"No one is exempt," intoned a narrator in one TV ad that featured a young girl in a restroom. "Even registered sex offenders could follow women or young girls into the bathroom. And if a business tried to stop them, they’d be fined. Protect women’s privacy. Prevent danger. Vote no on the Proposition 1 bathroom ordinance."...That response doesn't address the problem faced by a business that would like to intervene but can't know the intent of the person following a woman. Also, people frequently want additional protection. I'm thinking specifically of gun control, which tends to be supported by the same people who would like to open up access to women's bathrooms. These people aren't satisfied by the argument that it's already against the law to commit murder and other gun violence.
Supporters pointed out that it was already against the law in Houston to enter a bathroom with the intent to harass someone....
४ नोव्हेंबर, २०१५
"How Bathroom Fears Conquered Transgender Rights in Houston."
The headline in The Atlantic after Houston voted — 61 to 39 percent — against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, or Proposition 1, which would ban discrimination based on gender identity (and 14 other factors, including sexual orientation). The "startlingly simple" opposition message was "No men in women’s bathrooms."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
More chum for the Althouse Hillbillies. Short term, Republicans are going to double down on hateful appeals and fear. In the long run it will wreak their party.
Justice Kennedy, call your office.
Wasn't the No. 1 (as well as No. 2) argument against the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution that the ERA would force the creation of unisex public restrooms?
In the NYT article that you posted and discussed yesterday (re actions of Catherine Lhamon), the posted comments most liked by the NYT readers were uniformly against the feds. Per some of the comments here yesterday, a lot of us supported gay non-discrimination laws and even gay marriage in good faith, but almost regret it now given how vicious and insane the LGBT movement has become. Its one thing for gays to be asked to be let alone and respected. Its another for the movement to demand that their psychologically damaged young men have the civil right to expose their penises to our young daughters.
From the Article:
The campaign was as explicitly based on fear as any in modern memory.
Per MisterBuddwing's comment, it seems like modern memory doesn't extend back to the days of the ERA.
Where does modern memory start for The Atlantic, I wonder. Clinton's first term?
We're in "anything must be accepted" mode. How come men who just like to use women's bathrooms isn't a valid choice? If someone can be bisexual and it's accepted (the B in LGBTQxxx) why can't someone be bi-identifying? The frequency of ichanging dentify is beyond their control because "it's genetic" and they could be one way one minute and the other way another minute or merely be a man identifying as a women when their bladder is full.
Who knows? We must accept anything and everything.
Fear -- such as when the mayor who issued subpoenas for church sermons and private conversations between clergy and congregants?
Only the first battle. This will continue for 20 years. The Left never stops.
SSM was in same position 20 years ago. Recall DOMA and state constitutional amendments defining marriage.
Looking forward to Tony Kennedy's edict on bathrooms.
If the person has a penis, he ain't a woman. That's the bottom line. Not every assertion of the LGBT bullies has to be accepted by everyone else.
Common sense triumphs!
There is hope for Houston after all!
These people aren't satisfying by the argument that it's already against the law to commit murder and other gun violence.
No, these people aren't satisfying at all, nor are they ever satisfied.
Hagar said...
Common sense triumphs!
There is hope for Houston after all!
Houston has two major voting blocks. Suburban families who vote GOP and inner city blacks who vote Dem. (Usually). But in the voting booth, (Like the California Prop 8 vote) usually reliable black voters can pull the lever for "family values"
Looks like the Trans fellas in Houston will just have to cowgirl up.
But this argument is backwards. Do some people even know what transgender is?
A man who was born a woman, the opponents now want him to use the restroom he doesn't look like. Same with a woman, she now is supposed to take her breasts and purse into the men's room.
This was ignorant, hateful, and a distraction from what the civil rights ordinance actually did, protect veterans, and minorities, and gays, and women, and Jews, and Muslims, and the transgendered.
https://www.facebook.com/EasterLemming/posts/720647404745591?comment_id=720648268078838&offset=0&total_comments=3&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
Bob Boyd nails it in one.
Pffft. Laws shmaws. Obama's DOJ will just lower the boom under civil rights violation.
Regarding bathrooms, you can either have unisex bathrooms--everyone uses it, stalls have privacy, urinals with barriers for moderate privacy, no one allowed to harass, etc.--or stick with two bathrooms and you can use the one that matches your body parts. Gay men, straight men, men who identify as women--all use the men's room based on their physical plumbing. If you have surgery, you can switch. Hermaphrodites can pick which works for them.
But if we get to the point that you can choose to use the other gender's bathroom because you identify with that gender even if your physical plumbing doesn't, then gendered bathrooms are meaningless as essentially anyone can use either.
I'll note that the stupidest thing out there is the gendered single-person bathroom. If only one person is allowed in there at a time, why does it matter which gender they are? Not that it would stop me from using the single-person women's room when the mens' room is occupied and no one else is on line.
Via D. Barry:
World's first transgender beer made from sex change hops launched by brewery
TD;DR (Too Dumb)
@ Gary - sometimes the rights of the majority need to be respected also. Personally, I soon expect to be reading about the campaign to provide free Japanese-built child sex robots for minor-attracted persons. After all, they are born that way - who are we to discriminate?
Do you live in Texas or actually know any Texans?
False Grackle
"Supporters pointed out that it was already against the law in Houston to enter a bathroom with the intent to harass someone..."
But don't the SJWs know that 99% of some harassment is just existing?
"Personally, I soon expect to be reading about the campaign to provide free Japanese-built child sex robots for minor-attracted persons. After all, they are born that way - who are we to discriminate?"
I actually pity people who have that deviancy--it's one thing to have a weird turn-on or fetish, quite another when it is something that is illegal and for good reason. I'd sooner have these people reached and treated than have them hide or repress their urges only to lash out and victimize some unsuspecting child.
But if tax dollars are going towards sex robots I think the rest of us deserve our sex robots too. Maybe it's not in the Constitution, but John Roberts has proven you can really read anything into the law.
"A man who was born a woman, the opponents now want him to use the restroom he doesn't look like. Same with a woman, she now is supposed to take her breasts and purse into the men's room."
For all practical purposes, a person is going to use the restroom that most closely fits their physical appearance--after all, if you look like a woman, who's going to notice (though if you don't want to attract notice, make sure you're sitting down in the stall!)? Provided everyone just minds their own business in bathrooms and does their business, none of this should be an issue.
Maybe proponents of these laws will take a minute to try to understand what it is opponents don't like about the law. It *is* possible to have real conversations about things, and it's especially important when you are trying to cause a sea change in society.
Maybe the days of "because shut up, hater" are beginning to show up in our rear view mirror.
What often gets lost (IMHO) is the simple inequity of asking 99.99% of the public to change their ways and worry about lawsuits from the self-identifying psychologically-damaged 0.01% and their aggressive, fight-seeking guardians.
Yep, fear mongering about letting males use the women's restrooms....I think the D of Eds little ruling in Chicago probably did more for turn out on HERO than any actual "fearmongering" could do.
And it turns out the ERA fighters were probably right, weren't they?
you can use the one that matches your body parts.
With Lazlo being the Parts Inspector, ensuring compliance.
What Brando said at 8:38. A lot of this seems to be driven by LookAtMe people who want their choices acknowledged by the World. The reality is, though, that so very few people care, and the ones that do care about your choices, and try to talk you out of them? Why are you even listening?
I'm still trying to figure out what the government that pushes for laws like this (and what happened at Palatine) can argue to support separate accommodations at all.
Oddly enough, Obamacare forced companies to create a space for nursing mothers. Are nursing mothers, and nursing mothers only, allowed to have their comfort/privacy legally enforced?
I was a little girl during that ERA argument, and I remember thinking how uncomfortable I would be with unisex bathrooms.
Not everyone is an adult who knows how to handle confusing situations. Public accommodations should have a care toward creating public comfort and safety.
Wait, so you're saying the Left's pose of "just wanting common sense laws to protect the public" isn't genuine? I mean, when the Left conjures up some scary monster to fight (gun violence when crime is dropping, global warming-caused catastrophic weather events when hurricane frequency is declining, etc) they're the champions of the people, but then the non-Left points out some dangers it's scaremongering and appealing to the base nature of the uneducated.
"These people aren't satisfed by the argument"
You're so sweet to think argument matters to "these people."
@DB: "The left never stops."
That's more like it. At any time, they need 1. another Other to dis-other and 2. more power for whatever is the cause du jour and 3. keep the transvaluation of bourgeois values going.
The point at which every day common folks are arguing over which bathroom to use is a rabbit hole only liberal progressives could dig.
Hoodlum, it's all about positioning, about what works. That's what conservatives don't get. Consistency and hypocrisy are irrelevant. The argument you think will get you what you want is the argument to use. Principles are for suckers.
Gary: But this argument is backwards. Do some people even know what transgender is?
If not, I'm sure they can consult the millions of Facebook medical experts on the subject in order to educate! themselves.
A man who was born a woman, the opponents now want him to use the restroom he doesn't look like. Same with a woman, she now is supposed to take her breasts and purse into the men's room.
If they were actual transsexuals, who would know? It's the flashing the dicks around the girls' locker room and the ladies' loo that's - how do you SJWs put it? - problematic.
Same with a woman, she now is supposed to take her breasts and purse into the men's room.
If "she" still has a penis, yes. Afaik there's no law against man-boobs in the men's room. Does Houston have some weird purse ordinance that you're worried about?
This was ignorant, hateful, and a distraction from what the civil rights ordinance actually did, protect veterans, and minorities, and gays, and women, and Jews, and Muslims, and the transgendered.
Ignorant and hateful! Veterans, minorities, gays, women, Jews, Muslims, transgendered!
Stay strong, Gary. Keep fighting the good fight against the straight white Chrisitan male oppressors!
Easter Lemmings Liberal News
Ha, jokes on me. You had me going, Gary. Great troll parody account you linked there.
I am a big mo and am glad this was voted down.
tits and muscles.
More chum for the Althouse Hillbillies. Short term, Republicans are going to double down on hateful appeals and fear. In the long run it will wreak their party.
Because all "right thinking people" are so scientifically illiterate that they believe that one's genitalia doesn't demonstrate what sex they are.
Party of science, my nuts.
Our humoring of a psychological illness is baffling.
A man who was born a woman, the opponents now want him to use the restroom he doesn't look like.
We want him to use the bathroom he BIOLOGICALLY belongs to.
I don't care if you want to wear a dress. You have XY chromosomes, then you use the boy's bathroom.
Hermaphrodites can pick which works for them.
They're still, chromosomally, one sex.
In a weak effort to emulate our hostess' sensitivity to textual nuance, I want to call attention to the dice-loading in that Atlantic headline. "Bathroom Fears" versus "Transgender Rights." Deconstructing, we have on the one hand laughable childish anxieties (a two-year-old worried about toilet training? Alligators in the potty?) and on the other hand we have fully-defined and "operationalized" rights --when the existence and scope of those "rights" is exactly the issue in contention. Nice work, Atlantic!
I don't know what stops transgendered folks from using the stalls in the men's room, but I think that a woman who entered a stall in the ladies' room and found the toilet seat up (or wet!) would be a bit discomfited. Perhaps not. Perhaps the Professor or Maybee or Freeman Hunt could weigh in here?
@Althouse, what is it about the word "satisfied" that makes it difficult to spell?
The line between transexual and transvestite is getting very blurry.
The law was about more than trans people and bathrooms and it was even worse than that. As noted by Gary, the law included all these categories that were already protected by federal laws. This was done to make it look like a greater good than it really was. It would have legislated the "you must supply a wedding cake for the lesbian couple" scenario. It was also a way of getting gay and lesbian support. Lesbians don't want trans folks in their bathroom either.
I am not a big tranny fan; neither are any of my friends. The term "Masc" is so important to us and trannies are definitely not Masc.
tits and muscles
This headline in the Atlantic, which implies that Houston voters could only have done this due to psychological impairment, was as predictable as this morning's sunrise.
Presumably the author didn't consider that public bathrooms are separated by sex and not by gender (or doesn't understand the distinction), let alone that the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy is a sign of mental health, not impairment.
>> A man who was born a woman
This is gibberish. If "it" "was born a man", then "it", by your definition is a man.
You might as well have said "A toaster who was born a giraffe."
Supporters pointed out that it was already against the law in Houston to enter a bathroom with the intent to harass someone...
Yes and people who said DOMA was unnecessary told us that the Supreme Court had never found that there was a constitutional right to SSM.
The lesson that we should learn from this is what when the SJW crowd tells us that X is unnecessary because of Y, is that Y is their next target.
Common sense prevails, even if those on the losing end vow to continue to fight it.
"This headline in the Atlantic, which implies that Houston voters could only have done this due to psychological impairment, was as predictable as this morning's sunrise."
I wish Progs would let us know ahead of any election whether we should consider the voters ignorant and impaired hillbillies whose views should be discounted. Self-serving hindsight not allowed.
Reminds me f something that happened at a club in Scottsdale (AZ) a bit ago. Seems some guys were putting on dresses and hanging out in the ladies' room. Which is where the women get away from all the guys hitting on them. These guys were not that convincing as trannies, since by midnight their five o'clock shadows would be quite visible. Ultimately, they were told they were not welcome there -,with the club deciding to cater to the large number of women complaining and telling them they wouldn't be back until this rubles was fixed (and availability of attractive women make or brake clubs like this) over a couple of guys who wanted to hang out in the women's room. Of course, there was a civil rghts lawsuit ...(Scottsdale is next door to Tempe, which is home to the ASU law school).
What I think is forgotten here by the LGBTxyz activists is that the big reason behind single sex bathrooms is probably that women feel endangered when partially disrobed with males present. This is not an irrational fear. Yet this crowd would endanger the more vulnerable half of our population to cater to the sensibilities of a handful of transgendered who wish to engage in voluntary activities. This goes far beyond two gays doing something frowned upon by society behind closed doors, and engaged in by two (or more) consenting adults. Instead, here, vagina positive people would be ordered to put up with penis positive individuals in a vulnerable place for the vagina positive demographic.
I was in Milan and Turin for 3 days last June. I used public restrooms at the airport, McDonalds in the main Milan Piazza, Rivoli Castle (Ask me about the phart that they had on display in the "museum" there) and the Maserati factory.
All were unisex. All had private stalls with doors that went all the way to the floor.
I don't know if this is common throughout Italy as I only saw 4.
Last time I was in Italy, in Naples in 1969, the restrooms were gendered, I think, but all had squat toilets. I don't think I saw an American style crapper on the whole 6 month cruise through Europe other than the Royal Navy dockyard. Those were in a square brick quadrangle. No roof, no stalls. just 20-30 crappers around the sides. With waxed toilet paper that didn't get wet.
In Jerez Spain, in one bar, the pisser was in a closet right in a corner of the bar. You opened the door and there was a trough right up against it. You didn't even leave the bar. The door, swinging out, provided a bit of privacy but not much.
No idea what the ladies did. Perhaps a bucket out back?
What we really need is a movement against segregated restrooms similar to that which happened in the South in the 60's. Are men's and women's restrooms really "separate but equal"? I've never seen a sofa in a men's room.
John Henry
Wasn't it just yesterday that we saw a news item concerning the Federal Government telling a school that it had to let a boy use the girls showers and locker room because he "feels" like he is a girl?
I can explain why the idea of men wandering into womens restrooms in one word is found objectionable to so many people in one word: modesty.
Yes, I know. The very concept is quaint and old-fashioned in our modern secular sci-fi utopia.hBut there it is. Large numbers of regressive troglodytes find the idea of some guy taking a whiz next to their young daughters repulsive, regardless of whether or not he is actually physically assaulting her.
By the way, isn't it illegal for men to expose themselves to women outside of bathrooms? Isn't that kind of regressive too?
I imagine women feel vulnerable when using the toilet in a public restroom, especially if it's in an isolated or sketchy area. The outcome of the vote isn't in the least surprising. That the issue was even put to a vote is the amazing part and sure to be a Ripley's Believe It Or Not cartoon a generation or two down the road.
Will it increase the likelihood of a child being sodomized? If yes, the left is for it. Doesn't matter if we're discussing allowing Muslims into Europe or mentally ill men into the same bathrooms as little girls; whether it's being presented in Salon that it's those who are wary of pedophiles who are the real monsters or in the New York Times as fear conquering freedom for a man to use the girl's room, you can guarantee that the net effect of a liberal policy will be easier sexual access to children.
So we've conditioned women to believe that every fourth man is a rapist, especially on college campuses, but we should also feelz totes ok with showering with men in a locker room?
And really, this is what the issue is. I think most women don't worry too much about using a bathroom, but it's the other places: gyms, swimming pools, etc. where things really do turn uncomfortable. Look, our rec centers don't even want boys over the age of 6 in our locker rooms and yet, if someone feelz a certain way, well, we've got to let that slide. And please, leave the old argument alone that Saint Transgendered isn't going to be an exhibitionist. All it takes is one to make things weird, not just for me adult woman, but for my 10 and 4 year old girls accompanying me. It's hard enough already with all the old ladies running around naked; I don't want to explain grown man penises.
These pro-genderless-restrooms activists are sick.
Counting is discriminatory. #LoveWins #ClintonWins
Ageism is discriminatory. #LoveWins #PolanskiWins
Speciation is discriminatory. #LoveWins #SomeoneWins
"=" or congruence is bigoted. #LoveLoses
Why wait for progressive morality?
equivalence
Cracker Emcee - yes, women do feel vulnerable. For good reason.
Bathrooms are private areas, obviously, but that makes them areas in which we are more vulnerable to crime.
As the Marines just found out, women are at a sharp physical disadvantage. A man doesn't even have to be armed.
I have been in women's bathrooms and encountered transgenders - twice (there aren't many of them). They are noticeable and cause you to do a doubletake, but otherwise fine. No one ever squawks about it. The problem is that if there is a legal right for men to go in there, men who have bad intentions will, and then we will not be able to use the johns safely.
Women should have the right to pee in peace. No one is really harassing genuine transgenders or even cross-dressers who use the women's facilities, so this is just more pointless causism.
I remember being disappointed in all the girls in my class who honestly did not think they deserved equal rights
Ignoring the multiple federal laws guaranteeing it and all...
Will it increase the likelihood of a child being sodomized? If yes, the left is for it.
UK Progs want to allow pedophiles to be able to adopt. You can no longer chalk this up to a "bad idea"
Nope they're not giving up.
"The battle of Houston's controversial equal rights ordinance is far from over this morning, according to political experts.
While voters defeated the measure with 61 percent of them saying no to HERO, supporters likely won't stand down."
http://tinyurl.com/qapwuux
Do these transgendered men who use the women's restroom pee standing up? To me, failure to sit and pee every time: (1) reveals a failure of sincerity and (2) is a basis of hostile environment for the women who can hear the arcing male piss stream outside the stall.
And when did an actual democratic vote ever matter? An ethereal shift of "public opinion" in support always precedes an unelected court from imposing its will on the majority.
OK, Althouse, you claim to be a lawyer: what exactly by Law is "gender identity?"
Why all the fuss? This was a VOTE. As we have learned all too often, voting results mean NOTHING!
Hillary Clinton is furiously poll testing this issue to decide what side of the triangle to take.
Kudos to the right for finally figuring out the effective tactics in an Alinsky age: a slogan built on emotion (fear) delivered by high profile types (Lance Berkman).
It's war, people. Winning is tactics.
@ Big Mike
Women leave wet toilet seats all the time. There are a lot of squatters out there.
Yes. How would women ever have gotten where we are without the passing of the ERA?
right?
Any time there is a cute acronym or it proposes a registry, it should be rejected.
You can call it Hillbilly fear, but the U. S. Department of Education says it's a civil right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-district-violated-transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
Maybe allowing transgendered men to use women's washrooms would help move the line faster at concerts.
Not that it would stop me from using the single-person women's room when the mens' room is occupied and no one else is on line.
Right. Because that happens all the time.
Seriously, the last thing I want is more people in line for the ladies' room. I would almost identify as a man just so I could pee without waiting anytime I wanted to.
If Clinton did come out in favor of this bill, I can see people voting against her for that reason. Proclaim it.
What about trigenders? That is, people who change their gender based on whims and may do so multiples times a in a week. First, are we going to discount this a s a gender? That is, gender is fluid, but it's not THAT fluid. That seems kind of transphobic doesn't it?
But if we are to accept tri genderiam as a legitimate gender, can we disc inmate based on that gender? That would mean they could use men's rooms OR women's rooms depending on what the feel they are at any given moment.
Which would essentially make all bathrooms unisex for them.
If you had to really use the bathroom and there was a line at the ladies room, couldn't you change your gender beciase you suddenly have to piss?
@Althouse, if what Birches wrote upthread is true, then your gender is the one that is gross and disgusting.
How about the agendered? Those who consider themselves to have no gender. Do they not get to use bathrooms. if they have no gender does the ability to use a bathroom default to sex? Kind of like it does now?
Why do we call bathrooms that all people can use unisex, as opposed to uni-gender? Isn't that because sex determines what bathrooms people can use and not gender as a social construct.
How about in the case of grants - http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/247215
11 or so grants for women businesses. If I want they grant can I change my sex for the purposes of getting the grant? What if I'm agender? I have no access to grants until I pick a gender?
Do pansexuals get access to ALL grants.
"I'm thinking specifically of gun control, which tends to be supported by the same people who would like to open up access to women's bathrooms."
Yeah, I think you're onto something there. What the fuck is wrong with those assholes?
The reason it lost is the mayor tried to illegally keep it from going to a vote. The people are fed up with the government telling them what to do. Also, there was no way you could read the description of the proposition and tell what it said. Just a bunch of double negatives. The politicians should just be honest with the people. If it was clearly worded, it might not have lost
I'd like to hear from someone who's gay:
Ho do you feel about being constantly lumped together in every politcally correct conversation with with "transgender" via the LGTBQXYZ meme? I don't really see any logical connection between being gay (to whom you are attracted sexually) and being "transgender" (thinking/pretending you are some gender other than what you are a la Kaitlin/Bruce Jenner).
Put another way: I can't imagine that a gay woman wants a 300 lb man who thinks he's a woman in the shower with her any more than straight woman would.
So why the LGTBQXYZ label like there's something in common?
Look, if there are such things as men's rooms and women's rooms then we have to come up with proper definitions of men and women. Gender as a social construct is not a very good way to come up with said definition. It's not fear then of people invading bathrooms so much as not agreeing with a definition that would make bathrooms essentially unisex.
You can view your tender as different from your sex, but it makes little sense for the law to view your gender as other than your sex for purposes of law.
And this is coming more from women than men. If you want to make gym showers unisex and let men shower with the ladies, I'm sure plenty of guys are not going to complain about it. They get shower nude with ladies. Or get to walk around the locker room and see naked women. Win win. But again, how are we viewing men in that situation. It has to be based on biology and not on gender as social construct models. Because otherwise, how would you prevent a biological man from entering into a locker room? All he would have to say is he feels like a woman. Maybe put on a wig. That would l be a valid gender under the gender as social construct model. He wouldn't even have to have a sex change necessarily.
Planet fitness had this exact thing happen. A transgendered male was in a woman's locker room and a woman complained. When asked about the policy towards transgendered palwnt fitness told the transgendered woman that they based thei no judgement policy on "their sincere, self-reported gender identity."
Self reported self identity. Meaning, the person says they transgendered, or tri gendered, or whatever. How are the proving its sincere? They can't. A lot of women though do not want to see a man in the dressing room while they are getting dressed.
The transgendered say they are unsafe in the men's room, this women says they are unsafe in the woman's room. All sides seem to be saying that women should be in women's rooms and men in men's rooms. Even the transgendered. They just think you should view THEM as women. But they are men.
The second thing I'd like a clarification on:
What exactly does "transgender" actually mean? We already have a word for people with both male and female body parts: hermaphroditism. By all accounts they account for less than .10% of adult population. That can't account for all of the cases we are now hearing.
Thus the conclusion I arrive at is that "transgender" is simply a euphemism for "I'm a man but want YOU to consider me a woman" (in other words you need to adjust your behavior for my pretend world).
Help me understand.
The final clarification needed:
If someone can be "transgender" can they also be "bi-gender" or "gender-questioning"
In which case they can (and everyone else needs to accommodate) be different genders on different days.
Like say ... When a man sees a woman he want to rape he can decide he's a woman that day legally follow her into the restroom or shower and no one can stop him?
Just asking.
Actually no althouse, proponents of guns rights who would advocate legislation banning men from the women's lockers and bathrooms (nevermind outside the stall or locker halls but inside the doorway), would actually leave women defenseless.
Think about this scenario, your young daughter who isn't too young or perhaps your high school friend as a young lady goes into the ladies bathroom, your at a mostly male sporting event. Since your a man, you can't legally go in, so you either wait for her to come out after 20min,or send another fellow female family member or friend, of course god forbid ,she's a victim. Then again 20min you finally find a group of females or adult female to check on them,its too late.
The law abiding male citizen was left defenseless to protect the women, even if the was outside the bathroom stall or wasn't at the actual locker or shower but in the room.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा