I've never understood how having separate-sex bathrooms was ever supposed to protect anybody's privacy. The only section of a bathroom which needs to be private is the toilet cubicles, and those are lockable, meaning it's impossible to "perv" on people inside unless you make the ridiculous effort to climb over their door.

If you did run into a trans person, it would only ever be in the hand-washing area, and that's never been a privacy hotspot in the first place.

WE DON'T GOT NONE OF THIS STUFF!

Well... there are cases where the stall doors are a bit too short for comfort, examples: , [url=https://i.imgur.com/UAIRH.jpg]two.

Known Shippable / Won't Fix.

You are using the terminology incorrectly here. The term "cis", in the context we are discussing, specifically means not trans. In particular, a person who is transgender is definitely not cisgender, for the same reason a gay person is not straight, a left-handed person is not right handed, a black person is not white, etc.

If you really need to refer to somebody's assigned sex (that is, the one on the person's original birth certificate), use the term "assigned sex", but keep in mind that that is only rarely necessary.

I may post a rebuttal to more points later on.

By the way, be aware that the word "tranny" is offensive, so it should not be used unless you are a member of the target group (that is, you're transgender) and you are trying to reclaim it. (Notice: That's an "and", not an "or", there.)

Fun fact; there actually is a restaurant near where I live that uses this setup; a communal (not sex-segregated) place to wash your hands and two private stalls.
I think you mean "transphobic" there.

I get the feeling he doesn't really care about who he offends, especially if it's one of those gosh darn ol' SJWs, or one of those "confused" LGTBQ folk.
Fair enough. I generally lump both in there together, as I've found that in my general experience, transphobia and homophobia all come from the same place.

Not necessarily. There are transphobic gay people and others who aren't homophobic but are transphobic. But I've never met someone who was homophobic but not transphobic.

A couple updates:

1. A lawsuit has been filed charging that the bill is unconstitutional.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/nc-anti-lgbt-law-lawsuit#.yuBdyRYP3

2. The Attorney General (who is a Democrat and plans to run against the mayor at the next election) has opted not to defend the law, saying it's unconstitutional.
http://abc11.com/politics/cooper-i-wont-defend-house-bill-2/1267361/

Offensive by whom? And why should I obey that person? When is a word considered ''reclaimed'' and who decides that?

Offensive by those who have traditionally been the target of the slur (in this case, transgender women). Said word could only be considered reclaimed once the majority of said group has no problem with it anymore.

Note that this applies to any word that could be considered a slur; "nigger" is another well-known example (though, in that case, the target is black people).

Of course, transphobes have found this topic and downrepped the original post, making it hard to follow thanks to GOG thinking people wouldn't be interested in "low rated" topics, as well as downrepping all my posts in this topic, as well as some others.

On nice days like today, every one of those people deserves to burn in hell. (Yes, I am overdoing this Undertale reference, but I feel like doing so.)

What I want to know is - who's the cognoscenti that decided that we have to talk that way? That "type" of talk seems to be deemed "correct" by leftist-liberals. Who designated them to be the "experts" on what is correct? From what I can tell - they self-designated themselves. They do it because it gives them "control" of the so-called "conversation".

I usually refer to a person's "assigned sex" as their GENDER - because that's what it is. When a "normal person" tries to use the "big book of fancy talk", like I did, they're going to get it wrong - as I did. Thanks for the correction.

This person should use the restroom for females:

I'm non-binary transgender so I don't identify as male of female I'm kinda both but I'm just neither.

The problem is all this "fancy talk" about who we are - and then falsely linking whether one uses that talk "properly" to whether their also some sort of "phobic". Those are actually two different issues. But by linking them together - as typically leftist-liberals do - it allows so-called SJW's to "control" others - as in "sit down and shut up you blah blah phobic - you are obviously a bad person". But that isn't necessarily true.

Just like another thing happening today is the so-called <i>cultural appropriation</i> (which I think would be more accurately called cultural MIS-appropriation - because that what those SJW's are actually accusing others of). It's just another tool for control.

If you look objectively you'll find that people pushing these political agendas are the actual haters and phobics - typically of a fascist bent.

And none of that really has anything to do with whether a person an actual "bigot" or "hater" or whatever (as I said in my previous post). It's the SJW-fascist-left-liberal "movement" that links these together for political and control reasons.

JMO

And in doing so, you are incorrect; a person's gender does not have to match the person's assigned sex.

Also, referring to some people as "normal" implies that the rest are "abnormal", which is a rather insulting term, so we use terms like able-bodied, neurotypical, straight, and, in this context, cisgender, in order to avoid stigmatizing the minority.

No no no no NO.

I was obviously using "normal person" is in "lay person" or "non-expert in the lingo".

If that wasn't obvious - well then you now have my clarification - right here in this post.

Your reaction is "typical" of how today's SJW's "react".

I'm not saying you're a "SJW" - because I don't know you - but your reaction is very typical of how "they" react.