All Activity

Romans are a refugee civilization and they integrated every belief they found. Like Eastern called Ostern in german, based on the celtic goddess of fertility called Osteia. That is why a rabbit hides eggs. The rabbit is fertile and the eggs are a sign of fertility. Also lets be "gay" for a moment which didn't mean homosexual in the old days as you can see here: It stood for happiness. Now I sadly can't tell you in an open forum about the Swastika... but look up its history.

Ancient Romans, who say they are remnants of the Trojan empire, have a remarkable history. Rome is called the eternal city for a reason. The roman empire was brought to its knees 4 times. The legions killed and the gates blown open... and yet the holy man of Rome stepped outside and told the invaders to go home and 4 times it worked. The staff of the pope... it has a symbol on it. A pine cone and that stands for the pineal gland and fluoride which is inside tap water cripples it. I do not brush teeth and have no teeth problems. Not the prettiest white but healthy. Anyway it makes sense that they cripple it because according to the CIA Uri Geller is a reality. Also as a child you have stronger dreams because your pinieal gland is healthy. The hat of the pope is also peculiar. Myth has it that it represents the fish god Dagon. And well the christian symbol is a fish! I was an intelligence soldier. I see patterns inside noise, its what I was trained for. The CIA also declassified parts of Thomas Chan's The story of Adam and Eve. Fascinating stuff. I am now reading the story of Aeneis. The troyan prince that founded Rome according to the legend. Also Paris is named after... a Troyan prince? And I read that the King of Londinium was called Brutus of Troy and wrote a letter to Ceasar about both being of Troyan origin... About the 4 times that Rome fell: Brennus Huns Goths Carthago

Looks like Dario has stored up some ideas since last he posted, but is having a problem starting anew thread even in Social, so here’s one for him.

I also did some research on Santa Clause. A german youtuber going by the name DieZuversicht has been telling a lot of facts. Santa Clause is not an invention of Coca Cola. But comes from Sibiria. The Christmas tree is a Nordmann Tanne, the right kind of tree grows in Scandinavia and Sibiria. The flying sled is from Odin. The color is most peculiar. Red and white. Like the psychedelic mushroom that grows in sibiria where the raindeer live. And legend has it that children are given presents taht are put under the tree because we used to give mushrooms to children that grow below the Nordmann Tanne. The wicked children however received coal. Because they would have a bad trip. That is why Schmutzli the companion of Santa has black skin. He is actually some other color but black because he takes care of the coal. Now my mother reminded me of the most interesting thing. Italians do NOT believe in Santa but La Befana. That is a whitch which showed the 3 kings according to legend the way to the newly born baby Christ. And there even is a book from a US American that tells us that all of Christianity is about Magic mushrooms. Google it. John Marco Allegro. La Befana does the same stuff Santa does, and the catholic church tries to rid the world of her... because she is non canon. But so are the ethipian books that have been discovered. Mel Gibson is making a second Jesus movie about them. And they used to be part of christianity until Catholics kicked it out and buried it in the library.

Oh I should also mention, I found an old christian book from 1682. Printed in modern times but still. Its John Bunyan "the holy war". This book is about the war over mans soul. The king of man's soul is called El Shaddai and the enemy is Diabolus. Not about the crusades in the holy land. And most of its text are bible phrases. Now, from my understanding your mormon handshakes and temple practices are partially or somewhat similar to freemasonry. Freemasons "believe in some god" and I heard they are the remnants of Zoroastrism. That makes sense to me. Walter Elias Disney was one as was Washington and so forth. The USA, is a freemason country, just have to look at Washington DC. Anyway, Christmas used to be the celebration of the Sun god. The story of Christ is found in many ancient religions, but with a different name. The 24th of December was never the true date of when Jesus was born. It was declared the day of celebration. And the orthodox have a different date. The jews even live in a different year than us. Your apostles or highest leader may know more. But listen, be wary of the "voices". I always had a godly but not holy feeling when touching or reading in your book. There is something godly about it yes but which god is it? Now I was not long gone in a psychiatric ward, put into an isolation cell because I yelled when there was a goal in football world cup. They put me into an isolation day for 6 days straight. Worse than a concentration camp. I had no pillow. No shower. I was given a yoghurt without a spoon. The doctor laughed at me when I defied his wickedness. On the 5th day I was about to mentally crack so I tried to write a prayer... but I had no streangth to write with this dull pencil that I was given. So I prayed... the way I was told by my mother. On my knees the Vater Unser. And afterwards I pleaded to Jesus and god to help me in my struggle. I may even cried out: Father, why have you forsaken me! That is the sentence Jesus said right before his death. And right after, a storm and an earthquake hit the temple of the jews. So goes the legend. Anyway I did hear a faint but pure and gentle voice coming from the heart. It told me... well it was weak I think it said to stay calm and believe. I did that. And see and behold on the 6th day I was let out of my cell. Since then I devoted myself fully to god and Jesus Christ. And I had one encounter after another where I could do good deeds. But I also... provoked Zion by writing a mail to the ambassador. I think it struck a nerve. I will gladly share it to those who want to see it via mail. Anyway the deeds I did since then was helping the homeless, giving faith to those who have lost it and I see the world improving a little. Coincidences keep happening. I listen to Linkin Park and see a crying woman in a Linkin Park T-shirt. So I go and help her. And thanks to my faith and conviction... it worked out well it seemed. I am becoming like Hiob. I have found a good wife yes but I am loosing more wealth day by day and the trials are getting harder and yet my resolve my conviction and faith and well being have never been higher. Maybe less is more. Maybe full devotion to Christ can be the way... The plot thickens. We live in remarkable times is all I am saying.

The basic way you continue to misrepresent my position is by claiming I advocate for something new and radical. That just isn’t true. What I'm claiming is that there is zero evidence that the new 2026 law in Kansas was needed. It is incumbent upon you to show why this new law is needed and explain why this law does more good than harm. This is the kind of statement that makes it hard for me to take you seriously. When a child is born, a doctor quickly examines them and makes a call on whether to put an “F” or “M” on the birth certificate. Making that judgement call is what it means to “assign” a sex to somebody. I’m sure you’re aware of this. I don’t understand why you are adamant that it is impossible for a doctor to do what they do every single time they fill out a birth certificate. Furthermore, doctors sometimes get this wrong. Emily Quinn is an example. When he was born, his doctor thought the “observable fact” was that he is female. It turns out the doctor was mistaken--biologically, the baby was male, not female. He is a male who was assigned to the sex “female” at birth. First, note that earlier in this thread, you said that some men should use the women’s restroom. An example you gave is Emily Quinn. Emily Quinn is a man. That is the hard, cold, biological fact of the matter. Yet you are okay with him using the women’s restroom. So we both agree that there are cases when biological men should use the women’s restroom. What we disagree about is the edge cases: where the line should be drawn, and who should make those calls. These edge cases aren’t recent. What actually is recent is culture warriors deciding this is a winning issue and constantly throwing it in your face. The only reason you know who Lily Tino or Lily Thomas are is because the people who curate your news want this to be an issue. Just because Fox News only recently started publicizing this doesn’t mean it’s a new issue.

Oh I forgot to mention. Cristina wants to solve one last issue, the love of a bolshevik boy and a christian girl wanting to mary. She fears that they may go and do suicide because nobody in town agrees with their love. In the end they go to the river and almost succeed but the town overcomes its differences and saves the couple in the spirit of Cristina.

In the first or second movie is the most heart touching story I could think of. It is about Madame Cristina. An old woman which has solved problems in the town ever since and was a teacher so she knows them all since childhood. On her deathbed she demands from them both to be buried with her flag, the flag of the long gone king. And her coffin to be transported through town in silence covered in the flag. This is a major offence to the church and the bolsheviks but because they both love her so much they overrule the democratic council and enforce her last wish. Also please pray for the young woman that died in Aarau recently. We had a mass shooting incident. The 22 year old christian girl from Italy was poor and had a hard life and did not deserve death. But... as I prayed for her I felt... holy... please pray for her for she is now with Jesus in heaven and her mom and dad have to bury her... it breaks my heart. And I feel responsible in a way that I can't explain. I meet so many young woman on facebook these days... and all of them have an onlyfans... what is happening in this world... I read in the news that psychiatrists are ringing the alarm bell because woman dream of rape because they read "spicey" books... keep your children safe and forgive them if they ever wrong you for the world is truely going dark. Also I pray for Vinnie Paz the rapper. Keep moving on is playing as I write this. Good man.

The 5 Don Camillo movies are a cultural treasure and have brought me back to Christendom after a deep crisis. He and the Bolshevik major fight but also are friends because of their past as soldiers in WW2 AFAIK. Also do not underestimate duality. I have always been a horny pervert who was into whores... so I read the Whore of Babylon first and what I read inspired me to read it all. The more you descend into darkness the more attracted you become to the light.

Make of this what you will but I see it as soft disclosure The planet is called Tiamat and it may be the asteroid belt. Chinese may be from Deneb. One of the levels is in Egypt. Also read up on The law of One. It is available but you have to look it up with russian google called Yandex.com to find the website. Enter Jesus into the searchbar of the website about it. The "contact" tells us about Jesus accidentaly causing death of a child when he was a child himself...

I see your point. However, the percentage of "trans men" in the overall U.S. population is fairly small. Per this article, the number of of "trans men" is about 730,500 people. A still smaller percentage of that number have had "top" surgery. And only a very small percentage of those "pass" in the way that this woman does (she really does like a male). Male adults and teens 15 and over comprise around 137 million persons, 100% of whom would, under Roger's proposal, be free to "come into a {woman's} restroom." By sheer numbers, the difference in policy outcome (legal segregation by sex v. no legal segregation at all), and the concomitant impact on women and girls who want to have sex-segregated spaces, is enormous. We cannot, of course, speak for all women, but I think many of them would prefer to maintain sex-segregated spaces. Roger's proposal eliminates them. The same would be said of the 137 million actual male adults and teens who will, under Roger's proposal, be legally entitled to enter into women's spaces. I wonder how many women and girls would prefer that circumstance. And yet, she's not male. She is a biological woman who has taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as a man. If there is a legally coherent limiting principle that would allow "trans men" to go into women's bathrooms, I sure would like to hear it. Roger categorically refuses to articulate any such principle. It's entirely left to the discretion of the individual. I admire and respect CB for presenting his "Steps (A)-(E)" proposal, but holy cow, it is steeped in "objectionable" points, including from most "trans advocacy" organizations. This is, I think, why people who call for radical societal change keep things nice and broad and vague. They don't want to address the real-world foreseeable ramifications of their proposals or, worse, use silence and obfuscation to smuggle in those ramifications. Meanwhile, all this commentary centers on the impact of sex-segregated spaces on a relatively tiny number of women ("trans men") who have masculinized themselves, and essentially no attention at all is paid to the welfare and preferences of the tens of millions of women and girls who expect sex-segregated spaces to segregate by sex. Thanks, -Smac

The song we sung at my Firmung The movie with Sean Connery as a Monk The Chinese Jesus An orthodox video

I also have this... its about Jesus in China.

12.09. as in 12th of September... you Americans have this weird attitude of writing month before day...

Thank you for the warm welcome back. I do not remember my old username but that may have been it. I do not remember much of said discussion but hope it stayed constructive. Anyway I would like to stay on topic and yes please do create a thread/topic of its own so that I do not hijack this one. I have a fiancee and will mary her on the 12.09. "unofficially" and my mormon friends are all invited. The missionaries on the phone were overjoyed and gratulated me. I am blessed but times are still hard... and I a child born on christmas and with some curly red hair (like mohammed)... I am on a mission to unite every one of the 8 or so christian churches of Winterthur. Jesus would want 1 church for all of Christendom. And it pained me greatly that even catholicism had 3 schisms.

Dario, I have wondered how you were doing. I assume you are the same as the poster Dario_M. If you want to discuss them in the main forum, I or someone else can start a thread for you. Otherwise, welcome back!

Hello, my name is my Username and I come in peace. I am a Roman Catholic who has the joy to visit Mormon gathering center in Switzerland Winterthur and call many Mormons my friends. I even gave testimony and was allowed to do prayer once (they forgot that I am not allowed to apparently but I made Jesus proud hopefully). Your food is delicious btw but I really come for the community. The reason I write here is that for some reason my browser or Windows 11 has a problem creating new threads. This is the most fitting one I found for my content that I want to share with you. A moderator may move it. Now I know the Roman Catholic church does not consider you christian and... its debatable. I see you as fantastic people who do their best to believe in Jesus so it is a pleasure knowing you. I will spare you my problems with your version of Christianity. Tbh I posted them in the past with another account that is deleted. The reason I post is I made pictures of old bible and old church and of the Catholic Katechismus (probably spelled wrong... I am german, it is our guidebook for the faith.) I believe that the more we share about our believes the better we can understand each other and overcome our differences. So I post these pictures not to shatter your faith or to convert you, but to strenghten your relationship with Jesus. The text will be in german but you can find many ways to translate. Sadly its photos not text so it would take some effort. Pictures are either from Wallisellen history book or Bible or old Bible or Katechismus... Didn't sort them so... Anyway here goes:

Someone needs to show me solid documentation, not just anecdotes or worse, speculation that I will not only be safer, but feel safer when I see this man come into a restroom I am currently using, because I know how I will react when I see him walk in and am pretty confident how the vast majority of women will react as well (both in negative ‘what the hell is this guy doing in the restroom’ and positive ‘wow, he is gorgeous’ versions, which may happen at the same time). Because on the level I am interacting with him, he is a man no matter what his biology is. I will only be reacting to him as a man as I won’t have the time or inclination to have a discussion with him about his chromosomes when my purpose is to become more physically comfortable and then clean up and then leave the premises as fast as possible (the hard surfaces of a bathroom create a very uncomfortable environment for me, I don’t like even being in my home bathrooms for the same reasons). Now if I was participating in a discussion about the ideology, biology, politics or something else around transitioning, I likely would use “them” and “they” and “biological female” for accuracy to describe him, but during any casual interaction and perhaps brief verbal conversation, in my head and gut I am going straight to “him” and “man” without a second thought. And it is a guaranteed fact that I would either walk out feeling rather offended and fearful because this guy thought he had a right to ignore the social rules and intrude on my privacy and how screwed up he must be to do that, increasing my sense of vulnerability and exposure by his unjustified use of my space (because that’s how I have always felt when it happens, which it has only once or twice in my life without an explanation of intense need and an apology) or I would be walking out feeling very awkward and embarrassed that I had forced them to share with me their medical and social background I did not need to know out of their concern for my few minutes at most discomfort. And then I would be left uncomfortably wondering how often this was going to be happening in the future, someone who is a man in all ways that they interact with me being forced by law to awkwardly and unfortunately share secluded, but still public space with me based on a law that ignored practical realities…and knowing me, my use of public restrooms would drop way low not because I felt unsafe with them, but because I wouldn’t want them to feel unsafe with me and I know I am too old and too programmed at this point not to react with fear on my face and body language if I see someone who is obviously a man (as far as I can tell) walk into the restroom for some reason without a custodian uniform on. Seriously, looking at pictures like this I find it so hard to believe that biologically this person is female. My gut would never be convinced, my emotional reaction to them will always be “he’s male”.

I'm not sure what Roger's point here is. What does "conspicuously out of place" mean? And isn't a big part of the problem that this hypothetical fellow is, under Roger's policy proposal (anyone uses any bathroom), legally entitled to enter into the women's bathroom. And because he is there legally, being seemingly "out of place" and "intense{ly} scrutin{ized}" does has no legal force or effect. The women and girls in the bathroom will just have to lump it. Because hallways are not segregated by sex. Because women and girls are not relieving themselves, or undressing themselves, or otherwise having any sort of expectation of privacy from males in a hallway. These seem axiomatic. Right. But under your proposal, they can't do anything about it. They can't tell him to leave. They can't call the police and report him. Instead, they must surrender the space which they were told would be segregated by sex. Men have attacked women in restrooms in the past not because they can walk in unquestioned by others when there are multiple women using it, but because they typically wait until there is one woman alone within. Thus any law barring any biological male from entering a women’s restroom will be highly unlikely to affect these types of attacks, imo. I think they would have some real effect. Under Roger's proposal, if a lone woman enters a bathroom and finds a man there, there is nothing she can do about it. She must do her business with him a few feet away from her. In contrast, under a sex-segregated policy, if a lone women enters a bathroom, she can immediately demand that he leave, and/or call the police, and/or scream, and/or immediately take defensive measures because his mere presence in the bathroom is a violation of the law. She does not need to wait until he manifests ill intent. Thanks, -Smac

Men have attacked women in restrooms in the past not because they can walk in unquestioned by others when there are multiple women using it, but because they typically wait until there is one woman alone within. Thus any law barring any biological male from entering a women’s restroom will be highly unlikely to affect these types of attacks, imo.

If you are interested in such things I recommend the bool The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. Moral standards can be determined by us based on what maximizes human well being and happiness. Yes it is not the simple and it is complicated. Question? Why should religion be the sole or best option for establishing moral values and rules? What does one do when various religions conflict. Certainly Sharia Law and Western Judeo Christian morals tend to conflict at time. Who's religious morals should prevail? One of the greatest inventions in political government was the US Constitution's 1st amendment. No religion should or could be bale to set up theocracy in the United States, though currently, it seems some Christian Nationalists are working hard at it.

A number of these questions seem to be slanted/loaded, and reliant more on strawman caricatures of viewpoints which diverge from yours as compared to straightforward evaluation. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go: Q: What is the purpose of public bathrooms? A: To let people relieve themselves in public with a basic measure of privacy and safety. Where rooms are marked Men and Women, that purpose includes separating the two sexes. The fixtures are not the whole point. The separation is. Q: Which restroom should an individual choose when they need to use one? A: The one that matches their sex. If a single-occupancy, lockable room is available, anyone may use that without asking anyone else to share a communal space with the opposite sex. Q: Do we need a law that mandates which restroom people must use? A: Given recent changes in society, I think we do. We already had a convention, and in many places a rule, that the rooms are sex-separated. When that convention is treated as optional (as your proposal does), institutions need a written line. A law is one way to write it. It is not the only way. The question is still whether sex means something on the door, not whether every detail must be a statute. Q: Do we need a “limiting principle” governing which bathroom people may use? A: Yes, because otherwise there is no mechanism to maintain sex-segregated spaces. Previously, the operative limiting principles were often things less than laws, like social conventions and expectations. But those conventions and expectations are no longer being observed. Lia Thomas was a man competing with women in sports. Lily Tino is a man going into DisneyWorld bathrooms. And these are just high visibility/profile examples. With social conventions/expectations having been substantially disrupted, some jurisdictions feel it appropriate and necessary to resort to other limiting principles, namely, sex-segregated spaces governed by statute, with sex referring to adult human male or adult human female. Discomfort is real, but it is not a principle. Two people can be made uncomfortable by opposite choices. Sex is a public fact. Feeling is not. Q: But isn’t that functionally identical to giving people a license to use any restroom for any reason they want, or for no reason whatsoever? A: Yes. That is the foreseeable and anticipated result of your preferred policy. A sex-based rule, on the other hand, with sex as the limiting principle, is the opposite of an any-room rule. Harassment, voyeurism, and exhibitionism should remain crimes. Those crimes are not the only reason the rooms were separated (an important point I think you have never really addressed). Privacy and the ordinary fact of male-pattern strength and crime rates are reasons even when no one is committing a separate offense. Q: Who gets to decide which bathroom will minimize discomfort to themselves and to those around them? A: No one person “decides” the category. Sex is an observed fact, it is something that can be voted on or "assigned." The person who needs the toilet decides when to go. They do not decide what sex they are for purposes of a shared room. Q: But if we treat people like adults living in a free society and allow them to choose which restroom is most appropriate, won’t that lead to the eradication of sex-distinct restrooms? A: If “most appropriate” means “the one that matches how I see myself,” then sex-distinct rooms become courtesy signs. A courtesy sign is not a sex-distinct space. I would rather keep the rooms honest and add more single-occupancy spaces than keep the labels and empty them of meaning. Q: Do you have any evidence that it won’t? A: The old practice was not “choose the room that minimizes your discomfort.” It was “men here, women there,” with rare exceptions handled quietly and with forbearance. What is new is the claim that a male who identifies as a woman is a woman for the purpose of the room. That claim is, historically, very recent. I do not need to accuse anyone of bigotry to say that. People of good will disagree about what kindness requires. Kindness does not require us to say a male is female. Q: But somebody looking like a woman and feeling like a woman doesn’t override the underlying biology! The women’s restroom is for biological females and the men’s restroom is for biological males! It’s always been that way! A: I agree that feeling and appearance do not change sex (though given the sarcastic tone, I am not sure if you are saying that you think that looking/feeling "like a woman" does "override the underlying biology"). I also agree that no one historically stood at the door with a chromosome test. That is not the same as saying the room was never for females. We enforce many rules by ordinary recognition — adults and children, disabled parking, the men’s door — without labs and medical testing. When recognition and reality come apart, the honest course is to keep the category and handle the hard cases with single-occupancy rooms, not to redefine the category. Q: But those are extreme cases: exceptionally feminine-looking biological males and exceptionally masculine-looking biological females! A: Unusual appearance is a reason for tact. It is not a reason to treat sex as a costume. A feminine male is still male. A masculine female is still female. Policy written for the rare passing case becomes a general ticket for any male who says he belongs. Q: But what about cases where people suspect, or even know, that someone choosing the women’s restroom is biologically male? A: Those cases are the ones the rule is for. Social pressure does not stop everyone. “He used the toilet and left” is not a complete answer to a girl who did not agree to share that room with a male. Vigilance after the fact is not the same as a rule beforehand. A public restroom is not a sanctuary from every discomfort. It is also not a place where females must accept male presence as the price of being in public. Q: But what about locker rooms! And sports! And prisons! And drag shows! A: These are all interrelated concepts and topics of discussion relative to public policy. They all turn on the same question: does sex still name a class, or does "identity" replace it? Bathrooms are the smallest version of that question. Locker rooms add undress. Sports add fairness and safety. Prisons add captivity. It is fair to take them one at a time. It is not fair to say that because they are distinct in some ways, sex therefore suddenly stops mattering in the room with the toilets. As for exposing children to sexualized adult live performances, I can oppose them and still care about who is in a women’s room. Those concerns do not have to be hostility to a person. They can be a defense of a category and spaces that girls and women have been told are theirs. Thanks, -Smac

I’d like to summarize my thoughts on the issues we’ve been discussing. I’ll do so in Q&A format: Q: What is the purpose of public bathrooms? A: To provide a place for people to use the toilet and attend to ordinary sanitary needs while they are out in public. Q: Which restroom should an individual choose when they need to use one? A: The one that will minimize discomfort to themselves and to the people around them. Q: Do we need a law that mandates which restroom people must use? A: No. Society got along fine without such laws, and there is nothing happening now that demonstrates such a law is necessary, much less that it would do more good than harm. Q: Do we need a “limiting principle” governing which bathroom people may use? A: Yes. The limiting principle is that people should use the restroom that will minimize discomfort to themselves and to those around them. Q: But isn’t that functionally identical to giving people a license to use any restroom for any reason they want, or for no reason whatsoever? A: No. The ordinary purpose of a bathroom is to walk in, use the toilet, flush, wash your hands, and leave. If somebody is using a bathroom for some other purpose--harassment, loitering, intimidation, voyeurism, exhibitionism, solicitation, etc.--those acts can be, should be, and, where appropriate, already are illegal. The crime isn’t using the “wrong” restroom. The crime is the underlying conduct. Q: Who gets to decide which bathroom will minimize discomfort to themselves and to those around them? A: The person who needs to use the bathroom. Q: But if we treat people like adults living in a free society and allow them to choose which restroom is most appropriate, won’t that lead to the eradication of sex-distinct restrooms? A: No. Q: Do you have any evidence that it won’t? A: Yes. The evidence on this point is overwhelming. As an institution, sex-distinct restrooms in free societies have thrived for generations without laws assigning every person to a restroom according to biological sex. If allowing people to decide which toilet is most appropriate somehow caused the eradication of sex-distinct restrooms, they would have been eradicated long ago. If, despite that long and exceptionally clear history, somebody remains convinced that sex-distinct bathrooms are suddenly in mortal jeopardy without bathroom laws, I can’t help but wonder whether the real problem is them and involves something that rhymes with spigotry. Q: But somebody looking like a woman and feeling like a woman doesn’t override the underlying biology! The women’s restroom is for biological females and the men’s restroom is for biological males! It’s always been that way! A: That is manifestly false as a description of how public restrooms have actually operated. Public restrooms have never had gatekeepers examining chromosomes, gonads, reproductive anatomy, or developmental reproductive pathways before admitting people. In ordinary life, the social convention has overwhelmingly operated through appearance and ordinary social recognition. That is why most strangers would think nothing unusual about seeing biological males such as Valentina Sampaio, Carmen Carrera, Kim Petras, or Geena Rocero enter a women’s restroom, while biological females such as Aydian Dowling, Laith Ashley, Buck Angel, or Schuyler Bailar entering that same restroom would be far more likely to cause confusion or alarm. Q: But those are extreme cases: exceptionally feminine-looking biological males and exceptionally masculine-looking biological females! A: Exactly. They prove the point. Whatever abstract theory someone may now construct about the historical purpose of sex-distinct bathrooms, the system has never functioned by inspecting underlying reproductive biology. In practice, it has functioned through ordinary social perception. Q: But what about cases where people suspect, or even know, that someone choosing the women’s restroom is biologically male? A: First, such cases are rare. The social pressure against entering a restroom where you obviously are not wanted is enormous. Second, someone whose presence appears conspicuously out of place will already attract intense scrutiny. If an obviously male-presenting stranger walks down a hallway, nobody thinks much of it. If he walks into the women’s restroom, people immediately go on high alert. That makes the women’s restroom an extraordinarily poor place for a would-be criminal to operate unnoticed. If somebody behaves suspiciously, take whatever reasonable precautions are appropriate. But if somebody walks in, uses the toilet, washes their hands, and leaves, mind your own business. A public restroom is not a sanctuary in which you are guaranteed never to encounter anyone who makes you uncomfortable or whom you disapprove of. It is a place containing toilets. Go in, deal with the offensive sights, sounds, and smells that inevitably accompany public bathrooms, take care of your business, and get out. Q: But what about locker rooms! And sports! And prisons! And drag shows! A: Those are separate issues. If we want to analyze them rationally, we should treat them as separate issues. Whether there was an inappropriate children’s reading event in Houston in 2019 tells us precisely nothing about whether Kansas needed a bathroom law in 2026. If somebody insists on repeatedly conflating bathrooms, locker rooms, competitive athletics, prisons, drag shows, children’s events, and every other transgender-related controversy into one giant undifferentiated problem, I can’t help but wonder whether the common denominator they are actually objecting to is not any particular policy at all, but transgender people themselves.

In our building, there's one person from each ward who has been called to check the building at night to ensure it's locked up. They swing by around 10pm, make sure everything looks good, and then call it a night. If they see anything suspicious, they are not supposed to engage - just report the incident and leave it for the police to investigate. There are four units in the building, so it's only once every four months (not too bad).

They are self insured. They do have a “Lloyd’s” type policy that covers major expenses I’m thinking in the millions. It’s what they try to pay off major child abuse lawsuits with although I think they will eventually get dropped for that category. Criminal damage, accidents etc once liability reaches a certain ceiling the Lloyd’s policy kicks in. I don’t think they are actually insured by Lloyd’s, but the policies would be similar.