X

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
A

AuroraSaab

Pharaoh
icowden said:
Apparently not. They came about during the Victorian period. Public restrooms had been mostly for men. The Victorians after agreeing that women should be allowed to actually work, were concerned about preserving virtue and protecting weaker women.
Click to expand...
Women worked long before the Victorian period. It was campaigning by women that ended the 'urinary leash' not the benevolence of Victorian men. If by 'preserving virtue' you mean 'separate toilets to avoid sexual assault from stronger men' you are correct.

Screenshot_20260220_173532_Chrome.jpg


icowden said:
Secondly, whilst men generally just needed a trough, women needed proper sanitary facilities. Gendered toilets have been around for less than 200 years.
Click to expand...
The first public toilets for men had seated flushing toilets and washing facilities. It took many years for women to get the same.
 
Last edited:
monkers

monkers

Shaman
CXRAndy said:
The law is an ass,

It should and will be changed to protect women and force men and TiMs to use male facilities.
Click to expand...

That's an opinion. I support your right to hold and say it. But I will question why you form the opinion in the total absence of data to support it - because there is no evidence of what you claim.

But it must be noted that when you address me with a slight, I can either try to appeal to a better nature, or return the abuse. ''TiMs'' is an unnecessary slight. If you use it to address me every time, then you are identifying me as an available victim. When you do it means what about you? Does it make you feel powerful? Or macho? Or some kind of hero like Glinner? Maybe you have some kind of white knight syndrome? Do you suppose that all women are craving your attention as supreme protector? Hint - they're really not.

With the Epstein files, and Andy Sandy in the news, doesn't abuse make you feel queasy to be an cyber abuser?

Second point - if ''the law is an ass'', why do you support a Supreme Court judgment that makes it more of an ass?
 
Last edited:
CXRAndy

CXRAndy

Epic Member
Successive governments have contorted common sense to accommodate the trans ideology through bizarre legislation.

Ultimately trans got greedy and wanted women to accept them in their spaces.

Its backfired
 
monkers

monkers

Shaman
AuroraSaab said:
That's your view. Many of us see it as a useful clarification of what the law was all along.
Click to expand...

I agree you have as much a right to a view and to state it. I'm the one reading the law as written. I'm the one who has researched parliamentary intent. I'm as confident as any person can be that they have done this in a neutral fashion - it is a discipline I happen to have been trained in. I do not consider myself infallible. In the event of people showing evidence that I am wrong - I will always concede. Alternative viewpoints or opinions are not evidence.
 
monkers

monkers

Shaman
CXRAndy said:
Successive governments have contorted common sense to accommodate the trans ideology through bizarre legislation.

Ultimately trans got greedy and wanted women to accept them in their spaces.

Its backfired
Click to expand...

The United Nations is the backbone of human rights legislation. We are all equal in human dignity and rights.

White supremacist christo-fascism however is something else entirely. We as a country went to war with that before. Hopefully democracy will trample it underfoot to its necessary death before other means become necessary.
 
CXRAndy

CXRAndy

Epic Member
You can have your equal rights according to your biological sex.

If you're born male you get all the same rights as every other male
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom