[RUEZ]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

RUEZ RUEZ:

So somehow this new law is going to prevent a sexual predator from pretending to be a woman to prey on children? Sorry I'm not buying it.

Why just children? Are you saying when it's a woman it's OK?

Damn dude, I can't believe you actually asked that.

[Delwin]

I am still not sure what the plan to enforce this is either. If the idea is to keep criminals out of washrooms, why would we expect criminals to obey the law? It would be akin to a gang member obeying a gun ban. (sound familiar?)

Are we going to have armed guards at every washroom and arrest people for taking a crap?

If we make it illegal for law biding citizens to use washrooms then only predators will use them.

Washrooms dont sexually assault people, sexual predators do. Etc, etc.

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

Me neither. It's a solution in search of a problem. Fiddle can post his stories from all the right wing blogs he wants but it doesn't change the fact that being a pervert in a bathroom is already illegal.

You're right I can, but you should try reading them. You'll find yourself saying fewer things easily proven false.

For example the story above was not a right wing blog. It was a local news site.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/03/27/man- ... sentenced/

The one about the Toronto attacker was in the local paper.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/pr ... s-offender

But the right does have more detail.

$1:

Christopher Hambrook, 37, leaned on the ever expanding legal “rights” offered to people who “identify” with the sex opposite their biology. Under the name “Jessica,” he was able to get into the women’s shelters, where he sexually assaulted several women in 2012, the Toronto Sun reports.

http://linkis.com/www.lifesitenews.com/12D80

Get it? The leniency of the rules can be exploited.

The other one you should have read before puffing up like an expert was this one.

$1:

The unidentified man entered Evans pool in Seattle near Green Lake last Monday, February 8, and began taking off his shirt in front of female patrons.

When asked what he was doing, he said, "The law has changed and I have a right to be here."

Get it? You want to give the Barbie attacker the right to be in that stall next to the woman he attacked. The facts suggest there can be repercussions. He might go in there anyway, but you want to give him the right to do it.

[N_Fiddledog]

And let's take another look at this one concerning the University of Toronto and their "gender neutral bathroom policy."

$1:

The administration at the University of Toronto was recently enlightened on why two separate washrooms are generally established for men and women sharing co-ed residencies.

The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of "voyeurism" were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/unive ... rdes-seleh

They think there is a big enough possibility of a cause and effect connection that they are changing their policy on gender neutral bathrooms.

What is it you think you see that they don't?

[Delwin]

Thats right, gender neutral bathrooms are where males and females share the same washroom. No one is arguing in favor of that. They still want people whom are male in male washrooms and females in female washrooms. This includes those whom identify themselves as such.

The story about the predator you mentioned was one where the shelter put the guy in the bed next to two women with no background check or information, that was a huge mistake and provided opportunity than a short trip to the loo would not.

As for the barbie story, no law would have stopped that guy from entering the bathroom.

They are not bank vaults, if people want in, the can simply wait until they are empty and wait in a stall, or wear a mask, make up, a hijab, or no disguise at all.

The propsed ban is not going to give people the courage to ask androgynous females to see their junk, and I know a few who could pass for either.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

The story about the predator you mentioned was one where the shelter put the guy in the bed next to two women with no background check or information, that was a huge mistake and provided opportunity than a short trip to the loo would not.

Yes that happened, but no, you're misrepresenting the facts. First of all you're forgetting to tell us about Toby's law or Ontario's "bathroom bill."

More importantly, you're not telling us how a deviant like Hambrook exploited the law.

You've been reading too much state run media. Here. Try this one.

$1:

Shocking case proves 'Toby's Law' is flawed



TORONTO - It’s every woman’s nightmare.

A man posing as a woman invades her personal space: The gym. A washroom. A women’s shelter.

That’s precisely the power that’s been given to any pervert in this province.

Any man who claims to be a transgender woman has the legal right to use women-only facilities with impunity.

It’s a right enshrined in law for 15 years and reinforced in 2012 by “Toby’s Law.”

A man who still has all his male parts, and is not undergoing hormone treatment, can simply say he’s a woman and access women’s facilities.

It’s championed by Barbara Hall, head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

In a letter on her website, in response to a Toronto Star article about a transgender “woman” exposing male genitalia to a woman in a gym change room, Hall said such stories are fear mongering.

“We have never seen a documented case of a heterosexual man gaining access to a woman’s change room by posing as transgender. In fact, in washrooms and change rooms, and in society at large, transgender persons are more at risk than anyone else of being harassed, abused, assaulted, or even killed,” Hall said in her letter.

The shocking case of Christopher Hambrook shows just how wrong Hall is.

Hambrook was not transgender, but used the law to prey on the most vulnerable women in our midst -- the homeless, the disabled and people living in shelters.

Calling himself “Jessica,” Hambrook was accepted into two women’s shelters in Toronto.

Imagine the shock of a woman surviving domestic abuse and finding herself sharing a room with a sexual monster.

In February 2012, one of his victims went to bed wearing tights, a bathing suit and a lightweight shirt in an attempt to cover herself. She awoke to find Hambrook assaulting her.

“Her tights had been pulled down past her bottom and her bathing suit had been pulled to the side,” court documents reveal. “She yelled at the accused, demanding to know what he was doing. He simply covered his face with his hands, said ‘Oops!’ and started giggling.”

In a second incident, he stalked a deaf and homeless woman living in the shelter and her on a landing.

“The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.

The woman was so terrorized, she couldn’t sleep.

When she used the washroom, Hambrook peered at her through the gap between the door and its frame.

Crown attorney Danielle Carbonneau told court of the devastating consequences of these attacks.

“Mr. Hambrook’s conduct inflicted severe psychological damage on both victims,” she said. “(They) sought refuge at Toronto women’s shelters at difficult times in their lives. They thought that they would be safe there, but instead, they were further victimized by the accused.”

Psychiatric reports say Hambrook is not transgender.

He lied about hormone treatments and told his psychiatrist he had only intermittently been dressing in female clothing and that his psychiatrist was, “unaware of his gender dysphoria and that he hoped to pursue a relationship with an adult female in the future while he remained in the male role.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/15/sh ... -is-flawed

[Delwin]

Ok, so as the story advised

$1:

Hambrook was not transgender

.

The law allows for males whom identify as females to use female facilities, it does not mean that a shelter needs to sleep a male in the same room as a female.

He obviously took advantage of the law to gain access to females but the implementation of the law isnt what caused him to commit the offense. He has been described as having been unable to control his urges since he was 12, has been convicted of sexual offences 4 times in the last 12 years, on a girl as young as 5 and a handicapped woman and he has since been locked up indefinitely as a dangerous offender.

If you think the law somehow created this guy or that the law is the reason it happened you are wrong. It was the actions of the shelter that put him in that room and all that did was made his choice of victims easier.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

He obviously took advantage of the law to gain access to females but the implementation of the law isnt what caused him to commit the offense.

But nobody is saying the implementation of the law caused him to commit the offense.

The point is he exploited the rules to allow him open access to females to unleash his sexual aggression upon them.

The rules said tell us you're a girl and you have access to the girl's dorm. He told them he was a girl. He was a criminal. Rumor is they lie.

[Delwin]

Thats correct, they lie and break real laws but you think a bathroom law will stop them because?

[N_Fiddledog]

Let's check out the story of Matthew Foerstal for a sec.

He was caught filming a woman in a Target dressing room.

This was a year ago. 2 years before that he was convicted of filming an 11 year old undressing in a department store dressing room.

So question: If this guy goes back to Target as a woman now that the rules have changed will it be easier or more difficult for him to do what he does?

Will they recognize him in a dress?

http://www.kmov.com/story/29182491/peep ... sing-rooms

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's another question. If you are a girl or woman or know one you care about, would you feel as safe under these new rules?

Polls are telling us public opinion is changing on that as it becomes a greater issue and the public is directing more thought towards it.

$1:

Public support for the progressives’ goal of mandatory mixed-sex rest rooms is down by 20 points since mid-April as more Americans face the once-ludicrous prospect of being forced to share facilities with people of the opposite sex, according to a new Reuters poll.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... the-drain/

[Delwin]

That is not a justification for the subjugation of a group of people.

If we chop off his arms and legs it will definitely make in more difficult, if we take out his eyes it will make it more difficult.

Our actions dont revolve around how easy or difficult it will be to prevent people from being crimnals. Cars make it easier for people to get away from bank robberies, guns make it easier for people to go on a shooting rampage, bathrooms are a good place to do cocaine, wearing shoes makes it hurt more when i kick someone.

To answer your question, I honestly dont think the law makes anyone any more or less safe. I highly doubt predators are wringing their hands at the prospect of getting dressed up in full drag to attend a public womens washroom so they can rape without attracting attention. Dressing in drag is not something i would describe as inconspicuous.

[N_Fiddledog]

Who's subjugating anybody. You're talking like the standard is people are using whatever washroom they want.

It's not. Currently there's men's washrooms and women's. You're the one who wants to discomfort girls and women or terrorize them with new dangers by changing hundreds of years of traditional bathroom etiquette.

If you want to change things get those who think like you together, buck up, and build these special few you pretend to worry about some bathrooms. Better do it quick though. Polls say your supporters are steadily diminishing.

[Delwin]

Why would I do that? Im not bothered either way. You're the one who wants to share your bathroom with lady-boys, and of course there's nothing wrong with that but Im pretty sure there are easier ways to meet people.

And hundreds of years of bathroom etiquette? Do you think cross dressing was invented yesterday?

[N_Fiddledog]

Well good. We've come to an understanding then. You will not insist on pressuring the majority of us to change our conventions of men's rooms and ladies rooms, and I will continue to ignore any ladyboys who might walk into a public men's room.

Although honestly...I've never seen one.