Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phoenix New Times)   Arizona wants to go full "Where birth certifcit whe" on anyone who uses a public restroom   (blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com) divider line 160
    More: Amusing, restrooms, Representative John Kavanagh, United States House Committee on Appropriations, bathrooms  
•       •       •

14549 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 5:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 12:17:38 AM  

wambu: what_now: So, if I use the men's room because its empty and there' are four chicks waiting in line for the ladies, I'm a felon?

Yes, if a man in the reverse situation would be a felon. It's only fair.


I tend to agree with you.  There is a tendency in the USA to see men as sexual predators but give women a free pass.
 
2013-03-20 12:56:35 AM  

Fury Pilot: Bumblefark: Fury Pilot: duffblue: Thisbymaster:

This thread is about a proposed law about access to bathrooms based on gender on birth certificate, so it is perfectly reasonable to hold the 'penis' rule up to scrutiny under the proposed law.


Sorry, I don't see it. The argument was that the "penis rule" is absurd because it produces an absurd legal result under the proposed law. Except, the penis rule doesn't say anything about one's legal sex, and the proposed law says nothing about penises. If you want to appeal to context, that's fine, but context is always going to be a matter of interpretation as to what is and isn't "reasonable"...

DuffBlue's attempted insult implies support for the rule, the rule is logically inconsistent with the topic at hand, so calling his attempt to insult others on the basis of logical superiority is reasonable.

Yeah...I really don't care about the pissing match element, here...

Also, your dismissal of the contradiction is based on a false premise:

Even two minutes on wikipedia found me this:
Almost all U.S. states permit the name and sex to be changed on a birth certificate, either through amending the existing birth certificate or by issuing a new one. Only Idaho, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas refuse to change the sex, though Texas will do so if a court order is presented. The legislatures and courts of many states, however, including Missouri, have not addressed this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism_in_the_ Un ited_States

So there are at least 4 US states and any number of foreign countries that would not provide birth certificate changes.


"Most every" doesn't mean, "all." It means, "nearly all" -- which means, "some aren't." I didn't bother listing off the exceptions, but I certainly acknowledged them. If I acknowledged them, that probably means they weren't too critical to the point I was making...

The point was that there really isn't much of a contradiction when you take into account the fact that AZ allows re-issues of birth certifications. The argument pretty clearly implied that the dilemma for the post-op person is that their present physical form by necessity doesn't match their birth certificate. In AZ that's just not the case.

I suppose we can now more narrowly fret about the post-op Idahoan passing through AZ and in need of a bathroom...but, I doubt I'm going to be too sympathetic to the conclusion that, because the proposed law is substantially unfair to those people, it follows that the AZ law must be absurd one.

Seems to me, the problem is with the Idaho (etc.) laws. As a practical matter, local laws can really only address their own circumstances.
 
2013-03-20 01:59:36 AM  
1. This is a proposed law, not an actual one.  Our avoidance of Arizona can maintain its current level for now.
2. It's a misdemeanor, not a felony.
3. This guy is still an ass.

/transgender
 
2013-03-20 02:46:30 AM  
Arizona kind of reminds me of a small country in Europe:

static.twoday.net
 
2013-03-20 04:05:18 AM  

serpent_sky: nekom: It's only March, but so far this may well be the dumbest idea I've heard all year. It has been pointed out that transsexuals (post or pre-op) are FAR better off going to the ladies room. But let's ask the Farkettes: Does that bother ANY of you at all? Honestly?

/I've seen women in the mens room at concerts, no one cared.

Not in the slightest. I never really understood the whole men's and women's rooms, anyway.  If someone is a deviant predator waiting to abduct me or do something horrible in the bathroom, that "women's" sign isn't going to deter him, or make him say "oh wait, I can't be in here. Better go somewhere else."  I really don't care who is in the bathroom with me, so long as they aren't in the same stall as i am using - and I'd have a problem if a woman did that, as well.
 *shrug*

I really don't pay enough attention to people minding their own business and not bothering anyone to have the slightest care or concern to this end.


I once went camping with a good friend from high school who I'd known was gay for years. Because we stayed up late around the camp fire having some drinks and just hanging out later than anyone else, he came into the female rest room with us (my other female friend who also knew him) when it was toof-brushing time. It was actually kind of fun just continuing to hang out while finishing getting ready for bed.

I don't necessarily want to share a rest room with most random men, but some are ok. It comes down to attitude.
 
2013-03-20 09:23:24 AM  

penthesilea: [i470.photobucket.com image 500x500]
Dads still need to be able to take their sons and daughters into the bathroom.
Moms still need to be able to take their daughters and sons into the bathroom.

Sometimes the only bathroom with a diaper changing station is in the bathroom labeled for women.
Dads can't change diapers there?
Baby boys can't get changed in the bathroom labeled for women?

Some lawmakers need to stop being obsessed with what everyone is doing with their genitals.


I hadn't even thought of that, I just assumed this was a bill directly aimed at the transgendered, and maybe it is but this is an important aspect as well. When my daughter was younger, I took her into the mens room to change her. No one cared.
 
2013-03-20 09:48:38 AM  
This looks like a good place for this.

fark you assholes with your cute and confusing bathroom door signs.
 
2013-03-20 10:38:17 AM  
Oh, and I feel safer.
 
2013-03-20 02:47:20 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: what_now: So, if I use the men's room because its empty and there' are four chicks waiting in line for the ladies, I'm a felon?

A very naughty girl at the least


A Miss Demeanor.
 
2013-03-20 05:38:45 PM  

Thisbymaster: The is simple if you have penis you use the men's room, regardless of your clothing or mental illness.


I was going to give you a 0/10 for the mental illness reference, but it made me chuckle. So I bumped your score up to 1/10.
 
Displayed 10 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report