• entries
  • comments
  • views



Do you give a shit?  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you give a shit where a transgender person might be taking a shit?

    • I could give two shits
    • I couldn't give a shit
    • I give a shit, but I have other worries (prostate, dribbles, erections)
    • Bruce K Jenner can shit where he wants in Trump Tower.
    • Yes, I want more Bathroom Laws. Lots of them. Because.

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you've got a dick go to the boys' room.

If you don't, don't.

Life isn't so complicated that a dick is optional.

Brant, some areas of biology are more complicated than flip one-liners ... I think you do well understand that there is variation in genitals. I have explained this before at length here. Please review the 'spectrum' of real-world and recurring cases of babies born with indeterminate external genitalia. It is relevant and not all that  complicated in principle: the X and the Y have jobs to do as chromosomes. In a normally developing fetus, their job is done to the norm.  It is the not norm I think we are concerned with. You cannot norm an XXY 'girl' pre-puberty. The chromosomal 'sex' type does not always predict the Dick.  

You should know this, Brant; it is relevant, and it makes your pithy saying unhelpful -- the saying is just an arbitrary assertion if it cannot be supported, and it can be contradicted by reality.  


When choosing your bathroom never mind what's between your ears; it's what's between your legs.

That works for me and you.   But the function of a restroom is not gender-division, it is to take away wastes and allow cosmetics to be applied while checking out the dog-face beside you.  And washing hands after touching yourself down there.

The function of a child's bathroom can be divved up by gender and it is the world over, but the bathroom has almost nothing to do with sex in the schools we are 'worried' about. Sex, meaning sexual behaviour, sexual activity, sex.  Sex school. 

We run the risk of distorting reality if we aren't familiar with the ins and outs of actual 'intersex' or otherwise physically/mentally incongruent people, and if we gloss over disconfirming details.  Brant, I might ask you to consider a Lesbian in a Ladies Room.  Or a Gay Man in a Men's room.   Or a couple copulating in an airline restroom. Or a sex crime committed in a locker room or ancilliary single-gender environs.

The harms are where?  The harms are in the crime. The crimes are in the cover-ups, and abuse of human beings as sexual ends.  Thus Jerry Sandusky and the procession of disgusting Catholic abusers and coverups. Thus the concern about hidden abuse of children in the privacy of their homes, but their caregivers. Thus the horrors of badly-run foster and 'care' systems.  Thus sexual abuse of minors ... sexual abuse of children, sexual abuse of adolescents and pre-pubescents.

That rings dark and true.  What doesn't sound as darkly is the harm in Jazz taking her shit with where she wants to?   She isn't some hairy Peter Taylor in drag wanting to periscope up widdle gurls skirts or manhandle them. That is on the Hairy Peter. That is his imaginary crime. 

Brant, if you have ever been the target of Faggot Attack, or been intimate with someone gay or bi who has been beat up, or if you know some 'Trannnnnnnneeee' who has been beaten, beaten to death, contrast that with the Bathroom Crime bullshit being ushered into law in Trailer Park states. The law has penalties. 

I would like you to go read the text of the laws promulgated to Prevent GayScaryHairyTransRape ... and then give me a one-liner or two. If we are united in anything beyond our interest in reason, it is in our rejection of ignorance.  I can always be less ignorant, I can be ready to take on more information. And so can you.  


that's what I figured out before I was 5 (it took longer to figure out the why of the difference between girl's and boy's bicycles [skirts and pants] or why women had side-saddles for riding horses, not men [same reason])

When was the first time you Looked At Another Boy's Penis with lust in your loins, Brant?  I mean, in a bathroom. When do you use a bathroom to stalk victims?

On 5/20/2016 at 0:22 PM, Peter said:

If a person looks like the sex there would be no problem as long as they behave in the correct manner.

Oh. Tell me that the law should be that Jazz must go squat in the Boy's Room.  FFS.





I think there have already been instances of men entering women's bathrooms to molest, peep, and take pictures but I received that info second hand.




Locker rooms and showers are also required to allow people of a different sex to use those facilities.




That is not right and never has been perhaps going back to human cave dwelling days.




I see a potential for assaults and mob violence against trannies as well as perverts using the Obama philosophy to harm children.




I say hell no . . . . I won't go.




1 hour ago, Peter said:

I think I am once again at the point of being SO appalled by Greg’s bigotry and stupidity that I am going to put him on my do not read list.    


Recommended Comments

Greg, this is my space for discussion with Peter and Brant -- which is likely to be boring and not too interesting except to OL Sex Freaks. You are welcome here if you abide by OL House Rules and act like a man, a reasonable man with a man's ability to take criticism and be better for it.  If you can't be that kind of man. I will not welcome you.  Thank you.

Link to comment

I didn't know where I was. I guess this is an aspect of the new software. I post for everybody and all comments off the "All Activity" page. I don't believe in Greg neutered.


Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Federal laws should cover federal buildings, state laws state and local buildings. Private buildings--that's a property ownership issue too--private property.


maybe there should be three bathrooms; not my problem; I'm worrying too much about other things--sorry

Link to comment

It is exactly the same as a Topic Header on the front porch, Brant, but it cannot be read by other than registered and logged-in OL members. I am here developing an argument and seeking to understand how to render disagreement useful.  I put the Boring Warning up only half in jest.

I'd be happy if you want to participate (and of course happy if you read and consider the arguments).  

If we can keep away from the ditches (nitwitted personal attacks) the road can get us somewhere. 


Link to comment
1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

I'm worrying too much about other things--sorry

Off to your worries, then, Brant. If you don't have time to whip up other than quick one-liners, it is no skin off my nose.  

Link to comment

Was there a deleted Greg post?

I'm just trying mostly right now to get my head around new OL structure so I'll know what I'm doing with whom and why. Then I can decide on respecting a protocol or keeping my lips zipped. I have to learn and see these little icons, for instance. I merely got irritated by the unknown and unexpected. You and I are two good faiths on separate rr tracks--oh, oh: the same tracks (hit the brakes!)


Link to comment

Okay, I see what happened. You started this special discussion by quoting me, jerking me out of the original thread and I thought I was still there.

Just to be blunt: don't do that. Start it with your own material then you can quote me from elsewhere all you want. I thought I was somewhere else.

It could go like this: "___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________"

Now Brant, on the religion thread said:

"_________________________________________________________________" to which I say "_________________________"


I'll give all this another gander tomorrow when I have the time

Link to comment

Thanks, Brant. I hope I didn't sound like I was picking a fight or being one-eyed or such. This is how I do things sometimes, using the blog as a kind of less-fraught sub-ballroom.  (you can set up your 'feeds' to filter out blog entries, since they are easily findable via links on the OL activities menu bar.

I don;t have a lot fime today, but I will continue working on this, and add links to my previous lengthy and boring rants (with further links). There is no better time to update the schmozzle of untruths, half-truths and baloney around trans issues.  I don't like those new Bathroom Laws and I don't like the backdoor 'do this or lose money' extortion of behaviour by the Administration.  

Up here we wrassle with the issue for years until public opinion is just about to tilt, informed by case law and Charter (Bill of Rights bizarro-canadian) challenges on the basis of individual rights -- and the policies of involved parties, from the local level of school boards all the way past provincial education ministries to the parliamentary parties in Ottawa.  

What usually helps is to unveil a real person with 'transgenderismosis' like the Jazz person. It was telling that Greg did not treat Jazz as a challenge to his own prejudices, for a Jazz comes up like a red weed, a sport, in every generation.  I wonder how  a Greg would deal with a Jazz as a grandchild. Could he understand the little boy believing himself to be in the 'wrong' body?  What options would Jazz have except to be a disastrously feminine boy who wishes he could live as a girl?

I mean, what helps folks see an issue of inter-human morality at the individual level. What would you as a parent do with a Jazz, as a school administrator, as a state bureaucrat, as a 'fellow parent' meeting Jazz.

The bathroom laws relieve from any consequences those who tell people where they must shit. The must is on the person, the individual. The child.

Where was Christine Jorgensen expected to shit?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It is exactly the same as a Topic Header on the front porch, Brant, but it cannot be read by other than registered and logged-in OL members.

FYI I was able to see it from my iphone, and I've never logged in from there.

I don't have anything especially insightful to say on the topic.  It seems to me that if you're a male transitioning to female, probably the safer place to do your bathroom business is the ladies room.  Are lawmakers concerned that these people are going in there to sneak a peek?  Enjoy the aromas?  The whole thing's goofy.


Link to comment
2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

FYI I was able to see it from my iphone, and I've never logged in from there.

Thanks for visiting, and thanks for the opinion, and thanks for the note that one need not log in to see Friends and Foes blog.

Link to comment
On 5/22/2016 at 5:23 PM, 9thdoctor said:

 Are lawmakers concerned that these people are going in there to sneak a peek?  Enjoy the aromas?  The whole thing's goofy.

This story made the rounds yesterday:


I found the headline objectionable, however effective it was as click-bait.   This didn't happen in a public bathroom, but in a private home.  If it had happened in a closet would the headline have included that detail?

Link to comment

This has been going around for a month or so ... Media Matters summed up a Laura Ingraham position, a prediction that some people will never patronize public washrooms. Stock up on Depends ...


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now