Restaurant Tells Woman Offended by Cross-Dresser to Use Men’s Room | Todd Starnes

A Nashville woman who found herself face-to-face with a “big, burly” cross-dresser in the ladies room of a family restaurant felt her horror turn to anger after a restaurant manager suggested she try the men’s room.

Transgendered people in several states have been fighting for the right to use public restrooms that correspond with whatever sex they consider themselves, with lawmakers in California and Massachusetts providing support for the idea. But David Staton, whose wife had the disquieting run-in while eating out at Amerigo, a restaurant in the country music capital, has a simple solution.

“There needs to be some sort of law that says if you are born a man with man-parts, you go to the men’s bathroom,” said Staton.“In a family restaurant, men should go to the men’s room and women should go to the women’s.”

Read more of this story….

What would you do if your 10 year old daughter walked into a woman’s rest room only to come face to face with a big burly cross dresser?

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under Current Events, Other News

17 responses to “Restaurant Tells Woman Offended by Cross-Dresser to Use Men’s Room | Todd Starnes

  1. Tlnitstr8

    I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It’s not like you’re going to see anything anyway. Besides our stalls have doors on them so odds are a lot of women have been in a public restroom while a man was in there….they just didn’t know it.
    Personally, I take more issue with people carrying on phone conversations in a public restroom than I about whether they were born with XY or XX chromosomes.

    • devilof76

      If my 12 year old niece entered a bathroom to find a man in there, yes, I’d lose my shit, and he’d probably lose some teeth.

      • Tlnitstr8

        I admit my first thought would be WHY was he in there (pedophile? cleaning?), but dressed in drag it would seem more likely he was there to use the facilities.
        I’d certainly have no problem using the facilities knowing there was a transvestite or transgender male in there (unless I caught them peeking over/under the stall or urinating in the sink) nor would I have issue if there was a lesbian in there.

        Might I ask those who do take issue: Is the objection because the male might take a peek or because you might get a peek?

        We all have genitals and we all need to urinate or defecate. Why the type of ones genitals should make such a difference when they are answering natures call in a facility for just that purpose, and in a manner in which no one can see their genitalia, just seems odd to me. Don’t get me wrong, I do prefer to use the ladies restroom, but not because it’s specified for women and certainly not because it’s “cleaner” since most are disgusting. I just find urinals icky and stalls without doors creepy because it’s not what I’m accustomed to. I find squat toilets and bidets just as disconcerting.

      • devilof76

        It is not for me to determine why a man has chosen to enter a room where my children are under the impression that it is safe to undress. I should not even have to ask the question. That level of security should be a given.

        But for the sake of argument, is the transvestite in there because they just need to use the restroom? Is this individual homosexual? Or just a crossdresser with full heterosexual intentions? Are they a pedophile or rapist who has grasped that no one will stop them from entering a ladies room if they are wearing women’s clothing? Do they need to actually be wearing women’s clothing to qualify? Maybe they’re dressing down that day. Should they be interviewed at the door? Will this interview include polygraph? Or will we just assume the best of intentions from any man wandering into the ladies’ room?

    • @Tlnitstr8: Fair enough. Then why even bother having separate restrooms?
      I wouldn’t think that many women, or parents of young daughters, would be comfortable using the bathroom in a stall knowing there was a man parked next to them – gay or straight.
      @Devilof76: exactly

      • Tlnitstr8

        Your questions suggest only genetic males need be suspected of horrible intentions. I’m sure that’s not what you believe, but it is only a person being in a restroom with the wrong genitalia for that restroom’s designation that you object to, right? So you wouldn’t bat an eyelash if a woman was watching you a little too much in the ladies room? Maybe she’s a lesbian? Doesn’t that bother you? If not, why?

        Whether or not a person (male or female) in a restroom is homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual makes no difference to me. Just because a person prefers my gender does not mean they will be peeking over stalls or trying to fondle me or children. Anyone in a public restroom (or that you pass on the street) could be a rapist or pedophile regardless their gender or gender identity. **Is that lady looking a little to intently while you change the baby in the ladies room?** The medical professional you feel so safe undressing in front of could also be any of those things. How many people have been molested and even raped by the very doctors they trusted? Bad people and sexual deviants are EVERYWHERE, including positions of power and of trust. Awesome upstanding citizens are everywhere too….some of them might even be found dressed in drag and using the ladies room.

      • devilof76

        No one is calling into question the character of virtuous transvestites. The only thing at issue is the potential for those who are not virtuous, and the entire point of separating men’s restrooms from women’s is to reduce the odds of the potential for abuse of the situation which arises when two human beings expose their genitals in a relatively public setting.

        As American Infidel pointed out, why bother having separate bathrooms whatsoever? The answer is because the odds of unwanted sexual encounters decrease RADICALLY when that’s the arrangement.

        Concerning children, the idea of reducing those odds in the slightest is absolutely intolerable.

      • Tlnitstr8

        “The odds of unwanted sexual encounters decrease” when genders have separate bathrooms. Well, other cultures have proven otherwise, but they aren’t so hung up on what’s hanging and that’s not the issue here.

        The issue is which restroom do those who are of one gender, but prefer or identify with another, use? Well, gee, many men object to them using the men’s room because it makes them uncomfortable (unwanted sexual encounter) and where some have been attacked. Meanwhile women object because they know (or assume) there is a penis involved. But having a separate bathroom for them, or anyone else uncomfortable in gender-specific bathrooms, is absurd according to you? So where do they go? Home, or just home to change?

        IMO, other than the location of the sink, being behind a locked stall door is really not that much different than being behind a regular locked door.

        Oh well, you believe what you believe. I know I can’t reason out something that was never reasoned in. I’ve put in my $1.50 (inflation sucks) and that’s all I can do. I just hope that others reading this are open-minded enough to stop and think about things first and react later. Maybe, just maybe, one of those open-minded individuals will have another, better solution that would make most (you’ll never please everyone) happy and so you’ll never have to risk penile exposure, rape, or molestation should someone with a Y chromosome dare enter a ladies room.

        Oh, and don’t forget to check for hidden cameras in the toilet. Those dastardly men don’t have to physically be in the bathroom to get a gander at your goods.

  2. devilof76

    Perhaps it’s time to start offering transgendered bathrooms. Or is that segregatory?

    • Tlnitstr8

      Some places, IIRC, are starting to put in restrooms for transgenders. I don’t know if they are for one person at a time or not thought. I think I read a recent article about a school designating a bathroom for just that purpose.

      I think it’s the smart thing to do if the business already has more than the two bathrooms, but I think it’s too costly for many to add another bathroom just in case. However, new construction should keep that in mind.

      • devilof76

        I don’t. Why even bother? How many different proclivities should private establishments be expected to cater to? Establishments that cater to such demographics would certainly be well served by including specific facilities, but the idea of McDonald’s or the like wasting money on it strikes me as nonsense. Suck it up buttercup. If you’re a man dressing as a woman, you are still a man (so to speak). It is not the responsibility of the rest of us to reinforce the charade for you.

  3. Tlnitstr8

    Good grief, it wouldn’t just be for transgenders. The restrooms would be for anyone and would, frankly, be a great thing for men having to take their daughters to the bathroom but don’t want them in the men’s room and for women taking their little boys into the ladies room. You know, just like the “Family Restrooms” that many transgenders already use.

    You know, if you drop the emotional “OMG!” response and think logically you’d see that a bathroom that is not gender-specific can be a good thing for everyone—and they have been in use for years at some businesses and have proven to be quite useful for everyone shopping there.

    • devilof76

      Presume much?

      A private bathroom does not need to be gender specific, but how dare you impugn, as an irrational, emotional reflex, the expectation of parents that their children’s safety in a shared restroom be as safe as it can be?

      I suspect that the issue here is your own preconceived, knee jerk bias against those who thwart the will of any particular pet minority, as being predisposed to react on equally arbitrary, unthinking ignorance. OMG they don’t want crossdressers in their children’s bathroom!!! They must be logic deficient!!! Don’t they know that everyone on Earth is has the potential of being a child molester??? Don’t they know that we should treat everyone as if they actually were, so that the people who are will be indistinguishable from those who aren’t????

      No, we don’t. Because that’s wrong. Not logical. Horseshit.

      • Tlnitstr8

        Wow, emotional much? YOU were they one who said: “How many different proclivities should private establishments be expected to cater to? Establishments that cater to such demographics would certainly be well served by including specific facilities, but the idea of McDonald’s or the like wasting money on it strikes me as nonsense.” I’m just trying to feel out how absurd your mindset truly is.

        Thinking that a child would be safe in any public bathroom merely because it is gender-specific and therefore there will be no one of the opposite sex in there is irrational and illogical and why we don’t send them in there alone when they are little.

        I’m so sorry that I’m able to poke holes in your illogical prejudice and paranoia, but personal attacks, name calling, and hissy fits won’t change my mind. As for “pet minority”….to quote you “assume much?” I’ve never even met one, but being compassionate, tolerant, and trying to understand the challenges of others is not a bad thing. You should try it sometime.

        You seem to be a bit worked up. In fact, you seem too worked up….perhaps some herbal tea would be a good idea? Well, TATA then.

  4. devilof76

    Other cultures aren’t so hung up on things like rape, either. I realize I shouldn’t put so much emphasis on it, but I’m irrationally inclined to have an issue with it. Therefore, if I believe that keeping my fellow males out of women’s restrooms is going to reduce the odds of it happening to my female family members, then I am going to keep that crazy cultural contempt for the act of forced coitus, thanks.

    If another man wants to look at what’s hanging off of me, then that’s between myself and him. If he’s looking at my children, then he’s losing teeth, your subjective emotional perspective notwithstanding (reason, my ass).

    • Tlnitstr8

      To imply that I support rape in any way is just moronic and immature.

      • devilof76

        I implied nothing.

        You’re assuming that I expect safety to be flawless insofar as there is no one of the opposite gender in a ladies’ room. Your assumption is invalid. What I expect is that under the aegis of tolerance, individuals who would normally have no excuse to be where they should not be, will not be there, or virtually invited to be there. Your compassion gives any man who chooses to enter a ladies’ room for nefarious purpose a socially acceptable excuse. To me, that is an unacceptable risk. You choose what risks you will expose your children to, and I will choose what risks to which I will expose mine. The idea that my decision to place that consideration ahead of consideration for total strangers is either emotionally hysterical, or pitilessly cruel is a blatant smear and your holes are looking a bit opaque.

Thoughts? Opinions? Leave a reply -

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s