Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Which negates the entire purpose of this site...

Genealogically he was certainly still African American. Using skin color as the primary means of judging ethnicity is not only unreliable, but also somewhat harmful on a sociological level.

You are failing to distinguish between 'race'--biological--and 'ethnicity'--cultural.

No one is arguing that you can change races; the argument is: why can you change genders, but not ethnicities when both of which are cultural ideologies?

Women prefer natural sex over robotic sex for a plethora of reasons. Sure, a vibrator can feel better than a normal penis, but if women had to choose, they would choose a human penis.

Ethnicity: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

You can change cultures, and you can change social groups; so how, exactly, can you not change ethnicities?

Accepting that homosexuality exists does not really support your claim, nor is it respective of my position. Moreover, I am quite sure everyone knows that homosexuals exists, so I am not understanding your point here...

But in a society that accepts the existence of homosexuality [...]

Not entirely true, homosexuals--typically male--still discomfit majority of heterosexuals--again, typically male.

For example, most porn sites have their own gay page which is largely comprised of men; whereas gay women videos are revealed, intermittently, during a casual perusal.

Furthermore, any media consisting of a homosexual relationship between two males--both of whom are the main characters--most times has low ratings (the one exception is "Brokeback Mountain", which was not really premised on their relationship, but can still be an example).

So to claim society has accepted homosexuals is a slight fabrication, tantamount to suggesting that minorities have been accepted into society.

I am confident that with the increase societal discussion of gender and sexual fluidity, bathrooms with become unisex with individualized privacy.

You will still have the problem of locker-rooms and changing rooms.

There is no increased danger of someone being sexually attracted to those in the room by allowing transgenders into other restrooms.

Not true. Most assaults that happen in restrooms come from homosexuals. So in the event that you have opposite-sexed heterosexuals in the rest area, there is a significant increase of sexual assault.

Ask yourself: Why is it that women do not want men in the restroom?

Enabling men to enter a woman's restroom is unlawful - it's not 'anti' anything. Moreover, transgender people--in this case men--can still be heterosexual, which means they can indeed look upon women and girls in perverse manner, thereby discomfiting innocent individuals who will now need to remain wary in a supposedly privatized rest-zone (which defeats the purpose of not allowing non-transgender men in the restroom).

This sounds reasonable, however, we are talking about humans who are capable of creating loopholes in such a rudimentary construction. This tactic would still require numerous (costly) security measures because of the massive opportunity for breaching; building a sophisticated border would dilute the finances that fund border patrolmen salaries, excess security measures, and border reconstruction.

Excluding the financial encumbrances; there should be a border built for obvious reasons: too many many immigrants cross illegally into the U.S., in conjunction with a large portion of Mexico's drug trafficking/smuggling...