TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995

There is no realistic way to enforce a rule of "use the facility that you identify with at the moment". So the only logical end state here is a legal requirement for unisex restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, changing rooms, etc. Everyone's right to privacy will ultimately be trumped by the need for less than 1% of the population to not feel "offended". Don't like it? So what? They don't care.

Soccerdad1995

I'm just waiting for the big health club chains to announce their new unisex showers and locker rooms. That may get a bigger reaction than the bathroom thing, but who knows?

Interesting note - I have been to Amsterdam, which is probably one of the most open and liberal places in the world when it comes to things like nudity and sexuality. And yes there are "normal"* spas in Amsterdam that have unisex showers and changing rooms, along with unisex steam rooms, etc. But even there, such places are in the minority and most of the spas have single sex changing rooms and any areas that are open to both sexes prohibit nudity.

It's interesting that we are well on the path toward government mandated behavior that even the Europeans consider to be too extreme.

* By normal, I mean that normal people will go there to relax after a day at work. I am not talking about sex clubs or the like.

Soccerdad1995

LosAlce wrote:As a woman (and I really hate that I have to preface that but my guess is the overwhelming majority of the members on the forum are men), nothing makes me stop listening faster than "we have to protect our daughters and wives!"

If you want to protect them, teach them to protect themselves. Pepper spray, taser, something, just PLEASE stop using us as an excuse. It really does just drive me bonkers. No one is in no more danger than they were before. PLUS, what about your sons? I seem to remember that much more inappropriate activities go on in there.

I refuse to be used as plot point, just like I refuse to be a victim (hence why I carry).

And for those who have proclaimed that they will stand guard by women's restrooms, that is incredibly problematic. How am I to know you are a "good guy" if you are hanging out in a place normal people don't hang out around. It's super creepy and may actually cause MORE problems.

The irony of these issues is just so thick and almost overwhelming.

Part of my rant can be blamed on painkillers from my recent back injury. I've already warned my husband that if I see a man "standing guard" by the restroom I intend to use, it is not going to be pretty. If you insist on doing it, please do it from a reasonable distance.

I'm confused on your stance. If you have a problem with men hanging out by the women's restroom, then I'm assuming that you also have a problem with men being in the women's restroom.

But something in the tone of your post makes me think that you are in favor of Target's unisex restroom policy. Maybe I am just reading too much into what you have posted?

Soccerdad1995

Scott Farkus wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?
Good point, except that in this case the property owner - Target - has made it known that they don't expect their customers to acknowedge that sign, so I don't see how that could be considered trespassing at a Target store. Plus, for all I know, Target might have taken down the "Men" and "Women" signs altogether.

Playing devil's advocate here, and assuming signs are still up on the restrooms and fitting rooms.

Since Target has publicly stated that they don't intend to enforce restrictions that could be inferred from these signs, would it be reasonable to assume that every sign there is similarly not really "serious"? Should I smoke in their posted "no smoking" areas? Have they basically given effective notice that overrides any 30.07 signage? It really is pretty darn confusing.

Soccerdad1995

In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: Shoe on the other foot

Re: Shoe on the other foot

Re: Shoe on the other foot

Re: Shoe on the other foot

Re: Shoe on the other foot