Yet Again, At Planet Fitness...

Status
Not open for further replies.

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,675
6,116
64
✟338,965.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Why would there be a need for a private locker? You gan get your clothes out of the locker and bring them to your private shower OR you can wear a towel or robe to your locker and change there. I don't understand why the concept of a private shower is so inconceivable to a conservative.

What is insane about wanting a private shower? Can you explain that to me? In my progressive opinion, it is perfectly reasonable to want to take a private shower. Is there some tenant of conservatism that states we have no right to shower in private? Is there a preference conservatives have where they prefer getting naked in a room full of people rather than having privacy? What is it about conservative ethics that push for us to have no right to privacy when we shower? I mean is it that we are not capable of providing private showers while we do seem to be capable of blasting telescopes out into other galaxies and somehow doors and screws are an unavailable technology? Personally, I would prefer a private shower rather than a shower with 13 other guys showing us how they wash their buttocks and genitals. Is it somehow a personal preference for conservatives to get naked together? I wouldn't think so but I guess anything to make it easier on businesses to save money is the preference. At a simple gym like LA Fitness, private showers are provided (at my location anyway). Are they somehow out of order for providing this privacy or could it possibly be more advantageous to provide them because people want them? Capitalism which conservatives worship would seem to dictate that it is more profitable to provide people what they want rather than checking people's genitals as they enter the lockerroom. Is that line of thinking also insane? Or is it more insane to accept people as they are?
May I repeat myself? No one is saying that private stalls are a bad thing. Somehow you have a brain that's locked up. You have an idea in your head and you can't seem to let it go. It's a false idea. No one is saying that privacy is a bad thing or a bad idea. Your statement about privacy is a FALSE statement. In fact the right to privacy is what our complaint is. Women have a right to privacy. And literally no one is saying that no one should have private stalls.

In fact I bet that people on this board would appreciate a gym that had such a thing. I know I would. That being said though the question is, is this NECESSARY and should it be forced upon businesses to do so. It's NOT a necessity and it should NOT be forced upon businesses to do so. If they want to great. If they don't that's great too.

Are you calling for governmental mandates for private stalls in all public accomodations and private businesses and all governmental buildings?

Just recognize that men don't belong in a woman's space either in a private stall with them or a large locker room without private stalls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyG
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,675
6,116
64
✟338,965.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Is it "gaslighting" to infer that people would prefer privacy when they shower? I think you have no leg to stand on in your argument to discriminate. so you want to attack me for "gaslighting" whatever that is.
Yes it's gaslighting to keep stating that someone is saying something they are not. You keep doing that.
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
14,773
8,540
28
Nebraska
✟246,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, they all feel the same do they? Yes, as I said, simplistic and disrespectful.
Still my opinion. I also think it’s disrespectful to force someone to accept trans ideology and think it’s ok for someone who is a biological male to be in a woman’s only space or vice versa. Trans people need to be aware of this and move on.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
1,845
1,134
81
Goldsboro NC
✟173,813.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You choose to shower in a locker room as a man with other males. Women don’t need to see men naked other than those they consent to.
Yes, but I am not often offered the choice and nobody cares. rturner was only making fun of you when he suggested that the reason to reject general privacy was that conservative might actually prefer to shower naked with persons of the same gender rather than privately. I wonder if there isn't something to it after all. Granted this is something of a side issue, but the reaction to rturner's proposal of general privacy was certainly interesting.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,675
6,116
64
✟338,965.00
Faith
Pentecostal
So have my progressive friends including me. I remember my camp counselor forcing all of us boys into the shower which was called a KYBO (keep your body orderly). I was shy but I did it. We all got naked and went into the communal showers. It's not really a matter of being progressive, it's a matter of the times changing and people wanting privacy when they shower. Quick story, my mother told me how when she was forced to shower after gym class, she shared the shower with the other girl who had physically developed into a woman. The other kids still had their itty bitties but she felt more comfortable with her. I'm sure she would have felt even more comfortable in a private shower.
Okay. I showered with boys in gym class all through highschool and college. I never demanded the school give me a private shower and I never demand d to shower with the girls. So your thoughts don't counyer anything I said.
I'm not DEMANDING private rooms, I am advocating for private showers. In the conservative utopia like capitalism should bear out the fact that people want privacy. If you can't adjust to that you just go out of business. That's the capitalist way, adapt or close down. I'm not advocating for new laws to be passed requiring private showers. I'm saying that if I have a choice, I'm going to a gym with private showers regardless of the genitals contained in the next shower. It seem to only be conservatives that want to shower in the midst of a dozen other boys. Maybe it's so we can all see what the other boys have, I don't know but there seems to be resistance to anything that provides privacy. I wonder why that is.
Okay that's good. That's the first time you actually clarified that you aren't calling for any laws. Usually and advocacy involves that. If I advocate for the protection of endangered species that generally means I want laws that protect endangered species. If I advocate for clean air I usually want laws to require a reduction in air pollution.

In your advocacy are you going around to your business and advocating there or just on line in a forum?

And you are continuing to gaslight us in regards to this issue. Cause I didn't t recall a SINGLE person in this board saying they "want to shower in the midst of a dozen boys". And it's quite disgusting to suggest that we see what other boys have. What's wrong with you saying stuff like that?

The resistance comes for our concerns that you are calling for a mandate. Now that we know your not you are free to advocate all you want.

And to be clear again. I'd be fine if a business, school or whatever decides to create those things in their business. I used one while we were visiting Portland last year. We were in a store that had all private bathrooms. We were perfectly fine with that.
And I bw fine with that if my gym dis the same thing with private rooms with showers toilets etc. But if my cost went up too much to pay for that, I guess I'd go somewhere that didnt have that. I can afford only so much.

As we've been saying all along. It's not necessary. It's a luxury. But you are free to advocate for it and if you can convince a business.or gym to do it then good for you.

But I'm still skeptical of your motivations here. I think all your advocacy for these private spaces solely related to transgender people. I noticed you didn't claim to be advocating for this before the trans issues became a real thing.

But I do note that you are not for creating laws to require it. So I don't know if we have much more to talk about on this. Unless.you keep making false and inflammatory claims.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,401
13,150
Seattle
✟912,512.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Still my opinion.
Which you are entitled to. I'm just going to continue to point out it is not respectful.


I also think it’s disrespectful to force someone to accept trans ideology and think it’s ok for someone who is a biological male to be in a woman’s only space or vice versa. Trans people need to be aware of this and move on.
No one can force someone to accept an ideology. What they can do is enforce rules. That is not forcing acceptance. Society requires me to accord your religious belief a certain deference. That does not force me to accept your ideology.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,675
6,116
64
✟338,965.00
Faith
Pentecostal
You choose to shower in a locker room as a man with other males. Women don’t need to see men naked other than those they consent to.
You know that brings up a good point maybe instead of private showers and bathrooms we could create three types of bathrooms and locker rooms. One for men one for women and one for everyone. That way is men and women want to share a bathroom and shower they could and if they want to be separate they could do that too.

I wonder how many women would use the shared bathrooms and showers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyG
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,675
6,116
64
✟338,965.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Which you are entitled to. I'm just going to continue to point out it is not respectful.



No one can force someone to accept an ideology. What they can do is enforce rules. That is not forcing acceptance. Society requires me to accord your religious belief a certain deference. That does not force me to accept your ideology.
Acceptance in mind is one thing forced actions is something else. Often when we talk about acceptance we are referring to forced actions. No you don't have to accept our ideology, but if we created rules or laws that made you say "Jesus is Lord" or made everyone carry a gun you'd have an issue with it. Or maybe force everyone to eat meat. You may not accept in your mind the ideology that everyone should eat meat, but you wouldn't appreciate and would probably fight against the notion of being forced to eat meat or carry a gun.

I mean I could come up with a number ideologies that you probably would disagree with and wouldn't want to be forced to participate in with words or deeds.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,675
6,116
64
✟338,965.00
Faith
Pentecostal
It is more discriminatory to check everyone's genitals at the entrance of a locker room than simply providing a safe private place for everyone to shower. The conservative mindset it seems to support checking everyone's genitals for the proper gender rather than just providing privacy for everyone who has genitals. There seems to really be a need to make sure everyone's genitals correspond to the correct locker room instead of making all of the showers private so there is no need to categorize people. I know that is a hard pill to swallow for conservatives as they fight to put people in their appropriate place but it's 2024 ant the times that are "a changing." It's difficult for conservatives to change the way they view things as conservative values dictate that we have as little change as possible whereas progressives believe in changing with the times.
So your whole private shower thing is not really about privacy after all. It IS about transgenders. Just as I thought.

I'd also like a single quote from anyone on this board that said we have to check everyone's genitals before they go in. Just one. If you you can't then is oblivious your imagination has gotten out of control if you think that's what is needed or wanted.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,401
13,150
Seattle
✟912,512.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance in mind is one thing forced actions is something else. Often when we talk about acceptance we are referring to forced actions. No you don't have to accept our ideology, but if we created rules or laws that made you say "Jesus is Lord" or made everyone carry a gun you'd have an issue with it. Or maybe force everyone to eat meat. You may not accept in your mind the ideology that everyone should eat meat, but you wouldn't appreciate and would probably fight against the notion of being forced to eat meat or carry a gun.

I mean I could come up with a number ideologies that you probably would disagree with and wouldn't want to be forced to participate in with words or deeds.
Or saying "one nation under God"?

Yes, I would agree forcing an action on my part would be an issue. However this is not forcing an action. This is allowing people in an area. Now we can certainly argue the merits on if allowing certain people in certain areas, but if I created a rule that no Christians were to be allowed in mosques I'm not going to pretend that is somehow respectful to Christians. It is by it's nature disrespectful and exclusionary.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,129
12,097
54
USA
✟303,079.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
My original statement regarding this was based on the complaint of Christian values being pushed on society and how that needs to end. If you don't think that's the case then there's no way for me to discuss the matter with you.

We'll get to those "christian values" in a moment, but it is still open if you think the US society was based on Christian values at some point in the past (that they are now being pushed out). If you do think so, when was that time?


This particular sequence started with a blind post (no liked response) about 200 posts in:

This is really mostly about the continuing effort to knock down convention. Because somehow an unconventional world it going to be better.

@BCP1928 engaged in reply and first mentioned "Western Christian culture/civilization" to which you eventually (after the next quoted post) challenged to name a better civilization or culture. (To which I replied with the Secular equivalent).

You said getting rid of Western Christian cultural conventions, and I asked opposed to what? You of course don't have an answer to that. You don't know of a better societal system because there isn't one.

This post now brings up a different question based on the themes of this thread and given that it was made in this thread:

Which "Western Christian cultural convention" do you think we (that is the not you and your allies on this thread) are trying to git rid of? Which one of these is "Western Christian"?

1. Treating transpeople like dirt, or
2. Gendered restrooms and locker rooms.

Or is it something else?
 
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Angels Team
Feb 10, 2013
14,773
8,540
28
Nebraska
✟246,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Which you are entitled to. I'm just going to continue to point out it is not respectful.



No one can force someone to accept an ideology. What they can do is enforce rules. That is not forcing acceptance. Society requires me to accord your religious belief a certain deference. That does not force me to accept your ideology.
Respectful of what? I feel compassion for people, that doesn’t mean I have to accept everything they do.

In regards to rules, if my religion says it’s ok to harm others, I cannot do it because it affects others. Doesn’t make it right.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,735
18,592
Orlando, Florida
✟1,265,953.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
And of course none of that applies to unbelievers. Unbelievers are free to do whatever they want because they are lost anyway.

This is a false teaching. No one is free to do what is evil, that violates the notion that morality and divine commandment are not obligations. They most certainly are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,735
18,592
Orlando, Florida
✟1,265,953.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
No it's not. The Bible is very clear that God has endorsed violence. Now Jesus teaching for CHRISTIANS, his followers were to be peaceful people. And Paul taught that as much as it is possible to live peaceably with all men. Even he understood that sometimes it's not possible. But he never endorsed violence for the followers of Christ. I don't believe that it applies to using violence in defense of your life or someone else's. The command to love your neighbor would definitely imply the need to defend your neighbor from those who who do evil upon them. And Paul is clear that governments primary duty is to protect it's citizens.

And of course none of that applies to unbelievers. Unbelievers are free to do whatever they want because they are lost anyway. They are separated from God and they can be the nicest most peaceful person you can imagine and they are still condemned. As condemned as the violent terrorist. Because we don't get to be with God by our own deeds.

Once again off topic so that's it for me.

Most wars fought during history have not been about defending your family from bodily harm, but about defending abstract ideas like "the nation", "honor", etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Belk
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,401
13,150
Seattle
✟912,512.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Respectful of what? I feel compassion for people, that doesn’t mean I have to accept everything they do.
Of course you don't have to accept everything they do. But don't try to claim "They are just pretending" is respectful of an actual medical condition they suffer from. Nor is it respectful to assume a greater understanding of their issue then they posses.

In regards to rules, if my religion says it’s ok to harm others, I cannot do it because it affects others. Doesn’t make it right.
The sole point of my example was to demonstrate that no one can force another accept an ideology. As long as you agree on that point there is no need to expound upon it further.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,415
15,506
✟1,113,258.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Or saying "one nation under God"?

Yes, I would agree forcing an action on my part would be an issue. However this is not forcing an action. This is allowing people in an area. Now we can certainly argue the merits on if allowing certain people in certain areas, but if I created a rule that no Christians were to be allowed in mosques I'm not going to pretend that is somehow respectful to Christians. It is by it's nature disrespectful and exclusionary.
Are you saying that in each case an exclusionary action or rule is also by nature disrespectful of whomever is being excluded?
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,401
13,150
Seattle
✟912,512.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Are you saying that in each case an exclusionary action or rule is also by nature disrespectful of whomever is being excluded?
Not all cases. Certainly no one would claim being excluded from a torture dungeon is disrespectful. But most cases where someone wants to be somewhere but is excluded is disrespectful to them.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,023
3,575
60
Montgomery
✟144,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If I was to make a generalization about "all women" it would be that they like to do their business in private from both men and other women. That, I know, is true of many men as well, who won't use a urinal if there are other men using them. but go to a stall instead.

Would a cosmetically transitioned woman who still had female genitalia but looked like a man cause the same discomfort?
Nobody cares about women using the men’s bathroom. It’s not a safety issue
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.