Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
You haven't explained why removing the legal prohibition from someone society identifies as a man entering the women's facilities shouldn't be a concern.
I like to use flair to makes points and I am lazy into going into details, but let's do a summary.

The burden of proof is on those expressing the concern, not me, but let's make it easy and just unpack what you are stating. You are arguing the following:
- Perverts are Males
- Perverts prey on women in bathrooms.
- Banning everyone born as a male from entering the bathroom would ban the perverts.
- By banning men, you prevent perverts from being perverts. (Pre-Crime)
- Perverts will exploit LGBT rights to be perverts.

Given the expressed concern did not state FTM going into the male bathrooms as a concern and you avoided my points about this. I assume it based solely on some distrust of males in particular.

If we bring some facts to your points:
- Perverts are unisex. Instead of an obscure unknown eference, I will just throw Myra Hindley into this one. Everyone knows her.
- Perverts generally speaking do all sorts and can do it legally with money or even free. It is also hard term to actually define, but I think we agree it is significantly far greater than simply males peeping on females peeing without their conaent. Let's change the term being used to 'unsoliciated acts for sexual gratification in bathrooms'. A fair alternative?
- As you bring up logical fallacies, all men does not equal all perverts as stated before. The acts can continue without males even being present. Also those who do that are likely to be in the statistically minority. What is a fair number, 1 on 100,000 ? Compared with the effect this ban has on individuals such as the female above who can be distressed or extremely uncomfortable given their presentation.
- Pre Crime arguments. Let's ban you from driving your car so you don't run someone over. There is a significantly higher chance of you running someone over (assuming you are a competent driver) than the incidences of 'perversion' being alluded too by trans people. Now you can rightly argue we recognise this risk as a society and don't ban people from driving for the greater good.
- Now, this is assuming the argument followed the example of someone who is not trans simply putting on a dress and walking into the ladies. Going to be honest, given the level of discrimination in a thread as well mannered as this one would make someone uncomfortable. Nevermind those individuals risk being abused and assaulted for simply wearing a dress. Again, it completely overlooks the real life examples which people posted who are genuinely just wanting to pee without sticking out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't see any valid arguments for the claimed concern. As I said, it is trumped up hogwash by people who want to descriminate against trans individuals by a very flawed argument they are 'perverts in disguise'.

So let's turn this back to yourself. I have posted pictures of two individuals who shared their experience publicly for awareness. Do you genuinely think they should be forced into those bathrooms when they are so clearly out of place in them?