Mainsail, I'm stunned by the discriminatory aspects of that sign.
I thought that our society had progressed beyond the point at which it was acceptable to discriminate against women. Imagine the outcry that would be raised if the sign designated a special entrance based on race or religion. Those things were done in the past. Have we come to it again?
And how can they possibly justify the sexist term "Ladies"? It also is a term based on outmoded class distinctions between the "lady" and other "women," and the discrimination against gay people is so obvious as to be appalling.
If a person's biological sex is somehow relevant to their thinking, they should be using the labels "male" and "female." Of course they also must make appropriate accommodation for people who were born to one sex biologically but exercised their right to gender change.
So, obviously, if that facility is going to have discriminatory entrances it should at least label them in the least offensive way possible: "male," "female," and "transexual" might be a good starting point.
Unless I've misread it, that sign also seems to force people--including men--who are age 60 or over into the same category as "Ladies." There is absolutely no justification for a belief that men become effeminate or assume feminine characteristics when they reach the age of 60, and I find such a suggestion to be personally offensive and emotionally distressing. I am about to have a fit of the vapors and hope that I don't have a hissy fit too.
Such are the predictable consequences of the actions taken by people who ban guns and think it a simple matter that benefits society.
God must love idiots. He made so many of them. Unfortunately He also allows them to associate with other people, perhaps as a lesson to us all. That undoubtedly is why they give us a sign. And, in fact, many signs.
