Very well said Legal.

As far as a 'solution' Westdenali? Uni-sex bathrooms (one person at a time public bathrooms) already exist in business establishment all over the country for customers to use should customers prefer such 'isolation." Just pick up the key from the cashier, .unlock the bathroom door with a pictograph of 2 people affixed to the outside, enter and use the (private) bathroom, wash your hands and return the key so the next person of whatever gender can lock themselves in and be alone in the uni-sex bathroom now that you are done. .

Meanwhile the rest of us can continue to use the public restrooms containing several individual stalls with locks on each door and privacy enough for anyone not frightened out of their mind by creepy, sex-panicked , mentally ill politicians demanding to 'check' your genitals before they let you do #1.

We all won't agree on the trans bathroom issue, but we can keep the discussion civil.

Are you saying it is not civil because I do not see anyone being out of line in what they are sharing.

One comment sounded snarky to me, so I just wanted to let people know that we need to watch how we say our words as tone can be interpreted differently than it was intended.

While I do agree with the poster's view, I can ski see that it may offend someone who has an alternative view to the trans issue.

I am guessing that you are directing that at me, rather than sending me a PM to discuss whatever it is that you have to say, so I will respond in kind.

The whole subject is offensive to all regardless what side of the line one stands. I am sorry that you took personal objection to something I wrote, but nothing I wrote was inappropriate, rude, or "snarky." The majority believe the minority have and should have no rights - the same happens to RSO's every day because they are the minority facing the majority - and this is why we have deprivations of rights going on.

Legal the comments referred to as snarky/ uncivil were those i had posted just above the post by Thought as Weak The comments were these "Meanwhile the rest of us can continue to use the public restrooms containing several individual stalls with locks on each door and privacy enough for anyone not frightened out of their mind by creepy, sex-panicked , mentally ill politicians demanding to 'check' your genitals before they let you do #1." They were directed at the "creepy, sex-panicked , mentally ill politicians" but I guess that wasn't clear. Sorry. (BTW I have PM's you) I did PM Thought as weak and we discussed the matter. I didn't see your comments until later because I have just tried to stay off Daily Strength today. Again, sorry if my comments were perceived as snarky or uncivil. They certainly were not meant as an attack on anybody commenting on Daily Strength.

Legal...i understand your purpose of the article.

Like i said, i disagree with the arguements against such rights.

I couuld pick apart your response....but i wont.

Further more transgenders are not mentally ill. It is a legit condition. I understand they are covered under the civil rights act.

Like i said to use fear tactics is ridiculous.

And let me expand the comment i made about not feeling sorry. I do have compassion for them. I have more compassion than most people. Even though i am not in their shoes....i can only imagine the pain and discrimination they are going through.

As adults i think we can come up with a solution that would benefit our society. How???? My idea is to have unisex bathrooms etc.... for adults. I draw the line on public schools. These are children and they do not need to be dragged in our debate.

Someday...or maybe not....we can teach our children to embrace everyone regardless of sex, race, religion...etc.....

All i know is the more we bring government into our lives.....we can only blame ourselves.

But West you are making a leap from bathrooms to locker rooms - people do not normally shower in bathrooms. When Caitlyn Jenner first "came out" I did not understand why the transgender community was upset with her - I thought it would be a good thing to have a recognizable face for the cause. But I now understand - they are in the lime light and people's opinions are thrown around - good and bad. Don't you think they have been using the bathrooms all along? Of course they have and we never knew the difference.

However we cannot "embrace" everyone as long as we treat them separately .... in the words of a very wise man ...

"Separate (fill in the blank here) is inherently unequal"

—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

So we cannot advocate for separate unisex facilities here - that is creating "an alternative " separate bathroom. It is saying we don't want you in the normal bathroom so here ya go - here is your special bathroom.

@ Westdenali

While I agree with the unisex bathroom suggestion, I doubt it is the solution when you take into account that it would cost too much to remodel bathrooms.

As for children, we do not have the luxury of keeping them out of things because there are many children (under age of 18) who are transgender, which is why we are in a national debate over this whole subject and why the fed's have decided to withhold federal funding from any school district / state that enacts laws that discriminate against transgender children.

While you do not see transgender people as mentally ill, countless others do. Regardless whether one says they are or are not mentally ill, the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act still apply because the U.S. Supreme Court previously held that when a medical condition causes a social death, the condition constitutes a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus, this gives added protection to transgender people on top of the Civil Rights Act.

Feel free to "pick apart" what you want, as I am not afraid of a healthy intellectual debate in matters of law, civil rights, and discrimination.

Legal, this wasn't directed at you in any way. I sent the poster a PM as well. The comment was just a reminder to all that we may not all agree with each other, and our written words can sometimes be misconstrued. We don't have the luxury of looking at each other's body language or hear the tone in their voice, so our written words can say more than what we intend. The tone can be read differently, than it was intended - that is all I am saying.

@ Thought

Thank you for letting me know. I got Janet's PM, as well.

Legal, All this raises an issue for me: Until I found Daily Strength and began writing and speaking out I was indeed experiencing a sort of "social death" by association with a sex offender...Having 'experienced that and the anger it raised in me I too am in favor of equal rights for everyone. period.

What I want to know is this: Are there rules about what can or cannot be said when posting on Daily Strength? Are there rules somewhere about what "tone" we are supposed to take here? Or what topics are allowed? Does someone 'approve / reject' posts before they are posted or delete them afterwards based upon any posted criteria? Is there a common definition of 'healthy' in the "healthy intellectual debate" referred to above in Westie's recent comment?

I thought we were free to express ourselves here with no offense taken (so long as we didn't call each other names; try to get a particular party or person elected to office; proselytize regarding our own particular brand of religious faith!)

Just Asking.

Do we have 'gatekeepers" If so, who are they? And if so, what common mutually agreed upon rules rules do our official "gate keepers go by? Who appoints them 'gatekeeper?" To say that we all need to adhere to 'common decency" but by whose standards? The standards of law makers in N Carolina? The standards of those who think WE are beneath contempt? Just to say we 'side with a sex offender's point of view (or say we think a trans-sexual has equal human rights too ) indicates to some that we too are beyond 'common decency''

Everyone on the registry and every family member who posts here is probably thinking (and maybe even posting) stuff others think we should not be allowed to express or would object to our tone or our words (or to our anger at the system oppressing us)

The Strength of Daily Strength as I see it, is that "our condition" (however we are labeled by others) being able to find common ground, having 'intellectual" debates (or providing emotional support )prevents social death simply because we are able to openly discuss and share un-common opinions in sometimes perhaps un-common ways. And because I have experienced 'social death" in the stifling and shaming and blaming that goes on against "my sort' of person, I too empathize and support equality for others who are sunned because they also do not conform to the 'common standard of decency' demanded by those in power and by those, who by their own silence, inflict social death upon others.

Just Saying Janet Mackie

Janet, if you look on the group home page, there is the forum rules, about expected conduct.

As far as who the moderators are, if you look at the members on the right of your screen, anyone listed with "admin" are the moderators of the group. Wisconsin is the "owner" of the board and she delegates who are the moderators to help monitor the site.

As a rule, if I can read something and I can see where it can be read a certain way, I try to speak up. Nothing was said that warranted comments to be deleted. But, I could see that a comment was made that COULD have been read differently than intended. No one complained about any comment.

I hope this clarifies any question you may have.

I can see this topic is like beating a dead horse. We are compassionate people.....to a degree....and we may differ on solutions.

What are solutions? Is it black or white? Or can we meet in the middle? I kind of like the middle. It is gray but thats ok.

Instead of making it black or white....let us think outside the box. It may not be my way or your way...but we can learn to co-exist.

You have valid points and opinions. And so do i. Where to from here? We all talk about equal rights. We all want them. But what might be equal to you....is not equal to me.

I still think there is a solution to this issue. What? I dont know what it is. All we can do is to try and find common ground.

I dont think anyone of you were out of line on your posts. As for the moderator Thought as Wea....they have a responsibility. I sure would not that job. Thought is trying to keep this website as even keel as possible. That means referee. That means as not taking sides. It is a loose loose situation for our moderators.

I will not give up and fly the white flag in surrender. But i am not so close minded to exploring options and solutions to make this country as best we can.