The only arguments I've seen so far, is the possibilty of sexual offenders that might prey on unsuspecting children.

There is no reason to assume that there would be more instances of sexual offences as a direct result of having and using unisex bathrooms. If you think there are, plainly state them.

As I've said before, I don't necessarily want or need unisex bathrooms. I just think that being against them is prudish and based purely on emotional/religious reasons.

Way to dodge every point entirely. I consider that your acceptance of defeat. You did not answer #1, #2, or #3. (1- you can get someone to crawl under the stall, if you're too overweight to do so yourself, I've never been to a bathroom that I couldn't fit under or over, and you dodged the medical issues situation, 2- check your local news or police records for sexual assault records, 3- the minority is not always right, this is a non-argument. There are minorities for everything under the sun, ranging from pedophilia (once a majority in some societies), to putting sterilants in drinking water to manage population control, etc.)

Thanks for the fun, but everything has already been stated, and you're adding nothing further to this conversation, other than red herrings.

If ChantDownBabylon made fun of your dick size you would definitely be left with a feeling of inadequacy.

...do you really think this type of childish nonsense is appropriate or bothers me in the least ?

Actually he's right, the burden of proof is on you. If you're making the claim you have to provide the evidence to back it up.

This post was edited by Rhamax on Apr 26 2011 01:36pm

1) Safety is of utmost concern, or businesses will be sued. This is fact.
2) All it takes is one sexual assault, and that's technically more instances. If you want to take that bet, you're a greater fool than I thought.
3) See all previous posts on this matter. Just because you choose to ignore them does not make them any less valid, per your own words of "everyone can be wrong or right" (which I don't agree with in this case, but you said it, not me).



See #2 in this reply.

As a response to your pseudopsychology, it is quite concise.

Here you go, burden of proof on me that shared (unisex) bathrooms can be used for sexual assault:
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1906502.shtml?cat=1

There's one, and google found many other articles with simple searches on "sexual assault family bathroom" (since unisex is not a term usually used by news media, and unisex bathrooms are quite rare, with family bathrooms are the closest thing to unisex bathrooms currently around)

Now your turn (though I probably won't read further replies, I'm beating a dead horse, and it's quite clear nothing will convince some of you to the obvious).

My pseudo-psychology as you call it does not mean I should be subject to perverse slurs against my character .

1. Then prohibit everything.
2. Yeah. Fearmongering. Nice. "Won't somebody please think of the children". You have still not given statistics or numbers or even a reason as to why you believe the amount of sexuals offences would go up if unisex bathrooms were implemented.
3. I don't ignore your arguments. You haven't stated any except some increased (and vague) danger/harm to the child. You first have to give some arguments before I can ignore them. That's how it works. Also, would you mind forwarding me the email you sent to my boss? That way I can take a screenshot here, and show it to him tomorrow. You know as proof that you are a real person, and not me playing a joke on him. Thanks.