[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

A narrower law can't accomplish the same goal?

If it can, the broader law should be rejected on principle.

What narrower law do you propose?

Originally Posted by subego 

The way social media works is the SJWs run the show.

They're the loudest, but any group can get traction if they're loud enough. Gamers are a good example, they don't give 2 shits about politics, by and large, but you screw with any established franchise or a favorite dev, God have mercy on your soul.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What narrower law do you propose?

The original complaint is easy. You can't expose your wang in the women's room unless you're in a closed stall. Done and done.

People trying to abuse the freedom is a little tougher. Seems to me you can riff off of standard issue indecency laws. Going into the bathroom with a wang and an intent to seek some form of sexual satisfaction is illegal. I'll admit, that's an imperfect law, but I only spent about 10 minutes thinking about it, and it gets very high marks for precision. Exactly the things we want to make illegal are illegal. Where it falls down a bit is how fuzzy the "intent to seek sexual satisfaction" line is when determining guilt. There's nothing fuzzy about the other law when it comes to determining guilt: drop your drawers.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

The original complaint is easy. You can't expose your wang in the women's room unless you're in a closed stall. Done and done.

People trying to abuse the freedom is a little tougher. Seems to me you can riff off of standard issue indecency laws. Going into the bathroom with a wang and an intent to seek some form of sexual satisfaction is illegal. I'll admit, that's an imperfect law, but I only spent about 10 minutes thinking about it, and it gets very high marks for precision. Exactly the things we want to make illegal are illegal. Where it falls down a bit is how fuzzy the "intent to seek sexual satisfaction" line is when determining guilt. There's nothing fuzzy about the other law when it comes to determining guilt: drop your drawers.

I don't think a no exposure law is actually going to protect a kid who finds herself alone with a predator dressed as a woman, and even though a "no dicks allowed" law isn't perfect either, at least it offers some protection ie. someone were to see someone who shouldn't be in the ladies room walk in there in the first place.

The thing is, I know I'm not entirely reasonable WRT my child. Before she came along I wasn't like this and didn't give a shit where anyone chooses to shit. I know my thinking has been physically, and from what I can tell permanently, remapped.

[Laminar]

A man wants to sexually assault a girl. So he dresses as a woman and walks into a women's bathroom in a crowded restaurant and sexually assaults a girl.

How does a law stating that you're required to use the bathroom specified on your birth certificate affect anything in that scenario?

The closest you could come, I think, is a scenario where a man wants to look at girls, so he dresses as a woman and enters a women's changing room. If he is questioned, he claims to be transgender and is let off the hook. The new law prevents the man from being able to claim transgender status as a get out of jail free card.

But assault is assault and a law about bathrooms and birth certificates won't do anything to help it. This law also hurts actual transgender people trying to use the vast majority of non-changing-room public bathrooms where no one sees anyone else's dangly or non-dangly bits.

[subego]

There would be a likelihood of him being stopped before he went in.

If instead there were a permissive law, stopping him would be assault.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

There would be a likelihood of him being stopped before he went in.

By whom? The bathroom monitor?

[subego]

By anyone.

If a man going into a bathroom is flat-out illegal, there's more of a likelihood of a man getting stopped going in.

If it's not illegal, there are no grounds upon which to stop him.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did my explanation make any sense?

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not trying to protect the bad actor (someone who turns away customers they don't like), I'm trying to protect the good actor from getting hampered even though they're behaving in good faith.

I don't get it, so maybe you can give me a hypothetical?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

By anyone.

If a man going into a bathroom is flat-out illegal, there's more of a likelihood of a man getting stopped going in.

If it's not illegal, there are no grounds upon which to stop him.

I posted this in another thread. From Feb 16, 2016
Man in women's locker room cites gender rule | KING5.com

Seattle Parks and Recreation is facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules. A man undressed in a women's locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.

It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."

"Really bizarre," MaryAnne Sato said. "I can't imagine why they would want to do that anyway!"

Sato uses the locker room a few times a week, but she says this is a first for her. It's also a first for Seattle Parks and Recreation. Employees report that the man made no verbal or physical attempt to identify as a woman, yet he still cited a new rule that allows bathroom choice based on gender identification.

The issue drew protesters from both sides to Olympia on Monday. Opponents claim the rule opens up bathrooms to voyeurs but supporters say that's an unrealistic fear.

No one was arrested in this case and police weren't called, even though the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What about your fantasy? I didn't say anything about "fake transitioning", you're under the assumption that men transitioning to be women are attracted to men (Jenner, for example, is still sexually attracted to women).

Women's bathrooms already have lesbians in them. How is this any different?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The way social media works, all it'll take is for ONE little girl to scream and say she was sexually assaulted by a trangender in a public restroom and their status as a protected class will be out the window. You think it's unfair now?

What's the argument here? A preemptory reactionary law is ok because in the end there will likely be a post reactionary law?

Originally Posted by subego 

By anyone.

If a man going into a bathroom is flat-out illegal, there's more of a likelihood of a man getting stopped going in.

If it's not illegal, there are no grounds upon which to stop him.

If they're that proactive and suspicious, they can always send an employee in the monitor the person. Or post someone to warn people before they go in. Unless you're in an area flooded with transvestites and pedophiles, this is probably not that burdensome.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

A man wants to sexually assault a girl. So he dresses as a woman and walks into a women's bathroom in a crowded restaurant and sexually assaults a girl.

How does a law stating that you're required to use the bathroom specified on your birth certificate affect anything in that scenario?

The closest you could come, I think, is a scenario where a man wants to look at girls, so he dresses as a woman and enters a women's changing room. If he is questioned, he claims to be transgender and is let off the hook. The new law prevents the man from being able to claim transgender status as a get out of jail free card.

But assault is assault and a law about bathrooms and birth certificates won't do anything to help it. This law also hurts actual transgender people trying to use the vast majority of non-changing-room public bathrooms where no one sees anyone else's dangly or non-dangly bits.

You could pass a law that posing as a transgender person to use opposite sex bathrooms is punishable, too.

[The Final Dakar]

Aww, *puts away popcorn*
Group Withdraws House Bill 2 Loyalty Pledge

---

Adam Silver: N.C. law could affect All-Star Game, Hornets' future - ABC News
Pretty noncommittal, but something to keep an eye on down the line.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In theory, sure. In practice, not enough stalls, no one has time to wait around for one.

C'mon andi, you're in the business, you know the drill: Cheap, easy, safe – pick two.

What rush are you in where you can't wait around to change properly?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Women's bathrooms already have lesbians in them. How is this any different?

A lesbian is the same as a 54 y/o man who believes she's a Disney Princess, is she?

What's the argument here? A preemptory reactionary law is ok because in the end there will likely be a post reactionary law?

How is it reactionary, what is it a reaction to?

If they're that proactive and suspicious, they can always send an employee in the monitor the person. Or post someone to warn people before they go in. Unless you're in an area flooded with transvestites and pedophiles, this is probably not that burdensome.

Or, you know, people are just busy doing their real jobs. You propose we put bathroom monitors in every toilet?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

C'mon andi, you're in the business, you know the drill: Cheap, easy, safe – pick two.

What rush are you in where you can't wait around to change properly?

I'm in the "mind your own business" camp, but math examples:

A YMCA swim class of 20 kids gets out at 5pm. There are 2 changing booths and 2 toilet stalls in the girls locker room. Kids over 6 are not allowed in grownup locker rooms, and adults are not supposed to go into the kid locker rooms. Which means your 8 yr old will take twice as long to get dressed without your help/nagging. You have to get kid home for dinner before getting them to scouts at 6. If every kid used a stall and took 10 minutes to dry and change it would take an hour for everyone... never mind the people in the next class who are getting ready are also in line for the stalls.

A high school gym class of 30 students has 45 minutes to change into gym clothes, participate in sport, and change back to regular clothes. There are similar 2 changing booths and 3 toilets in each locker. If everyone used a booth half the class would end up missing gym waiting their turn.

Invisible cone of privacy, everyone. Anyone who makes eye contact, well that's cause for concern.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't get it, so maybe you can give me a hypothetical?

The best hypothetical I already gave.

I am a businessman who wouldn't discriminate against a soul. Someone can come in and make a false discrimination claim. So can my employees, or someone I didn't hire.

My dad used to be a teacher. He failed a student and got accused of discrimination. Luckily it was math, so it was fairly easy to prove whether the person had the skills she claimed to have. She didn't, but he still had to go through the formal process, be worried, question himself, whatever...

That was in the 70's, when all he had to deal with was racial discrimination claims. In the 90's, as a businessman, he showed me the list of classes he can't discriminate against. It was long. Maybe a dozen classes. I'm sure it's even longer now.

So basically, even if you don't discriminate, you have a dozen plus vectors a lawsuit could come at you, even though you did nothing wrong.

This is the person the law damages, not a racist who hates "the darkies". It's not the racist being affected which makes me against it, it's the non-racist.


Sent from my iPhone

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If they're that proactive and suspicious, they can always send an employee in the monitor the person. Or post someone to warn people before they go in. Unless you're in an area flooded with transvestites and pedophiles, this is probably not that burdensome.

I'm not usually proactive and suspicious... right up until I see something worthy of being proactive and sucpicious about.

And "post someone to warn people" not followed by "until the police arrive"?

That's bad for business.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm in the "mind your own business" camp, but math examples:

A YMCA swim class of 20 kids gets out at 5pm. There are 2 changing booths and 2 toilet stalls in the girls locker room. Kids over 6 are not allowed in grownup locker rooms, and adults are not supposed to go into the kid locker rooms. Which means your 8 yr old will take twice as long to get dressed without your help/nagging. You have to get kid home for dinner before getting them to scouts at 6. If every kid used a stall and took 10 minutes to dry and change it would take an hour for everyone... never mind the people in the next class who are getting ready are also in line for the stalls.

A high school gym class of 30 students has 45 minutes to change into gym clothes, participate in sport, and change back to regular clothes. There are similar 2 changing booths and 3 toilets in each locker. If everyone used a booth half the class would end up missing gym waiting their turn.

Uh...shoot...I should know this one...uh...um...Train A arrives 10 minutes early?

[andi*pandi]

You forgot to allow for friction and the doppler effect.

[subego]

Reported.

[Chongo]

From the Great White North. Perhaps it was stories like this that prompted laws like NC's
Predator who claimed to be transgender declared dangerous offender | Toronto & G

TORONTO - A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender.

[Chongo]

How about trying this. This could get expensive for larger venues like sports arenas or concert venues. The way to eliminate the problem is to go to single user bathrooms. That way it doesn't matter what a person claims to be because they will be in there alone. They will be of course "squatters who will refuse to use the same station after a "stander" at concerts or games.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How about trying this. This could get expensive for larger venues like sports arenas or concert venues. The way to eliminate the problem is to go to single user bathrooms. That way it doesn't matter what a person claims to be because they will be in there alone. They will be of course "squatters who will refuse to use the same station after a "stander" at concerts or games.

Why not just leave things as they are and let people use the bathroom of their gender? There is no problem to be solved here.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why not just leave things as they are and let people use the bathroom of their gender? There is no problem to be solved here.

How do define gender?

[subego]

That's the thing. If we accept things are gender fluid (I do), then things are gender fluid.

Just like there are arguments over where on the spectrum someone's sexuality sits.

And when I say "arguments", I mean arguments, as in yelling. This is within the respective groups.

If you're bi, you're not gay "enough". If you haven't had a williectomy, you aren't trans "enough".

[Chongo]

Either you stand to pee or you sit.

[subego]

I appreciate the desire to keep it that simple, but when...



Sits to pee, and...



Stands to pee, things just aren't that simple.

[andi*pandi]

I don't care if you stand or sit, but for crissakes, enough with the hovering.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I appreciate the desire to keep it that simple, but when...



Sits to pee, and...



Stands to pee, things just aren't that simple.

One mother's take. FaceBook suspended her account after she posted these.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How do define gender?

Gender is well-defined legally, if according to your id or your passport you are a woman, you should be able to use the women's bathroom. We are talking about laws here, not sociology or biology.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

From the Great White North. Perhaps it was stories like this that prompted laws like NC's
Predator who claimed to be transgender declared dangerous offender | Toronto & G

So someone impersonating a transwoman is trudged up as a justification for discriminating against transwomen? I believe we already have laws against harassment, and in that particular case your creep is a straight guy, not a transgender person. So if this case prompted the NC toilet laws, then the toilet laws are (still) completely misguided as it targets transgender people rather than creepy men who intrude into a women's bathroom to molest women.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

One of the main problems is that the extremely screwed up social "sciences" have bled over into biology and people now believe things that simply aren't true.

[andi*pandi]

The sexuality spectrum has become so wide, and it varies with fashion. Would Eddy Izzard be a transvestite in 17th century france, when he could wear all the lace and high heels his heart desired? I'm a woman who wears pants, which 100 years ago was scandalous. Women with short hair, men with long hair, women who wear grey, men who wear pink. Flat chested, or not. Facial hair, or not.

The only true definition of sex that is not visual is the ability to reproduce. I am hesitant to make that the rule though, since not every biologically born female can carry to term, nor every male produce viable swimmers. There are instances of trans people having children via their original parts. Confusing to me, but I can understand.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

A lesbian is the same as a 54 y/o man who believes she's a Disney Princess, is she?

For the purposes of sexual attraction in the bathroom, what is the difference to you?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

How is it reactionary, what is it a reaction to?

Are you playing dumb? Just make whatever point you'd like. If you're genuinely curious, ask the NC lawmakers who held a 'emergency' session to deal with the issue.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Or, you know, people are just busy doing their real jobs. You propose we put bathroom monitors in every toilet?

That post you quoted quite clearly stated what I proposed, so you know the answer to this question.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm in the "mind your own business" camp, but math examples:

A YMCA swim class of 20 kids gets out at 5pm. There are 2 changing booths and 2 toilet stalls in the girls locker room. Kids over 6 are not allowed in grownup locker rooms, and adults are not supposed to go into the kid locker rooms. Which means your 8 yr old will take twice as long to get dressed without your help/nagging. You have to get kid home for dinner before getting them to scouts at 6. If every kid used a stall and took 10 minutes to dry and change it would take an hour for everyone... never mind the people in the next class who are getting ready are also in line for the stalls.

C'mon andi, these reasons are weak. Your options here are quite clear and not exactly life altering:

A1. Let the kids out earlier to account for the time required.
A2. Let the kids with prior engagements afterwards out 10 min early.
B. Show up 10 min late for scouts. Maybe those first 10 min are critical. I don't know.
C. Choose which one is more important – YMCA or scouts.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

A high school gym class of 30 students has 45 minutes to change into gym clothes, participate in sport, and change back to regular clothes. There are similar 2 changing booths and 3 toilets in each locker. If everyone used a booth half the class would end up missing gym waiting their turn.

This strikes me as the first place that should be installing more privacy booths. I think a lot of kids find the entire locker room changing thing awkward as hell. Maybe this hot button topic can save some regular kids some stress.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The best hypothetical I already gave.

I am a businessman who wouldn't discriminate against a soul. Someone can come in and make a false discrimination claim. So can my employees, or someone I didn't hire.

My dad used to be a teacher. He failed a student and got accused of discrimination. Luckily it was math, so it was fairly easy to prove whether the person had the skills she claimed to have. She didn't, but he still had to go through the formal process, be worried, question himself, whatever...

That was in the 70's, when all he had to deal with was racial discrimination claims. In the 90's, as a businessman, he showed me the list of classes he can't discriminate against. It was long. Maybe a dozen classes. I'm sure it's even longer now.

So basically, even if you don't discriminate, you have a dozen plus vectors a lawsuit could come at you, even though you did nothing wrong.

This is the person the law damages, not a racist who hates "the darkies". It's not the racist being affected which makes me against it, it's the non-racist.


Sent from my iPhone

So basically the law can be abused by bad actors? Doesn't this go for most of them? That just reinforces my flawed philosophy angle. It begins promoting the concerns of those who might be abused over those that already are being abused.

(apologies if I missed the point because its been a week)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

For the purposes of sexual attraction in the bathroom, what is the difference to you?

You know the answer to that.

Are you playing dumb?

Are you?

That post you quoted quite clearly stated what I proposed, so you know the answer to this question.

Like you know the answers to mine.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This strikes me as the first place that should be installing more privacy booths. I think a lot of kids find the entire locker room changing thing awkward as hell. Maybe this hot button topic can save some regular kids some stress.

What's with all the sexual repression? I never felt weird in my school's or my sport's club's locker room. Only the pools occasionally had cabins, although the saunas were always mixed. It's only awkward because you make it awkward.

[OAW]

Serious question. Has this even been an issue? Is there some sort of "outbreak" of big, masculine, men in drag preying upon young girls in restrooms? Have I missed something? Because while I can understand why people take issue with that scenario on a hypothethical basis ... on a practical basis this entire "issue" sounds disturbingly similar to the beating of the drums in GOP circles for a "Photo ID" requirement to cast a ballot. A requirement that has be unequivocally proven to be a "solution in search of a problem" at best.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Serious question. Has this even been an issue? Is there some sort of "outbreak" of big, masculine, men in drag preying upon young girls in restrooms? Have I missed something? Because while I can understand why people take issue with that scenario on a hypothethical basis ... on a practical basis this entire "issue" sounds disturbingly similar to the beating of the drums in GOP circles for a "Photo ID" requirement to cast a ballot. A requirement that has be unequivocally proven to be a "solution in search of a problem" at best.

People in drag ≠ transsexuals
There are laws on the book of men who are sexually harassing and molesting women, regardless of whether they do that in a women's restroom, in a parking garage or in an office. The question specifically is whether transwomen have harassed women (that's the usual image that is trudged up here).

Why not be honest and just say that the motivation is that many people just don't approve of transsexuals, they are weirded out by the idea of them existing? Instead, people claim a connection to molestation. In the past, people did the same with homosexuals, conflating gay men with pedophiles.

[OAW]

^^^

I'm not sure if you are "disagreeing" with me here but it seems like you are reiterating my point. This entire "thing" strikes me as much ado about nothing. Because a straight up transgendered person would most likely go unnoticed in a restroom. So we wouldn't even be having this conversation. And some pervert in drag preying upon young girls in a restroom would already be spotted in a heartbeat and dealt with under existing law.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm not sure if you are "disagreeing" with me here but it seems like you are reiterating my point. This entire "thing" strikes me as much ado about nothing.

I was taking your argument and elaborating a little further on it. I didn't mean it to read as being in opposition to what you wrote.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I was taking your argument and elaborating a little further on it. I didn't mean it to read as being in opposition to what you wrote.

No worries!

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So basically the law can be abused by bad actors? Doesn't this go for most of them? That just reinforces my flawed philosophy angle. It begins promoting the concerns of those who might be abused over those that already are being abused.

(apologies if I missed the point because its been a week)

No apologies necessary!

Let's pretend my philosophy is I'm an anarchist, which isn't really much of a stretch when it comes down to it.

Let's also pretend I'm not a dickhead, which is a tougher sell, but play along. This means when choosing a political philosophy I'm going to choose the one I honestly think is closest to the impossible goal of being the best thing for all people. I could be wrong in my choice mind you, but I have a bunch of reasons I came to the conclusion this was the best philosophy versus all the other choices out there.

IOW, I'm not an anarchist because it fits my aspirations to being a warlord, it's that I have a list of counter-intuitive and boring ass-reasons for the choice which you'll thank me later for not wasting your time with.

The why is mind-numbing. The what is dead simple. My philosophy is I'm hostile to the concept of government. Any policy you feed into my philosophy algorithm comes out with arrows in its ass. There's not much else my philosophy can do. As I said, it's dead simple.

So we feed it a policy outlawing discrimination against customers at retail stores, it comes out with arrows. My philosophy is predictable. One of the arrows is the "bad actor" arrow from a few posts back. The policy gets tetanus from it and dies. My philosophy killed it.

Is this a shit result my philosophy is guilty of? No question. Remember that part about me not being a dickhead? Wanting what's best for all? I can't be for the actually abused suffering at the expense of the potentially abused.

Here's the thing though, my philosophy algorithm didnt even look at those variables. It didn't try to promote either the abused or the potentially abused... it tried to promote all by shooting any arrows it had in the policy. Just like it will with any policy you feed it.

Is my philosophy algorithm's result a flaw, or an unintended consequence?

It may seem like a hair-splitting distinction, but I feel there's a fundamental difference between the two.

Though you wouldn't know it listening to most libertarians, no philosophy can account for all the complexities of the real world. If we don't allow for shit results when a philosophy is directly translated into policy through the algorithm, then every philosophy is flawed, and the assertion becomes meaningless. A flaw should represent a deeper problem.

One could say my philosophy is flawed for being too simple... for not dealing with more variables. If that's the case, it's not the philosophy's fault, it's my fault for picking a bad philosophy and declaring it the best. Y U up in its shit?


Now, a flawed philosophy would be what started this. "Protect the freedom of assholes". That's flawed because it's a dumb ass-philosophy.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^

I'm not sure if you are "disagreeing" with me here but it seems like you are reiterating my point. This entire "thing" strikes me as much ado about nothing. Because a straight up transgendered person would most likely go unnoticed in a restroom. So we wouldn't even be having this conversation. And some pervert in drag preying upon young girls in a restroom would already be spotted in a heartbeat and dealt with under existing law.

OAW

How? If gender and sexuality are fluid, how can you "prove" someone isn't trans? You could very easily have a situation where a trans woman is changing in an open locker room, keeping to herself as much as possible, but people around her notice/know and feel uncomfortable. They report her as being a man creeping on them, she's arrested, and has to somehow prove she's pre-op trans?

Same situation, but it's a dude creeping. He's subtle and keeps to himself, but people notice/know and report him for creeping. How does the prosecution prove that he's NOT pre-op trans? Gender and sexuality is fluid - modern social justice outright rejects labels and strict definitions of gender and sexual preferences. The law requires strict definitions.

Someone gets the short end of the stick. Who should it be? The large number of actual trans people, or the minority of hypothetical creeps?

[andi*pandi]

I'm seeing posts on FB from butchy lesbians who have been denied access to the ladies room, because they have short hair and wear a hoody. I sometimes have short hair and wear a hoody. This is ridiculous.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm seeing posts on FB from butchy lesbians who have been denied access to the ladies room, because they have short hair and wear a hoody. I sometimes have short hair and wear a hoody. This is ridiculous.

They lie a lot, either for attention or to push the agenda.

[andi*pandi]

They're lying? Come on.
I've seen video of a cop pulling a woman away from the restroom line, all the other women saying let her be.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

What was the context, did that person do something beforehand that caused that action to be taken? Was the video staged? Any and all videos posted online, unless they're properly vetted, at the very least are suspect (and at worst can be waved off as fabrications). Don't trust any of them. In social justice circles, like with any other radical group, the ends will always justify the means.

[andi*pandi]

As a woman who's been called "sir" before, I have no doubt this has happened.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What was the context, did that person do something beforehand that caused that action to be taken? Was the video staged? Any and all videos posted online, unless they're properly vetted, at the very least are suspect (and at worst can be waved off as fabrications). Don't trust any of them. In social justice circles, like with any other radical group, the ends will always justify the means.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that a video on the internet could potentially be fabricated by someone with an agenda, and on its own is practically useless in supporting an argument?