Man Chokes Out 8-Year-Old Girl In Chicago Public Bathroom [Pic+]

Submitted by: holygod 1 year ago in News & Politics
man-chokes-girl-bathroom

It's a pretty grizzly story, but thank god for an alert mom and restaurant patrons that helped contain the assailant after he got caught...

According to WLS-TV, an 8-year-old girl and her mom went into the public bathroom at Jason's Deli in Chicago's South Loop on May 7, 2016.

As mom was in one stall, police records show that 33-year-old Reese Hartstirn (pictured above) walked into the bathroom -- clearly marked for women -- approached the young girl, choked her until she passed out, and tried locking her in the stall next to her mother, presumably to finish whatever he started. Before she passed out, her mom heard the daughter scream, ran out, and grabbed her.

Besides being charged with aggravated kidnapping of a child, aggravated battery of a child, and battery causing bodily harm, he was also charged with aggravated assault of a cop after he attempted to attack his arresting officer.

Good news though, Hartstirn is -- by all accounts -- a straight-identifying white male. Not a devious and truculent transexual trying to sneak into public bathrooms to take peaks at uptight dicks and vaginas.

w/b: fancylad

There are 54 comments:
Male 47
Wow! This is waaaay down the line, but I wanted to chime in as a casual observer and infrequent commentor(sp). #1) How can you tell if some dude is lurking outside the ladies room? The ladies' door is usually about 3-6 feet from the men's door, so it would look like he is waiting for the men's room. #2) Why would all of these violent perverts wait to attack someone in a PUBLIC restroom (just because they have access)? Perverts and rapists have been doing their business as privately as possible for ever (excluding exhibitionists). #3) If I go to Starbucks on occasion or even every day, am I stalking others that go there everyday? Hmmmmm? Lay of @HolyGod. He just likes lattes and can't abide stupidity (or can't resist the urge to ridicule you, I mean It)
0
Reply
Male 37,732
flugnash: #1 No. Not outside, that is the stalker's incorrect position. INSIDE is the actual point here. ok? INSIDE where no one can see them until it's too late. THAT is the problem. #2 Because they already DO THAT. As shown by this post. Give them free access, make it super-easy and guess what? They'll do it more! #3 he is a fucking stalker. He stalks me constantly at IAB, hundreds of times. Telling lies, attacking me personally, attacking my disability, insults and general bad behaviour. FOR MONTHS now, with no remorse or regret. Here I spoke politely and on-topic and he still flings shit at me, while arguing like an idiot about NON-topic things! >>> He does it constantly: changes the subject, says "your wrong!" to whomever he's speaking to, and if they point out what he said has nothing at all to do with what they said? He just "doubles down" and attacks them all the more. He's done this for YEARS here at IAB. He will never stop, because he is a stalker.
0
Reply
Male 1,786
you guys stalk each other
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Don't expect @5Cats to make sense. Everyone is wrong but him.
0
Reply
Male 1,122
5Cats makes sense. Our women are in danger! Infact, I have no idea why the women are safe until they go into the bathroom. Seems to me a perverted straight male could attack a woman in any darkened corner of a public space. Perhaps we need women only shopping zones to keep them safe. Plus lets not temp fate, lets have the women cover up like the Muslims do, and perhaps they should be escorted everywhere by Men until they enter women only zones, and those women only zones should be guarded by men who keep other perverted men out. I think we can all agree with 5 cats that this would be better. Lets protect our women. We need more segregation, not less!
0
Reply
Male 1,786
spot on
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats "You claim people wouldn't act on seeing a male entering a women's restroom?" Nope. I'm saying the EXACT opposite. People reacting is the only thing that WILL stop a man from entering, law or not. The law doesn't make it any harder or easier. That's my whole point. I'm not letting a guy in the women's restroom whether my wife or daughter are in there or not. If you can't tell a difference between a transgender man and a man abusing a loophole than there is something wrong with you. I'm guessing most people can.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
No one "can just tell" who is transgendered and who is not "just by looking" fuckass. Honestly now, not one living human can. >>> I said it clearly, many times: a male, dressed as a male. Not cross dressing, not post-op, not pre-op (has boobs) not even undergoing hormone replacement. Ok? A male presenting as male. THAT is the subject! >>> The proposed law is clear: ANY MALE who CLAIMS to be a female is OK. Got it? Can you stay on topic now?? If you even TRY to stop "her" you will end up charged with a crime under the proposed law. You have violated HER human rights. Period. >>> What do you think the fuss is all about? It already is being fought in the courts and the laws aren't even passed yet! Do you even know ONE trans person? I've know a lot! And guess what? When they dress "gender appropriate" you absolutely CANNOT TELL. Not until they get silicone implants... or surgery to form a fake Adam's Apple... and even then! Just how closely are you going to examine them as they walk past you towards your daughter? You guessed wrong, because what you guess is impossible.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Mother fucker. If a man is transgender and living as a woman I'd say it would be pretty obvious. If they are not yet living as a woman than they shouldn't be using the woman's restroom. Is this not common sense? What do I think the fuss is about? Well considering it is basically the same people who had / have a problem with gay marriage and interracial marriage I can sorta guess what all the fuss is about. However, they don't like the label ignorant bigot so they create this rare / meaningless scenario and argue against that instead.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
"Living as a woman"?? That is NOT what is the issue here! The ISSUE IS that ANY male, dressed AS a male, at ANY point of his "transition" INCLUDING not doing anything yet: MUST be granted FULL UNFETTERED ACCESS to his "inner gender" restroom. Period, the end. OF COURSE what you said makes sense, but that's is what I have been saying from the very start, why are you arguing against me? You agree! >>> The SJWs demand nothing less than what I said. There is NO proposed rule saying one single thing about "in transition" ok? ONLY that they CONSIDER themselves "women". End of story. >>> So you didn't understand the BASIC FOUNDATION of the issue, and spent all this time making a fool of yourself by arguing NON-issues to death. So typical. How many times does it have to be told to you before it sinks in: ANY male claiming to be a woman, ANY women's room, NO questions. It really is that simple. I hope you finally "get it".
0
Reply
Female 7,866
i just want to check I have got this right- until recently any trans person could nip into the loo of their choosing for a pee. Assuming they looked reasonable, went into a stall and behaved appropriately all was good. THEN for some unknown (?) reason a few states passed laws insisting you could only use loo for your biological sex at birth rather than your gender? Hence the clusterfuck? WHY?? In the name of all that's profane - why meddle?? I assume just to get innocent people beaten up?
0
Reply
Male 37,732
Close madduck, but the order is reversed: no states passed laws to prevent this UNTIL many institutions (especially universities, gyms) had created "gender neutral zones" and many towns and cities were passing laws REQUIRING it too. Thus people would be FORCED to allow men, dressed as men, to walk in and use the girl's shower area at a pool. Naked as a jay-bird in there with the ladies? Yup, perfectly legal. In fact? If you object? That's breaking the law and swift punishment is guaranteed. >>> Again this is not "maybe" it is ALREADY HAPPENEING in the limited areas these 'rules' are passed. >>> And no: a '3rd restroom' is not an option: men in the girl's room is the ONLY solution allowed. Again: this has happened over and over already. The lawsuit by "GG" against his/her school? They had 3x gender neutral restrooms for their ONE gender neutral student... NOT good enough! Said the Judge and the SJWs...
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Characteristic lack of sources. Where and when did this happen?
0
Reply
Male 37,732
Some were posted on IAB already. Just how many women are you willing to sacrifice LordJim? How many rapes are "ok" in your books? NOT BY trans persons, but by sexual predators just like THIS post shows! >>> It's not "maybe" it is really happening already. Before Mr. Hartstirn laid hands on the girl? The SJWs tell us he had EVERY RIGHT to enter and remain INSIDE that women's restroom. No one could send him out, ever. Even asking him to leave is a crime: a violation of his "human rights" ok? That is the reality that people are unhappy about, we think this is a bad idea!
0
Reply
Female 7,866
There is your clue- HE. Gender is not the same as biological sex- I can, if you want the boring lecture explain- but in essence we all self identify- gender is the social way we signal biological sex, and since there is no single marker for sex some people find their brains and bodies don't line up. Some I expect are okay with their body, but they find the gender expression for their sex unpleasant. Sure- some of these people probably are suffering from body dysmorphia- some aren't. doesn't really matter anyway- the only time you should be interested in genitalia is if you are planning on interacting with them. THAT interaction should ALWAYS be consensual- otherwise it is rape- which is already illegal. Oddly enough rape happens in places other than public loos already. Perhaps if we stopped being so hung up on gender which is not actually very important for much and started trying to stop people attacking people....
0
Reply
Male 8,132
It has happened. A very few jackasses will definitely try to exploit the law. However, they will be taken care of.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Test
0
Reply
Male 1,397
....wait 'til this POS gets into prison.....they'll dish out 'bathroom time' alright!
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Perfection.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
This ginned-up "controversy" has not one single thing to do with the idea that actual trans-persons will attack and harm women (or men for that matter) and it NEVER has. It has ALWAYS been about NON-trans criminals exploiting (markus123? see how the word is properly used?) a loop-hole that gives them FREE ACCESS to female washrooms, change rooms and shower areas. >>> There are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the USA. Does anyone imagine NOT ONE of them will take advantage of this golden opportunity? There are also countless uncaught offenders who already try to attack women and children in restrooms JUST LIKE this post shows! This post proves MY point. Does anyone think ALLOWING Reese Hartstirn FREE ACCESS would have made that girl SAFER? >>> Because that is exactly what is being demanded: A physically intact male, wearing men's clothing, can FREELY enter and remain in a "woman's" wash, change or shower rooms and NO ONE can stop him! To do so would be ILLEGAL. >>> All Reese Hartstirn needed to say if the cops had been called before he had attacked is: "I am a women inside" and that's it: NO ONE can refuse him (her) access to the "lady's room" until AFTER the crime had occurred. How anyone thinks that's a "good plan" is beyond my understanding. >>> Discuss the ACTUAL ISSUE and not some pathetic strawmen... strawwomen... strawcigpersons... oh, whatever! :-p Just the facts, not the spin!
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "It has ALWAYS been about NON-trans criminals exploiting a loop-hole that gives them FREE ACCESS to female washrooms, change rooms and shower areas." Yes. What THIS article shows is that CLEARLY those criminals don't NEED a transgender law to get into the bathroom. Bathroom signs are NOT magic. Do you understand that your logic in this argument is that currently someone is willing to peep, molest, or rape, but NOT willing to break the bathroom sign suggestion? Do you understand how fucking idiotic that logic is?
0
Reply
Male 37,732
Because that's NOT THE ISSUE and never has been! So stop changing the subject and dead with reality: BEFORE this "controversy" a MALE entering a female restroom would IMMEDIATELY be grounds for suspicion and action! Cops or security would come running! Men or women seeing it would challenge him! >>> How you can ignore that reality is typical, it's no surprise. >>> That is the issue: biological men, dressed as men, entering a women's restroom FREELY under protection of LAW regardless of what the females in there think: for them to object is illegal! You're fine with this? Then do it in your own house, restaurant or whatever, leave others to decide for themselves how they want to handle it. >>> And keep in mind: public shower areas in pools are also covered by this: any man can just walk right in and to deny him access is illegal. Facts: face them. This has already happened and been posted on IAB.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "a MALE entering a female restroom would IMMEDIATELY be grounds for suspicion and action!" FROM WHOM? Do bathrooms operate differently in Canada? Do you think there are security guards or checkpoints? Do you have ANY idea how easy it would be for me to hang outside of a women's restroom observing to see nobody was going in or out and then follow a woman in to assault her? This law doesn't do ANYTHING to make it easier for perverts because it was already basically as easy as possible. You understand that right? Also, did you mean after May 1st, 2017? ; )
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@normalfreak2 It's kinda sickly engaging watching him twist himself into knots huh?
0
Reply
Male 6,632
@holygod @5cats When HolyGod destroys my perspective the only thing I can do is call him a stalker to make him go away because my opinion is not rationally sufficient to stand up to scrutiny.
0
Reply
Male 2,400
In the electronic world we can set pretty strict controls, but some jerk will always figure out a way. ;)
0
Reply
Male 2,400
Comment awaiting moderation? I'm waiting to see if my peni5 is allowed, or if I'm being c0ck blocked.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats almost every time you post I am reminded of the saying: "When you die you do not know you are dead, it is only hard for others. It is the same when you are stupid."
0
Reply
Male 37,732
The point, I repeat yet again, is that NON-trans MALE persons can ALSO enter the women's areas. NO ONE can "tell them apart" and NO ONE is allowed to legally challenge them. THAT is the whole point here. This sexual predator in the post CAN simply say "I'm a woman" and LAWFULLY enter the women's restroom (with your daughter in it, but not you!) under the proposed laws. It has never been about actual trans persons, that has never been the problem! The 700,000+ registered sex offenders in the USA? Now THAT is a problem... and now add those who haven't been caught yet... can you see some "area of concern" yet? Not according to SJWs! They have one solution only: ALL men in ANY women's area, NO questions asked EVER. Ok? Understand it now?
0
Reply
Male 37,732
So you can tell who is, or is not, transgendered JUST by looking at them as they walk past you? Well la-fucking-dee-da! You IMAGINE that a trans person looks like YOU tell them to? Q: What do they look like before hormones? Like... a male! (or female, I'll use male here since that's the topic at hand, but it all applies both ways!) And before their pre-op? They look... like a male! >>> Do you IMAGINE they flounce around in skirts all day long? Skipping and jumping? Fuck no! They are human beings! I know them! They go to work and shopping and whatever JUST LIKE YOU. If two males stood beside you in an elevator, and 1 was trans, tell me EXACTLY how you'd know, 100%, which was which. Now apply that to 1 in 1000 males in an elevator, because that's how few trans persons there are. Tell us! >>> "How the hell can you tell" you ask? THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT! Which you've argued AGAINST based on... changing the subject! Now that you seem to have grasped it, you agree? Well fucking finally...
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "it's a man, dressed AS a man, how many times did I EMPHASISE THIS yet you missed it completely" What the holy fuck are you talking about? You're obviously just fucking with me. I didn't miss it. I completely understood what you said and responded accordingly. Transgender means you identify as a woman. If you are a man that looks, acts, and dresses like a man then how the hell are you transgender? The proposed laws makes it ILLEGAL to stop ANY male, get it yet? Ya, I get it, so what? I'm still going to stop them. I grew up in Michigan. Sodomy is illegal in Michigan. Do you think that prevented me from getting a blowjob?
0
Reply
Male 37,732
YOU CAN TELL who is trans and who is not? Oh really now? Do you have functioning "gaydar" also? To tell who is homosexual from a great distance? Again you've missed what I keep saying: A man, dressed as a man, WHO IS NOT TRANSGENDERED enters the restroom. Or perhaps he is? If YOU can tell a trans person who is NOT in drag apart from everyone else? Then wow! Your some kind of superfuckinghero or something... Hint: NO ONE can "tell by looking" ok? One CAN spot a man when "in drag" often enough, but that is NOT the point here: it's a man, dressed AS a man, how many times did I EMPHASISE THIS yet you missed it completely... so typical. >>> Is he a "she" inside? How could you possibly know? Tell us oh wise one! How YOU can tell who is trans (when not cross dressing) and who is not! >>> The proposed laws makes it ILLEGAL to stop ANY male, get it yet? That is the problem here! Deal with reality for once? Face the actual facts? I guess that is too much to ask...
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "You claim people wouldn't act on seeing a male entering a women's restroom?" Nope. I'm saying the EXACT opposite. People reacting is the only thing that WILL stop a man from entering, law or not. The law doesn't make it any harder or easier. That's my whole point. I'm not letting a guy in the women's restroom whether my wife or daughter are in there or not. If you can't tell a difference between a transgender man and a man abusing a loophole than there is something wrong with you. I'm guessing most people can.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "I said Freely Enter, you ginned up a scenario where you are "casing the joint" BEFORE entry." Yes. Before freely entering. This is very, very, very simple. I said "follow a woman in to assault her". You then responded "Oh, "entering" now means "loitering OUTSIDE". You either misunderstood what I said or you misread it. Either way, this pathetic attempt to justify it is proof of one of three things. A. You are trolling. B. You are insane. C. You are a fucking idiot.
0
Reply
Male 2,400
Is the proposed law to force mothers to wait outside while their little boys go to the men's room followed by a catholic priest? Or to force fathers to send their daughters into the washroom alone with the pervert that stepped in before they got there? :P
0
Reply
Male 2,400
5CATS - Was calling him a "stalker" 10 times to convince yourself it's true, or maybe an attempt to slander him into silence? While it may be a foreign concept to you, people are allowed to use common sense about what seems suspicious, and act accordingly: proceed ; wait ; find another washroom ; complain ; physically intervene - Just don't expect to be judge and jury in the end. There is no penis blocking forcefield at the door. The greatest risk is often when you are seemingly alone.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
You claim people wouldn't act on seeing a male entering a women's restroom? Amazing, since you would! And you know it. >>> Using your example (it's up there somewhere) your daughter, age 9, goes into a restroom (you can add a mother if you like, it's immaterial) and you wait outside. A large man, dressed as a man, gets up from a nearby seat with his heavy-looking duffle-bag (he's not security a plumber or a janitor) and walks into the restroom after her... he doesn't seem to have noticed you at all. Do you: A) Do nothing B) Do something. (waiting for your daughter's screams for help counts as nothing btw) It's an honest question. >>> Try to stay on subject if you choose to reply, k? If you want a different scenario, then first answer THEN change it. I could change it too, there's dozens of ways: he has bloodstains visible on his pants, it looks like a knife handle is sticking out of his bag, he has "prison tats" ...on and on: but that's not needed. He's a big fellow, with a heavy bag, doesn't acknowledge you at all, walks in shortly after she does. Only 2 options, easy peasy!
0
Reply
Male 37,732
#3 (4:48) I hear you whining as you try so desperately to change the subject to one you "feel" you are right about. But you still fail! You are truly pathetic. Entirely predictable and a fucking stalker too. So fuck yourself, crybaby. If I choose to address you or not is immaterial: you are a stalker. 317 times? What a joke, you really are obsessed. AND changing what I've repeatedly said to your twisted, stalker version of it. I never said never. And even if I did, once, on a site with NO Editing? So what? I have CLEARLY said many times: I do not INTEND to even look at your stalking shit. Even if I do? It's NOT your business, it changes nothing. I INTEND to ignore you, which means not REPLYING to YOUR STALKING. Is that clear enough? Except to point out it is stalking, of course. Commenting here is IMMATERIAL to that. >>> I also CLEARLY said that if I choose to address you, or comment on your postings? Or even reply to your stalking? That's MY choice, it changes nothing about MY intentions. My commenting is NOT permission for you to FUCKING STALK ME FOR WEEKS like you ALWAYS DO. Of course you plan on stalking me anyhow, but don't imagine it is anything other than stalking, because that is what it is. #4 (4:53) Missed what? That you changed the subject? Nope, I saw that right off, you always do it, it was expected. I said Freely Enter, you ginned up a scenario where you are "casing the joint" BEFORE entry. That is certainly not freely! Nor does it change the rest of what I said: that if others observed a male enter after a woman and child had, they likely would act in some way. The point (on-topic) is: these 'proposed' laws prevent others from acting, make it illegal even. If security had stopped Hartstrin before he'd done anything? Under the proposed laws he could have sued them big-time.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
4 comments in a row, each more stupid than the last. Might be more by now, the obsession is so sad. #1 (4:37) That's not the same as "freely enter" in the slightest. Checking it out to make sure you are NOT observed? How is that the same as what I've been talking about? You changed the subject, period. #2 (4:40) Again, changed subject. Again: that's "outside" not entering, get it? Entirely different. And how do you know that not one person is "keeping an eye on you" as you wait? You do not, plain and simple.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats Do you ever find it embarrassing when you COMPLETELY miss something and then reply all cocky like that for all to see? I bet you wish we had an edit button right now huh?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "Are you going to cry now?" Huh? No way. I love it when we debate. You are so easy it is endlessly entertaining. Lots of other people like watching me destroy you (like above) as well. So its nice for everyone. "I thought you defended my right to comment" Endlessly. I have never contradicted it either. "you're bitching about it" HUH? Where? I made one comment because you said you would go back to completely ignoring me and not reading any of my comments after May 1st. You lasted all of 2 weeks. I just think its funny, that's all. This is time 317 of talking to me after "never going to talk to me again". "If you have a problem with me making polite, on-topic remarks or replies" I don't. At all. Not even a little. I enjoy it immensely. Watching you comment is the intellectual equivalent of watching someone step on a rake and hit themselves in the balls. Why would I ever want you to stop?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "a man loitering outside the women's restroom would also draw attention, but that's a different topic" Ummmmmm. BULLSHIT. You obviously don't have a wife or girlfriend or daughter. I spend approximately 20% of my life waiting outside women's restrooms waiting for my wife or daughter. It draws exactly ZERO attention.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "Oh, "entering" now means "loitering OUTSIDE" ic! You changed the subject yet again" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I said: "and then follow a woman in" Read much? "you have trouble with meanings of big, complicated words, like "entering" or "outside"" Nope, not at all. But you obviously have trouble with meanings of big, complicated words, like "then" and "in". You are tons of fun man. I swear its like debating a mentally retarded 4 yr old but without the guilt.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
I know you have trouble with meanings of big, complicated words, like "entering" or "outside" so I linked 'histrionic' for you. You are welcome.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
Oh, "entering" now means "loitering OUTSIDE" ic! You changed the subject yet again, so... whatever. And a man loitering outside the women's restroom would also draw attention, but that's a different topic. >>> Are you going to cry now? Poor sucky baby :-( I thought you defended my right to comment, now you're bitching about it? Typical. And how many times do I have to say it: If I choose to address you? Or comment on your posts? It's my business, none of yours, you have no say in the matter. In those specific cases it's not stalking for you to reply to me. All those other times you've been stalking me since May 1? Those are indeed stalking, so go fuck yourself if you have a problem with me making polite (up to now, unlike your rudeness), on-topic remarks or replies, I don't fucking care what you "feel" since you are a stalker. If you're going to have histrionic fits about it? Be my guest!
0
Reply
Male 14,827
Clever logic. It's an ethical loophole. You can pretend it's not bigotry by switching the targeted party. It's only a dilemma if you ignore trans rights.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
Firstly Draculya: NO ONE is saying anything about "trans rights" which do not actually exist FYI. It has NOT been a big issue until now: people simply used the restroom their outward appearance dictated. If hitting the shower? Then their "appearance" includes their "plumbing" eh? SJWs demand that ANY MALE use those 'women's areas' regardless of appearance. That is simply dangerous! NOT because of trans-persons, but because of sex offenders who WILL USE that excuse to gain easy access. It already is happening, it is not "maybe" ok? >>> Secondly: NO ONE is "switching the target" I and others have ALWAYS been very specific: it is the sex offenders who are the problem. This movement is dangerous because of them, not because of trans-persons. Get it yet? It is idiotic to "overlook" the real danger it places every female (and lots of males too!) in America in.
0
Reply
Male 5,813
I agree. If you were born male but feel like a woman, dress like a woman, act like a woman then use the women's bathroom by all means. Hasn't ever been a problem. If you feel like a woman but your appearance as a man, use the men's room. Giving respect to the feelings of the trans population doesn't mean that the trans population gets to do as they wish without giving due respect to others' feelings in return. So: obvious male - men's room, obvious female - women's room. (Granted there will be some trans people who will dress as women but are still an obvious birth male - not sure what to say about that but I think they should be given a pass since they're legitimately trying.)
0
Reply
Male 348
Trans rights do not include using women's restrooms. Do we need to offend 150 million women and girls in order to cater to a few thousand men, just because they decided that they want to pee with the ladies? Once again it's PC run amok.
0
Reply
Male 38,465
"Do we need to offend 150 million women and girls in order to cater to a few thousand men" 150 million people are offended? I think you exaggerate the number. It's more like 5 loud mouthed bible-thumpers.
0
Reply
Male 37,732
Um, before this "controversy" if a MAN walked into a public Women's room, change area or shower? He'd better have a damn good reason for being there! Correct? Because EVERYONE who sees him will start shouting! You deny this? And security and cops will drag him away, you could count on that. >>> That's what I call prevention! >>> NOW the proposed LAW is to allow ANY MALE anywhere to enter and use ALL female rooms FREELY. No one can challenge him, that's illegal! If anyone asks him why he's there? He just says "I'm a woman on the inside" and BINGO! Untouchable. >>> Obama wants ALL US Schools to have unisex restrooms and change areas or he'll cut their funding. And no, having a "3rd restroom" is NOT acceptable to the SJWs or Obama. It has to be: men, dressed as men, using the women's room. Period, end of discussion.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
@5Cats "I think EVERYONE (Except SJWs!) can agree we should NOT allow male sex offenders into women's restrooms, right? :-/" Yes. I think EVERYONE (Except idiots like you) can also agree there is NOTHING preventing them from going in them already, right? :-/
0
Reply
Male 37,732
You have it backwards Gerry1: The push by SJWs is to let ALL MEN use female restrooms, change areas and public showers. No exceptions allowed, no rules applied. ANY male. >>> The "resistance" to it is very specific: NO LAW should be passed or enforced which supports that. This is NOT the same as "denying" trans-persons any rights at all. It is the refusal to create "gender free" zones by Government Order, ok? To not FORCE others to make something that is ridiculous at best & dangerous most likely. >>> If in some few cases it is worded to say "women only in women's rooms" that's still not the same thing, since a "passing trans" would not be a problem. Who would know unless he pulled out his junk or told everyone about it? This has been the situation for decades, there have been few problems, almost every "restroom attack" is like this one: a NON-trans person! A sex offender. I think EVERYONE (Except SJWs!) can agree we should NOT allow male sex offenders into women's restrooms, right? :-/
0
Reply
Male 1,786
def a sad story but does point out the weird fear storm whipped up by some... about this whole bathroom thing. human beings are fucked up animals.
0
Reply