Discussion for article #242531
...men, under the bill's gender identity non-discrimination clause, would enter women's bathrooms for nefarious reasons and couldn't be kicked out.
Of course, if a man had such a nefarious purpose in mind, there’s nothing stopping him from right this very minute sneaking into a ladies’ room, hiding in a stall, and conducting his nefarious acts. But rapists typically don’t consider a woman momentarily uncovering her own private bits to offer them enough of an advantage to risk raping them in such a public place. If they did, they’d be raping women all over the goddamned place just by virtue of providing the public restroom access we have now.
Even more ridiculous, by their “logic,” that rapist would have to go through the trouble of impersonating a transgendered individual just to gain the meaningless benefit of a victim dropping her own drawers. Why would they bother to do that instead of doing what rapists normally do, whatever that might be? We already know it’s about power not sex, and a crime conducted away from the public view so that exercise of power can be uninhibited by the fear of getting caught.
And as for the leering peeping tom, every throne I’ve seen in a men’s room has a stall, and I presume women’s rooms do as well. So that’s simply a non-issue.
This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservatives are not only not deep thinkers, they aren’t even shallow thinkers.
2 Likes
Yup, in fact, shocking though it may be to the penis-bearing uninitiated, women’s rooms not only do indeed have stalls but no urinals at all! No place to do your business in sight of others (unless one chooses to invite a guest, I suppose). Just further proof that the “tough guys” on the right are the most easily frightened people on the planet. (And bigoted, of course. And irrational. And yeah, not exactly a confederacy of geniuses.)