except that the 99.7% is deciding what's best for them, not for the others
that's how democracy works; hate to break it to you, but people tend to look after themselves before everyone else
that's one of the pitfalls of direct democracy, not an advantage, the majority gets to decide that their interests are more important than the minority's. this is why our government is so convoluted, it's intentionally designed so that minorities
don't get trampled over, they have numerous areas where they can slow down the political process and have their interests heard. the idea that, because the minority is a minority, they're less important, is incredibly dangerous.
no one is suggesting this
they're saying that if a man (who maybe even got into a wig and dress) were to say, "oh hey gals I'm a woman," maybe don't let him into the loving girls' dressing room
trans people who look like the opposite love don't even have to worry about this, people aren't going to look at them and go, "hoo wee that guy has a richard"
i said i knew it wasn't going to happen because i know nobody is going to actually have security enforcing these policies in the bathrooms or at the door. also, letting people use public restrooms of their identified gender literally just means they're taking a stuff and leaving a different room. it's very obvious if someone is doing anything but that, frankly this idea that letting people use the bathroom will lead to loveual assault is a kneejerk reaction. i'm also not sure why it shouldn't be allowed to use the restroom because you don't look enough like the gender you identify as; you can't legislate that. it's an entirely subjective idea. letting the government begin deciding if people
look male or female enough is hilariously silly because there's no metric for it, it would be up exclusively to the opinions of officials.
it's not individual privacy, although that's the reason there's dividers and stalls
men are expected to stay separate to women when it comes to dressing/stuffting because it's what women want and because it's the polite thing to do
yeah, and nobody is telling people to remove dividers. the reason i said that is because the only reason someone a the different love being in the same restroom as you would be an invasion of privacy would be because you don't want to be in a bathroom with them, and if that's the case, then that could legally be extrapolated to anyone that you don't want in the same bathroom, which makes sense in private settings, but not public ones where multiple-user public restrooms are already widespread.
and again i would say that the interests of the majority are not inherently more valuable than the interests of the minority.
if you remove the requirement for people to separate themselves like that, stuff is going to happen, as already shown
this is a kneejerk reaction and a hasty conclusion. we have no metric of knowing the long-term effects of a restrictive policy and we also have no way of knowing the exact correlations at play in cases such as these. the things these people are doing are illegal and will stay just as illegal regardless. the fact that they have one more or less little offense to go through in order to commit a crime is not going to stop them from committing a much larger one. and i still question the logistics of enforcing these policies anyway, since nobody wants to have willy-checkers at every bathroom door, and supposedly the people inside the bathroom would be the victims of loveual assault and probably wouldn't be able to report anything in a timely manner.
and as always,
there is an article to counter your article, and one to counter mine.
