First I will note that you completely skipped (for a second time) the question I put to you in response to your assertion: "You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom."
You call me chicken shit (for not fully quoting you, though when pressed you give nothing that would have invalidated my reply), but here you are dodging a question based on your assertion.
I also did not see you admit that the North Carolina anti-trans state law was in response to a pro-trans city law, despite your earlier implication that it was conservatives against gay marriage going after a new target that started all this bathroom nonsense.
You originally said "It never happens."
That's twice now you fabricated a quote that I did not say. I gave a single case, "When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag." I admitted there were other cases I missed, namely the "progressive" cause du jour of transsexuals.
It doesn't invalidate the context of the argument, which started with you talking about male actors in Shakespeare being accepted as women (turns out the law forbid women from acting at the time). The overwhelmingly vast majority of women's roles in Hollywood are taken by actual women. In fact, the only cases that you gave me were roles where the "women" were transsexual as specified by the role.
That's what passing trans laws has done, opening up new lawsuit threats. This happens every time the government creates a new "equality" law.
As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them.
Everybody has a "right" to be pissed off or not.
They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.
No, they all jumped in to the current climate of political correctness and the "progressive" cause du jour. Whether it makes economic sense or not is debatable, as they're really just afraid of the mainstream press targeting them and doing virtue signaling of their own to get positive press.
In response to all this drama, started by "progressives", Target is spending $20 million to install a single-use bathroom for any sex in all its stores.
so again, what are you really afraid of?
How many times do I have to answer this? I'm not afraid of anything, and I have very little interest in the bathroom drama, but you insist on dragging me into this argument, and I feel obliged to correct some of your bullshit and play devil's advocate.
It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue?
Because I refuse to go along with the herd and participate in other people's delusions. We've already covered this.
And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each.
Congratulations. But there are plenty of cases where I could tell. And I'm guessing you didn't have sex with any of your roommates without them knowing.