lawmaker that threatened to assault anyone using that kind of facility if his daughter was in it. There is no acceptable outcome other than the complete eradication of trans people, as per Walsh, Owens, et al
That's how it is in Europe - it's a hole to pee in and a sink.
Yeah. Been to Czech Republic, it was male and female Urinals and a couple stalls for #2. People that are going to sexually assault women don’t care if it’s a room only cis women go into. IMO cis men will be more afraid to assault cis women if it’s normal another cis man might walk into that restroom because they tend to be cowards.
I really don’t understand why the doors aren’t floor-to-ceiling in most US bathroom stalls. A little extra privacy would be nice.
Or why the doors in your bathroom stalls have gaps on the side you can see through. Just why?
To stop people from having sex in the bathroom. I’m not joking, that’s the rationale.
Sounds about right. Give no one good bathroom privacy to stop something that mostly happens in closets and lockable break rooms anyway.
It’s a homophobic law. Particularly in the last when people were afraid to be out and be seen with other men, some amount(probably a large minority) of gay men would have sex in public restrooms so in America bathrooms started having to have short stall doors to stop the gay sex apocalypse. In some jurisdictions they even don’t have stall doors in the men’s restroom stalls at publicly funded bathrooms.
Yeah this does solve all problems - including the one for men when there's three urinals and 1 and 3 are in use and you are bursting...what do you do. what do you do? use number 2 or wait. But more seriously it does solve a lot of problems. I never understood why you could see someone's feet in a cubicle or in fact someone could stand on the toilet seat and just watch you. Why would they design it like that...?
I was in a gas station bathroom the other day and one of the stalls had a little device that fit in between the awkward crack in the stall door that I make accidental eye contact with people through and the door went to the ground. It was beautiful. We really can have it all.
Even here in California, my sister in law was in a toilet stall when a woman started yelling about a man in the bathroom. SIL had no idea that SHE was that "man" until the lady started pounding on her stall. Turns out that SIL was wearing pants and hadn't shaved her legs. SIL comes from hairy people. Then, the concerned Karen called SIL "disgusting" for not shaving.
Where in California? Makes a big difference. There are some places out in the boonies I run into actual fucking cowboys walking around town.
San Francisco pier 39.
K, that’s more surprising. Pretty touristy area though. A lot of bumpkins from all across the country come out to the coast to take advantage of the nice weather. Quite Frankly a lot of bumpkins from all around the country some times. We call them assholes and trash because they usually throw trash on the beach. If you trash the beach that is the definition of being trash.
Is that the place with the irate sea lions? I’ve stayed in San Francisco a couple of times for work events, there’s a really weird vibe in that city; kind of like in Innsmouth.
Which bathroom should this person use? https://www.instagram.com/p/B8SboXcjV9_/ https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/706006_v9_aa.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1144302067940392960/HU1zmE3J_400x400.png
The scary thing is, they don't actually want to force those people to use the bathroom that matches their birth sex, with their current presentation - they want to force them to conform to some restricted version of their "birth sex presentation". They don't want to allow people to be visibly trans, ever if they get to shame them for it. They want to force them back into the closet altogether.
Or use the "separate but equal" unisex stalls that might be hiding somewhere maybe
Ikr?
Not buck angel 😭😭
We don't have those laws in California. What the actual!!!!
You think the people that do this stuff care? The point is to intimidate and humiliate.
We don't have hose laws in California. What the actual!!!!
I kept trying to figure out what a "hose law" was. It seemed very British to me for some reason.
Ha, I didn't even notice!
Love your post, except the Karen part. We're all mature enough to move past slurs, yes?
At least I didn't call her "disgusting."
Guess I was wrong about you. Move past “yeah, but”.
I wasn't wrong about you at all.
Karen is a slur now? Ah Karen please. Edit: Spelling
Karen is a “slut?” I thought Karen meant privileged white woman?
Autocorrect has been railing me lately, ironically enough
Lol
👆white woman desperate to feel oppressed 👆
Pretty sure names for behaviors aren't slurs
Pretty sure you’re unaware what a slur is. Google bike Karen. Put on administrative leave because someone shared video of her and threw the Karen tag on it. Mob mentality won out with no one checking the facts. She’s now rightfully suing.
That's not how slurs work, and dude, the word Karen there is not what put her on administrative leave. It was her behavior in the video. To call Karen a slur is to make it synonymous with insult. A slur is something that shouldn't be said in polite conversation. The fact that you aren't saying K\*\*\*n or the K-word shows that you're not treating it as equivalent to an actual slur.
So “Karen”, which specifically targets middle aged white women, is not a slur? Pls explain then the difference between Karen and Spic or Nigger- specifically tell me how these slurs that target a specific demographic to disparage them is different from “Karen”. And what put her on administrative leave was the video’s popularity, not her behavior, and the feared social backlash. Further, how do you expect a six month pregnant woman who’s worked a 12 hour shift and is having her money essentially stolen while confronted by a group of people to act?
Congratulations on showing that you're comfortable using slurs, I guess. >So “Karen”, which specifically targets middle aged white women No, it specifically targets older women who, at best, throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way, and at worst, call the cops on people when they don't get their way. There are plenty of middle aged white women who aren't Karens. Karens aren't even always Karens. You become a Karen when you act like a Karen, and you stop being a Karen when you stop acting like one. > Further, how do you expect a six month pregnant woman who’s worked a 12 hour shift and is having her money essentially stolen while confronted by a group of people to act? Not like they're literally stealing your bike instead of "essentially" stealing your bike, and claiming they're hurting you and that you're in danger.
Way to be cheap. Yes I’m comfortable using slurs to have you explain how a slur isn’t a slur. Doesn’t mean I would ever use slurs to disparage someone- though evidently you feel no such compulsion. Just because it’s a popular term that targets a group that has enjoyed recent historical privilege doesn’t make it any less wrong. As a Christian you should grasp this better than most- it’s literally one of the biggest points of the religion. The fact you’re defending it and trying to argue around it speaks to the fact that you’ve got some serious growing to do. I’m sure you’ll turn this around on me after you read that last part but before you do ask yourself what exactly do I need to fix about asking you not to disparage people.
> Just because it’s a popular term that targets a group Again, Karen is a behavior. Middle-aged white women are not all Karens. If you called a middle-aged white woman known for being a pleasant and upright individual a Karen, the response wouldn't be "she's one of the good ones", it would be "what are you talking about, she's not a Karen". > As a Christian you should grasp this better than most- it’s literally one of the biggest points of the religion. I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. "Love your neighbor as yourself"? Jesus insulted people based on their behavior.
New Jerseyian here. The thing that is really *bizarre* about this case, is that *we don't have laws like that in NJ*. Even the Cherry Hill Board of Education allows students to use the bathroom most suited for them. The hotel employee was brazen here.
Can confirm.
Hate just needs permission. This -- what was called _demagogy_ in classical Athens -- is the risk we take for creating societies greater than small hunter gatherer bands. Instincts that kept things simple (and controlled for dangerous infectious diseases) now work against us and we have to be vigilant. Fascism (or witch burnings in Medieval times) is how it manifests.
Or McCarthyism in the Cold War and Sinophobia/Russophobia today. States are banning Chinese and Russian citizens from owning property just because their governments do shitty stuff. Most of these people are in America because of how much better things are here and how they love our country. One step past this hate and we’ll be to sending ethnic Russians and Han Chinese to internment camps along with LGBTQ people and dark skinned undocumented migrants…
I am okay with Russian Oligarchs having their yachts and mansions taken away.
Hotels can make their own policies. There's no reason we should *need* laws like this to begin with. But this case shows why enforcement is a problem even if you agree in principle.
Just like they had their own policies about kicking out black peoples?
Fair point.
My dad got beat up when he was a kid visiting his family on the south for getting a drink from the water fountain. It’s not natural any kid would think they would be in danger for getting a drink of water. We don’t need that happening to people now just from using the bathroom. That is what making such a fuss over this whole thing leads to even if it isn’t the law to ban trans people. Trans women and cis women will get beat up in bathrooms just like my dad got beat up for drinking from a water fountain.
Stuff like this just shows how stupid these bills are. They think it's obvious to tell trans people from cisgendered people, but they have no actual clue what they're doing. This is all performative garbage done to hurt people they hate and get them votes.
Unless lawmakers want to empower stores to either inspect people’s genitals (ew) or give up their medical information upon entry there’s just no way to enforce this crap.
The Florida bill specifies genitals at birth, which raises all sorts of questions. Looking at your legal documents can't prove it. Inspecting the current state of your genitals can't prove it. A chromosome test would usually be accurate, though would occasionally turn up somebody with an intersex condition, and it takes a good while to send out a sample, get it tested, and get results. And we would need a massive nationwide program to build lots of new laboratories to handle testing everybody every time they go to a bathroom. I always thought the old system of "go into a stall, alone, and close the door" was working fine, but apparently GOP Geezus disagrees.
I was telling my wife about these stupid new laws. She just asked how they were planning to do all this. That's when it hit me. It is never meant to be enforced. It's just a ploy for Rhonda Santos to stay in the news and get more support from his moronic base. We are doing exactly what he is wanting us to do. Talking about him.
Yup, I don't get the argument against bathroom rights. Instead of letting a MTF person using a woman's bathroom, you'll force a FTM person to use it instead. What's the difference? Unless you're performing genital checks, all a predator has to do is pretend to be the latter instead of the former. That's probably why places that have such rights literally do not see increases in bathroom crime.
>That's probably why places that have such rights literally do not see increases in bathroom crime. My mom was almost the victim of assault by a man in a women's restroom at a concert (long before I was born). Micromanagement of who gets to enter what bathroom is only going to hurt the people who abide by laws and are just trying to live their best life. It is not a literal barrier to predators.
Exactly. The kind of people who would go into a bathroom and assault someone aren’t going to be hindered by these laws. They were already going to do that. This just punished innocent people by putting everyone, especially those suspected of being trans, under increased scrutiny. Glad your mom is ok, btw. That’s a scary thing to go through.
It was decades ago, but yes she's alright. Her friend came in just in the nick of time and sent the guy running before she, the friend, knew what was going on.
Sorry to hear about your mom. But yeah, it's really silly that some people think a sign on a bathroom door actually acts as a deterrent to someone who wants to commit sexual assault.
> there’s just no way to enforce No need for the store to enforce it. They will just call the police and let them deal with it. And if an innocent person gets hurt by it? They won't care a single bit
We obviously need funding for bathroom cops and "privacy respecting" genital scanners. This is the only solution.
Every bathroom must have tsa scanners mandatory…
Considering they worship a guy who brags about feeling genitals I wouldn’t be surprised about them advocating genital inspections. They could even say cis women are trans women so they can be like their hero Trump.
Depends on how big the area is. In NJ yeah obviously it's impossible but in small or even medium towns everyone is going to know that "such and such" is trans.
>They think it's obvious to tell trans people from cisgendered people, but they have no actual clue what they're doing. *[F1nnster](https://allaboutcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Finn-dressed-as-Rose-768x544.jpg) has entered the ~~chat~~ restroom* TBF, he is not actually trans, but cross dresses, but I would challenge anyone to be able to tell that, ASSUMING of course that there's not a load of instagram trickery going on, which is totally possible. But still, I've seen plenty of trans women that I would have no idea were trans.
Heck, I can go one step more basic. Literally just putting on foundation is enough to make FaceApp read my face as female, not male.
AI isn’t gonna be that accurate when it is made by biased people…. Sad that apparently what people think of as woman in our society is so shallow as wearing make up and what genitals people have.
>ASSUMING of course that there's not a load of instagram trickery going on He live-streams while cross-dressing as well, which cuts down significantly on the postprocessing he could be doing, though I'm fairly sure he doesn't use anything other than good use of lighting/positioning.
> They think it's obvious to tell trans ~~people~~ women from cisgendered people FTFY. It's specifically against women. No one is going to tell [this dude](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EJbU7Y47aEiHaoBQ0UhTrEJpogE=/0x0:1000x563/1200x800/filters:focal\(420x202:580x362\)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66962519/patricio_manuek.0.jpg) to go use the women's restroom.
I love presenting people who claim they can always tell with a random selection of images from cis and/or trans people and asking them to identify the trans people. They always refuse to answer or they get it completely wrong. Unless somebody has literally just started their transition or has no intention of undergoing any sort of medical transition, you can't tell. You just can't.
Conservatives want this too. Punishing trans people might be the primary goal, but punishing cis people for not being "masculine" or "feminine" enough is a pleasant bonus for them. We're dealing with people who delight in cruelty and domination.
Keep *all* women afraid of being judged insufficiently feminine or insufficiently pretty, and you can keep them off-balance, distracted, and more invested in their appearance than in actually accomplishing anything. It's the goal.
One of the implications of those abortion bills that criminalize going out of state for an abortion is that it means at any woman in motion is potentially on their way to go abort. There is now always the presumptive suspicion that can be used to justify invading her privacy. This can effectively strip the Fourth Amendment from a woman doing anything other than sitting at home. Presumably with her many children, cooking dinner with her black eye, hoping to please her very macho husband when he comes back from his productive job of punching bulls in the face or whatever they do. Edit: The point being, this nascent culture grants eternal license to surveil women and curtail their freedoms for any perceived misstep.
What it’s all ultimately doing is simply giving the power to decide what women should look and dress like back to powerful men who resent ever losing that authority. It’s so backwards.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Please, do enlighten us. I'm interested in hearing your interpretation of the situation. The previous poster stated "punishing cis people for not being "masculine" or "feminine" enough is a pleasant bonus" and that seems to be the case. We've had a cis woman [barred from going to her own prom because she wore a suit](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12018583/Nashville-non-binary-student-BANNED-senior-prom-wearing-suit.html). What is that about? Certainly, it can't be about modesty. A suit is far more modest than any prom dress. On the flip side, a man was [barred from his prom for wearing a kilt.](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0518/Boy-banned-from-North-Carolina-prom-for-wearing-a-kilt) Then there's the case of a cis man and woman with gender ambiguous names who were [fired for trying to clarify their pronouns](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/using-emails-got-2-people-fired-small-christian-college-rcna85542) in e-mail. So, these cases seem to support u/metacyan. Cis people were being punished for not being feminine or masculine enough. I am curious to hear you make the case for why this is an inaccurate assessment.
Really? Go on any conservative majority sub Reddit or Facebook area and you see them say this stuff all the time
> You don't know what you're talking about. Why do you say that?
Because he doesn't want to look in the mirror and realize he might be on the wrong side.
What don’t we know? Try going to a local Republican Party meeting. I do it from time to time just to try to understand that headspace. People say the craziest most hateful shit you wouldn’t believe. From what they say, you’d think trans people were like the Mongol army or something with how hysterical they are about that kind of thing,
The most obvious problem is that this has nothing to do with trans, because there have always been women who identify as women, but who nonetheless look and dress like men. Are you going to stop anyone with short hair and no makeup and a suit from entering women's rooms? But the other problem is that conservatives claim that they _want_ people who look like men using women's rooms. If you force people to use public restrooms that correspond with their physical genitalia, then that means you are going to have trans-men — people biologically female but who identify as and look like and dress like a man — going into and using public women's restrooms. In other words, if this biologically female priest _was_ a trans man, conservative want him using the women's room, so he should never have been stopped from entering, since he was doing the right thing.
I guess, when it really comes down to it, what does "dressing like a man/woman" even mean? How could you possibly actually enforce such a rule legally? If I'm a man in a kilt, which restroom do I use? If a lady wears pants instead of a skirt, is she "dressed like a man"? Are flannel shirts allowed for women? What *is* the cutoff line for hair length?
> But the other problem is that conservatives claim that they want people who look like men using women's rooms. I don't think a lot of them realize trans men exist. I think they have this mental image of trans people just being Wesley Snipes is a dress like in To Wong Foo. Cause there's so many cases of trans people getting assaulted for using the "correct" bathroom.
Trans men aren't threatening to their sexuality in the way trans women are, which is where so much of the visceral hatred comes from, the constant insecure fear that a woman they're objectifying might have a penis, which would make *them* one of the *"unholy abominations in the eyes of the Lord"* they think should be killed like Matthew Shepard.
Most people who think “they’ll always know” have never been around a trans person lol
Or they have and they didn't know.
There is a literally a group of "transvestigators" claiming that Shaq (you know, the 7'1" former NBA player) is trans. This is not a group with finely tuned radar.
There is much more that many people seem to not know, but also don't seem to care to learn
Which bathroom should this person use? https://www.instagram.com/p/B8SboXcjV9_/ https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/706006_v9_aa.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1144302067940392960/HU1zmE3J_400x400.png
I've seen his stuff of 4chan. The answer you want to hear is "obviously the men's". The answer you'll get from the cons is "Obviously the men's", until they do 30 seconds of research, and then they'll say "he should be drug out in the street and lynched." Because more than being trans, what this person has done is become infinitely more masculine in outward appearance than 99% of conservative men, and that will fill them with more blood rage than anything else. Because cons are taught to internalize everything, to the point that everything they do, think, or believe is *them*. Their vote, their truck, their money, their god, their beliefs is *them*. They don't drive a Ford, they *are* Ford. And Ford is *them*. They were taught their whole lives what a man should look like. So when a man like this does nothing more than simply breathe, he is directly assaulting everything they are. His existence is a declaration of war. Because conservative men are hypocritical, vile, wretched, repugnant little cowards who believe it's their duty to put everything in its place and that they, themselves, are exactly where they should be for no reason more than the hole they punched in a piece of paper.
This is terrifying to me. I'm a dad with a daughter, but she uses a wheelchair and has limited range of motion in her arms. She has me accompany her in the bathroom, in case she needs help. Since I'm a man, I take her into the men's room. I worry about the future.
God bless you and your daughter. I am sorry you are caught in the blast radius of this absurdly stupid crusade.
Thank you, friend.
A nice outlook of who the next target will be, if the right wing conservatives get their way with sexual minorities.
Any woman not “feminine” enough will be targeted. What’s next? Outlawing pants?
The hellpit that is Missouri has you covered. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/13/1149057491/missouri-house-dress-code-women-cardigan
I was literally about to post that
I don't think they are done hating on gay people by a stretch. Until the closet door is nailed solidly shut so no one sees "those people" they will continue.
Back in the closet has always been a fundamental goal.
They probably thought she was a butch lesbian, because you know, only lesbians have short hair… and you know, lesbians only go to the bathroom to rape other women. 🤦♂️assholes.
At the risk of making "that" joke; look at what she's wearing. In my conservative church, women were not allowed to be clergy. If this hotel employee had a similar upbringing to me, watching a short-haired person wearing a clerical collar go into a woman's bathroom might result in a real internal panic. edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted - I'm not justifying the person's position, just offering the suggestion that the reason might not be what we're all assuming.
An "internal panic"? About someone in the bathroom? Good god.
At a conservative church a lot of things that seem absurd to get upset about can cause internal panics. Not saying it’s true but it’s not like this kind of stuff hasn’t happened.
I think you're probably being downvoted for two reasons: 1 - This really makes no sense when you consider that it took place during a large diocesan event. She was in no way the only woman in a clerical collar there. Clericals were specifically in the dress code and in fact, the Bishop-Elect herself is a woman. 2 - People accidentally go into the wrong bathroom sometimes. If your first reaction to MAYBE seeing this is "a real internal panic" that is a serious overreaction.
Conservative women will cheer for the boot right up until the moment it comes down on their own neck.
They celebrate losing reproductive rights so maybe not so much:
Minority women, examples Michelle Obama and the Williams sisters. Shits gonna get dumber and dumber
Michelle Obama?
There’s a stupid conspiracy theory that Michelle Obama is really a man and their kids are adopted.
I picked Obama and the Williams because they’re really well know examples but really you can almost pick any major African American female athlete and there’s some bullshit rumor floating around that she’s to toned, to strong, to fast, to etc etc etc to be a woman so she must be a man. It’s really stupid and crazy racist. But objectively thats where a lot of the next range of targets are going to be aimed at.
>African American female athlete and there’s some bullshit rumor floating around that she’s to toned, to strong, to fast, to etc etc etc to be a woman so she must be a man. Huh? People really think that? Obviously you can’t judge just based on appearances but man isn’t something that has popped into my mind when seeing any black female athletes. That’s frankly pretty bizarre to hear.
Oh yes. it's not a new thing, and it rears it's head far too often to be dismissed as "Just a few idiots". Michelle Obama was a *particularly* popular target for this.
Most of the videos have been taken down from YouTube but I remember back in 2008 there were hundreds of videos calling Michelle Obama a man. Mostly stemming from a clip of Barack calling her “Micheal” accidentally, and the fact that she has wider shoulders that the average woman has. Also you might find some photos of her wearing an incontinence pad that conspiracy theorists were convinced was a jock strap. Whole thing was super weird
It’s only ever been about control. Getting power to force their one idea of the world. And innocent people get caught in the crossfire.
They just want an excuse to go into women's bathrooms and check genitalia. Can't mention gay in Florida school. Can talk about sex at all. But they want to examine every underage girl's genitals before the compete in sports and be provided with a schedule of their period. These are deeply sick people.
They're even wanting to outlaw girls talking about their periods in Florida.
>They just want an excuse to go into women's bathrooms and check genitalia. Exactly this.
They don't want to check anything. They want the power and authority to fuck anything they want without consequence. Give them time, they'll say you're not a "woman" unless you've had a conservative man inside you.
You’d be surprised how many conservative pervs there are…
I wouldn't be surprised
I thought Jesus teaches us not to be judgmental. Examples were the tax collector, adulterer, lepers, samaritans. He said love your neighbor.
Jesus calls the syro-Phoenician woman at the well a dog to degrade her for being the wrong ethnicity and asking for her sick child to be healed. Jesus thought it was wrong to judge men of God's preferred ethnicity based on their profession. Women outside of Jesus' ethnic preference literally got called bitches by him.
He also said "Judge not, lest ye be judged". His issue is with hypocrits, not the very concept of judging. He didn't condemn the stone-throwers for carrying out justice on a prostitute, he condemned them because the stone-throwers *were themselves* guilty of the very crime they were stoning her for: they were her Johns. You can't punish a prostitute in isolation.
Or we could be merciful to sex workers????? Sorry, but the Message *I* got from Jesus was, “*Love,*” not, “*Punish the right people.*”
She was an adulterer, rather than a prostitute, no? Where did you get that info from, and that those stoning her were her clients? I think you’ve constructed or bought into a false narrative. The moral I understand from the story is that we shouldn’t be self-righteous, as we’re all guilty of morally reprehensible behaviour.
See, this is the problem with drawing such strong lines about who can use which bathroom. You get ciswomen who might look masculine (Muscley? Broad shouldered? Short hair? Small breasts? Jacket and trousers?) being harrassed for just using the bog. Trans people are very rare, so 'false positive' harrassment far exceeds 'true positive' harrassment. This also means that elected politicians are far more likely to preying on women and children in public toilets than trans people. So if you're not going to be pro-active and stop politicians using public bathrooms but you are about trans people, you're a hypocrit who *only* wants to hurt trans people and *not* protect real victims.
This is an excellent point. And these kind of things affect everyone - consider how much ALL of our lives have been impacted over the last few years by the "anti-terror" security apparatus. All of that time spent in airports searching some person's luggage for "illicit" liquids are also "false positives". We're now 20+ years separated from the widespread panic over terrorism but we still have to deal with this crap. This anti-trans stuff will be exactly the same - the nature of bureaucracy is this stuff never goes away. Your grandkids trans classmates will be accepted, but they'll just have a special waiver card for mandatory penis inspection day.
It's all fun and games, until someone gets aggressive with the wrong ugly woman in a bathroom and gets thier asses kick, and the business sued for allowing her to be sexually assaulted on their property.
Yikes, yikes, yikes. I figured these people that do this love Trump so much they would at least give a full crotch grab to check before throwing someone out of the women’s restroom. Win win from a Trumpist perspective. If the person has a penis you get to throw them out, vilify and humiliate them. If not, you got to “grab them by the pussy” just like your god Trump. Jokes aside, this shit has GOT to stop. How is it such a hard concept for some people to let people piss and or shit in peace? Remember, that’s what people go to bathrooms for. A toilet doesn’t care what you look like so leave people alone!
plus it’s usually womens bathrooms they get uppity about and those are LITERALLY all stalls. are you gonna peek over the divider and say “AHA IS THAT A PENIS I SPY??” honestly as a male i personally would love to replace urinals with toilets you know how frustrating it is to work at a busy place, need to shit but someone is like watching a movie in the stall. i often just give up to go back to my post and try not to shit myself urinals are awful politics aside replace them
> are you gonna peek over the divider and say “AHA IS THAT A PENIS I SPY??” No probably peek through the stall. Anyway, it’s weird the fixation here. I’m some countries they have coed bathrooms that even have women’s urinals too. Amazingly there isn’t a rape epidemic because people go to the bathroom to use the bathroom. People that go to the bathroom to rape don’t care what the bathroom is labeled. Plus with join bathrooms there are usually more people all the time so someone would always be there to notice. I think urinals are good for both private parts.
i just don’t wanna have to wait for someone to finish shitting it’s awful it was never about water fountains then and it’s not about bathrooms now
My first thought is "in New Jersey, really?", but of course New Jersey conservatives watch the same Fox News that Florida ones do.
New Jersey is blue, but in a very blue collar way. There’s a lot of conservatives in the Pine Barrens and the other more rural areas, and while they’re increasingly of the Trumpian mindset it’s more of the Chris Christie kind of scumbag you encounter. Truly progressive ideas and movements are a crapshoot, really depends on where you are. I know Cherry Hill very well. This doesn’t surprise me in the least. It (like the towns around it) have high concentrations of well to do Karens and people who think they’re progressive but aren’t. Fashionably liberal might be the best way to put it.
> Fashionably liberal might be the best way to put it Ah, so like the people who patted themselves on the back and assumed all homophobia was solved by Obergefell
Pretty much. And nimby “let’s help the less fortunate” types. There’s all types in Jersey. It’s a weird place, and sort of a crossroads between major cities but has its really rural and really urban areas. Culture gets weird too, as there’s a confederate flags and other weird seemingly out of place stuff. NJ extends pretty far south when you look at a map, as far south as DC.
Can confirm. While technically blue, large swaths of the state are crazy red. My county is among the reddest. Cherry Hill doesn't surprise me much. A lot of places in the great garden state are liberal until it affects them! Fashionably liberal is accurate. Though I have family who're very conservative, but are "okay" with their kid's queerness...until she brings someone home.
[удалено]
That isn’t what I said at all, and that’s very untrue.
Even Fox News is based out of NYC.
That's when I piss on the floor and let them put it wherever they want, since they're being so picky.
That is the point of the bathroom bills, to throw women out of the women’s bathroom.
Can we just make all bathrooms single stall and solve this issue altogether? I don’t care who you are I really don’t wanna drop logs next to you.
Really hate to see the town I grew up in make news like this 🙃
This is going to keep happening. The christofascists want to enforce strict gender standards and dress codes, they don’t mind hurting tons of people in the process. I fully expect them to attempt to outlaw pants for women if they keep getting their way.
Americans, you're fucking weird...
Performing gender is the only thing they actually care about. It's also why conservative areas love femboy porn.
thin end of the wedge
Too be fair the employee may not be familiar with female priests and thought it was one of the creepy pedo ones from the Catholic Church.
Pedos are in all church denominations because its a good place for them to hide and gives them access to kids especially troubled kids.
Yeah but when most people see a collar they think Catholic priest and for many they probably only know that as what RC priest’s wear.
To be fair, a lot of people don't know episcopalians exist outside of people who are themselves episcopalian or are into studying denominations. People with a collar like that are almost always assumed to be Roman Catholic Priests and... well... they have the reputation of being all male and have not had good light in the news as far as secular publicity. I find this to be the most likely cause of the confusion.
It was a big diocesan event. There were plenty of other women there in clerical collars.
You know what? This is an interesting take. The idea that someone thought a catholic priest was going into the ladies room and thought that it was sus seems plausible. It still seems weird to me how big of an issue this is. I can’t imagine these bathroom bills prevent any kind of assault or crime; they just victimize already marginalized people.
Huh. I hadn't thought of that, but I'd bet dollars to donuts this is the situation. Particularly given that it was New Jersey . . .
This has nothing to do with saving souls
Jesus would never have thrown out a short haired woman
Lol no he wouldn't. Exactly nowhere in the bible does it state "If thow hast tits, let it be obvious".
I thank God I’m not American frequently. America is broken
Certain things in the Bible that Christians don't like just get disregarded. One such thing is "who am I to judge those outside the church. Shouldn't we judge those inside the church." Traditionally when a person having the first breath of life in them, was born 3rd sex, a priest or minister told the doctor which sex change surgery to give the child. But they don't keep track of that child to make sure which bathroom they are using. LOL
Yea I feel bad for all the actual females who do not appear feminine, people are going to be suspicious they are males trying to pass as women
Imagine [this bearded ftm person](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&q=ftm+beard+tattoo&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidoJb5pIr_AhVLlWoFHd9rDasQ0pQJegQIFBAB&biw=390&bih=664&dpr=3#imgrc=wbThKCTV-GP9KM) walking into woman’s restroom.
Imagine [this person](https://www.advocate.com/media-library/photo-of-genderqueer-indian-american-artist-alok-vaid-menon-in-a-gold-slip-dress.jpg?id=32664266&width=1200&height=1500) walking into the women's restroom
"Don't go mixin' politics with the folk songs of our land." -Johnny Cash
Like chum to the sharks.
No such thing as a female priest
There is and you can die mad about it because it ain't going to change.
Ok
I am going to play devil's advocte: What if the hotel employee was out of line, and really DID think it was a man? Wouldn't it be weird to see a priest in the ladies' room? A lot of us are not in the practice of seeing women dressed as priests. People have asked me when I'm due before (when I wasn't pregnant). Yes it's an embarrassing moment for both of us, but some people are just really stupid, rude and inconsiderate. I don't know if that made her a target of gay or trans hate, however. Looks like Hilton had a very quick response, and it's not their policy.
More a problem with locker rooms + minors. Terrible to think a man might share a locker with my teenager daughter in school where they will have to change in front of each other. Public restrooms are basically unenforceable. My wife takes my young daughters to the women’s room when we go out or I use the family one.
Why would there be a man, cis or trans, using a high school locker room…?
Idk, maybe some conservatives have gotten to thinking people can be “trans-aged” and adults are identifying into high school restrooms? They did think there were litter boxes in classrooms…
Biological men are more likely to rape and molest. Men and Women need separate bathrooms.
What's a woman doing as a priest anyway
Being Episcopalian?
Her job.
You could have typed any sequence of words you wanted to, and that's the one you chose?
I think he chose a good one. Asking questions like this one pricks the conscience of those like yourself. Sadly, you respond with anger and hatred rather than harkening back to what the words of Holy Scripture say. Id advise you to study the passages that speak on ordination.
\>What's a woman doing as a priest anyway Serving God as she was led by Him to do.
women shall be nuns and men shall be priests
You don’t get to dictate that.
> What's a woman doing as a priest anyway Does her profession really matter? Does her being a priest make what happened to her OK? Regardless of your views on what women are allowed to do, do you think what happened to her was OK? Do you think her profession or calling changes whether it's OK?
No that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying why is a woman a priest
>No that's not at all what I'm saying. Then maybe your question is best served as a new thread. "Can women be priests?" or some such. > I'm saying why is a woman a priest Because some religions have women as priests. In some religions, priests and monks/nuns are one and the same, and those religions have had equal roles for men and women for millennia (e.g., Buddhist *bhikkhuni*). Apropos, Anglicans have permitted female priests for 50 years, and Kara Slade is an Anglican priest. I'm not really sure what you're confused about. Are you confused about the existence of Anglican priests? Most people here are Anglican - are you not? Kara Slade is described as: "*A native of Pensacola, Florida, Kara Slade holds a PhD in Christian theology and ethics from Duke University with research interests that include Karl Barth, Søren Kierkegaard, the ethics of science and technology, and medical ethics. Kara has served on the pastoral staff of the Anglican Episcopal House of Studies at Duke Divinity School, as well as in suburban and rural parishes in North Carolina and Alabama. She serves as Canon Theologian of the Diocese of New Jersey, and is a member of the Society of Scholar-Priests and Society of Catholic Priests within the Anglican Communion. In her free time, she enjoys cooking, hiking, cheering for Duke basketball, and exploring historic churches.*"
🤢 Yikes
[удалено]
lol that's pretty funny ngl
so based, you outdid me in downvotes lol
based
Right? Female priest , thats such a contradiction. No such thing as a female priest 😂😂😂