Gahhhhh so confusing!

Some very concerned citizens and their pastors in California are very concerned about their privacy. Ya see, right now, any old persons can walk into a public restroom, drop trou, do their business -- and nobody has the right to sue 'em if the girl-wiener they're packin' doesn't match the picture on the door. How unjust is that?! That's why Privacy For All is gathering signatures for a little somethin' called the Personal Privacy Protection Act, to fix that right up. And how, exactly, does it protect your privacy? Like so:

Prohibits individuals from using facilities in government buildings except in accordance with their sex as determined at birth, through medical examination, or court judgment recognizing a change of gender.

So, to access a facility, you must prove your sexparts with a baby pic of your hoo-ha, a quick medical exam, or a court judgment? But what if you need to pee really bad, right now, and you left all your parts 'n' paperwork at home?

Creates legal damages claim of at least $4,000 against a government entity or person that violates the provision.

So, citizens concerned about privacy can peek over the the top of the stall, check out your whosit, and if it's actually a whatsit, they will SEE YOU IN COURT, for violating their privacy.

"How much damage did that whatsit do to you, sir?"

"Oh, at least as much as the cost of a 2004 Civic."

Cool! What a great way to make a little extra cash too, by spying undocumented wangs in the powder room at City Hall and then filing lawsuits against the state and the wang and whoever else got all up in your privacy while you were pinching out that bad burrito you had at lunch. Any other privacy concerns this proposed legislation would protect?

Allows businesses to prohibit employees or patrons, including transgender people, from using facilities except in accordance with their sex as determined at birth, through medical examination, or court judgment. Exempts businesses from criminal and civil liability for implementing such a prohibition.

Sounds great! Businesses can protect their privacy by prohibiting you from tinkling without the necessary proof, and you can't sue them for invading your privacy, because come on, that's not fair! Anything else in this ballot initiative to extra guarantee it benefits the good people of the Golden State?

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increase in state court costs related to civil claims, not likely to exceed a few tens of millions of dollars annually. Unknown increase in state and local government costs related to actions taken to avoid, litigate, or remedy civil claims filed for violating the measure. Potential significant loss of federal funds.

Perfect! So for the low price of probably not more than a few tens of millions of bucks every year, not including other potential costs, plus jamming up an already overwhelmed and underfunded court system, Californians protect the privacy of their potty time by suing you over yours.

OK, maybe not the best deal, financially speaking, but still, it's worth it, because otherwise, California might take down all the bathroom signs and let people pee in whatever co-ed toilet they want, and then "there is no protection for the privacy of men and women, boys and girls, adults and children." And letting someone whose gender you have not personally verified make a dump next to you is "not a valid option." Why? DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, unless you happen to be a transgender Californian, and then yeah, you might want to worry about it. Because if the group collects the necessary 365,880 signatures by Dec. 14 to put this initiative on the ballot, your super curious friends and neighbors could vote to create a whole new "right" to protect themselves from your junk. Yup, even in California.

[Privacy For All]