Protecting the Innocence of Children

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,079
8,333
113
Washington DC
OK, how ‘bout multiple user genderless public washrooms…but at LEAST TWO Walls (to be inclusive, and so one gender (of 72, or men) doesn’t block the one wall, set up like the following:
View attachment 17968
Or this:
View attachment 17969
But including Fire Axes (‘cuz they’re cool) and Tazers (because there’s water in washrooms)…and surveillance by A.I. that will loudly narrate any brawl or melee in the voices and speech patterns of Fran Descher, Joe Rogan, Mechelle Voepel, Howard Cosell, the legendary Frankie McDonald…. Simultaneously!!!

This would make the various multiple genders, ages, races, species, etc…(sorry if I’ve missed any subjects of anything) the least of anyone’s problems in any public washroom…in the spirit of both Mad Max and Monty Pythons Flying Circus?
I do like a good display of properly-cared-for tools!

But what's that second picture?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,079
8,333
113
Washington DC
Instead of restrooms everyone can just grab a baggy and shit in a quiet corner of a park.

Problem solved. The ancient trans people did it and so did natural people.
I approve of your platform. You have my vote, and I shall donate to your campaign.

Though I'm obliged to point out that ancient people, trans or not, had little access to Baggies. Basically all they had was the discarded lunch-bags of careless time travellers.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,385
1,060
113
OK, first. . . yes in the general case. The owner of a property may limit the "license" granted to visitors in any (lawful) way the owner chooses, and violation of those limits is trespass.

The operative word here is "lawful." There are ways that, by law, an owner may not limit the license the owner grants. When the place is a "place of public accommodation," it is unlawful to impose any limit for the sole reason of race, religion, sex, national origin, Vietnam veteran status, or age (over 40). That's why "White" and "Colored" washrooms and seating sections are unlawful, and technically "Men" and "Women" washrooms and seating sections are unlawful. Some customary exceptions exist, such as sex-specific washrooms and "ladies' night" discounts, but if challenged, they are unlawful, though any DA or judge with sense enough to pour piss out of a boot (sadly a diminishing percentage of the total) will return the paperwork with an instruction to "make it go away."

The ban on discrimination in the Civil Rights Acts is, indeed, a limitation on your perfect freedom to do as you please with your property. It's one that we have decided is worth it. You are free to disagree if you choose.
I dunno man.

I would posit that providing washrooms for specific genders is a lawful accommodation to people's biological functions/needs.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
I approve of your platform. You have my vote, and I shall donate to your campaign.

Though I'm obliged to point out that ancient people, trans or not, had little access to Baggies. Basically all they had was the discarded lunch-bags of careless time travellers.
Linen satchel, buck scrotum sac, hemp burlap bag etc fits the timeline.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,079
8,333
113
Washington DC
I dunno man.

I would posit that providing washrooms for specific genders is a lawful accommodation to people's biological functions/needs.
It is nonetheless unlawful in the United States. A fact we politely ignore, just as we long ignored the "men-only" restriction on membership in certain elite military organizations (actually, that was legal. The U.S. Armed Forces are not a "place of public accommodation).

Every public washroom I've ever seen has toilet bowls (some exceptions for the pissoirs of France). These are usable by either sex (as are urinals, but that shit's just weird).

I personally find it comforting that even the notorious pissy litigiousness for which the U.S. is so widely famed has limits.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,385
1,060
113
DAMN, Canadians are weird!
oh, just go to Akwasasne and swim on over

you'll fit right in.

the tricky part will be to get your U.S. pension automatically deposited to your Canadian bank account, because apparently banks don't have the technology or common sense to be able to do that, or so says my brother.

again, bureaucrats
they're fvckin dummies
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,079
8,333
113
Washington DC
oh, just go to Akwasasne and swim on over

you'll fit right in.

the tricky part will be to get your U.S. pension automatically deposited to your Canadian bank account, because apparently banks don't have the technology or common sense to be able to do that, or so says my brother.

again, bureaucrats
they're fvckin dummies
Nah, I'll just walk up whatever road it is y'all're panicking about. Get to Canada feet dry.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
oh, just go to Akwasasne and swim on over

you'll fit right in.

the tricky part will be to get your U.S. pension automatically deposited to your Canadian bank account, because apparently banks don't have the technology or common sense to be able to do that, or so says my brother.

again, bureaucrats
they're fvckin dummies
No problem.