That's the message supporters of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) are sending after voters rejected the measure Tuesday by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.
The controversial measure would have established nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in the city, among other groups.
"I fear that this will have stained Houston's reputation as a tolerant, welcoming, global city," Houston Mayor Annise Parker said at an election night watch part in downtown Houston. "I absolutely fear that there will be a direct economic backlash as a result of this ordinance going into defeat and that's sad for Houston."
Houston LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinance Rejected by Voters
Houston Mayor: Fight Not Over for Nondiscrimination Measure
White House Offers Support for Houston Equal Rights Measure
Parker and Houston's city council may now pursue a range of options from "issuing a clear public rhetorical statement about inclusion and accessibility in the city" to "pushing through another ordinance designed similar to HERO," according to Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.
"We're not going to see issue go away anytime soon because both sides are deeply passionate about it," Rottinghaus told ABC News today. "However, emotions are very high in Houston right now, so we may not see any political action right away."
Houston attorney John LaRue, who ran for the Houston City Council and led a campaign to support HERO, told ABC News today that though supporters were still "in shell shock," there are "rumblings of boycotts" and other next steps.
"The Super Bowl is slated to come in 2017, and there are rumblings of plans to ask the NFL to move and go elsewhere in support of LGBT people and other groups HERO would have protected," LaRue said. "I also talked to some people last night, and we're planning to create a voluntary system and group made of people who, while not obligated by City Hall, will still choose to enforce HERO's protections in their businesses."
PHOTO: A man urges people to vote against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance outside an early voting center in Houston, Oct. 21, 2015.Pat Sullivan/AP Photo
A man urges people to vote against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance outside an early voting center in Houston, Oct. 21, 2015.
more +
The fight for HERO began last year in May, when a law was first established by the Houston City Council, effectively banning discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and city services based on race, religion, age, disability, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity and other characteristics.
Conservative groups, mainly led by religious leaders, launched an effort to force a repeal of the law, mainly through emotional ads under the slogan "No Men in Women's Bathrooms," suggesting that allowing transgender people to use the sex-specific bathroom reflecting their gender identity would allow sexual predators to camp out in women’s restrooms.
This past July, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the city to either repeal the law or place it on the ballot.
Anti-HERO activist Jared Woodfill said this is Houstonians’ "no" to men in women's bathrooms, Houston Public Media reported.
"This is what the mayor was afraid of," Woodfill said of the ballot referendum. "This is why she tried so hard to keep it from the people, because she knew if the people had an opportunity to exercise their voice on this through their vote, they would overwhelmingly reject it."
Though HERO lost at the ballot box, the fight is far from over, according to supporters and Parker, who is Houston's first openly gay mayor.
"I guarantee that justice in Houston will prevail,” she said. “This ordinance, you have not seen the last of. We're united. We will prevail."
d-usa wrote: Yiu would think that the fact that it's Houston would be reason enough to move it...
At least we're not Dallas. How many other elected cities have a two term lesbian mayor AND pickup trucks larger than the Titanic?
You're from Oklahoma. Oklahoma is flat. Its so flat no one is allowed to have wheels because they'll just start rolling until they hit the Louisiana border (where they will be eaten by cannibalistic swamp rats).
What equal rights measure did they overthrow? I just saw the voters actually use common sense and vote down don't use terms like this in conversations like this on Dakka. Reds8n using their daughter's showers. The report I read said they made adequate compromises allowing a neutral locker room.
These are nothing more than crybabies whining because they didn't get their way. They safety needs of our children override the wants of someone who really needs to be seeing a shrink not trying to get extra rights.
What this will always come down to is, do you want some dude using the same showers and locker rooms as your daughter? The safety issue here trumps any other concern.
So if the whiners want to try and cancel the Superbowl over this, good luck, you are less than 2% of the population. The people have spoken.
While I agree with equal rights for all, as in, no lines on equal rights. I do agree the law as written gave certain groups the ability to abuse the law. I don't think anyone would openly agree that its ok to discriminate, but I don't want boys using girls showers and vice versa. Im in the Army and we are integrating Females into the Combat arms as we speak, I was an Artilleryman and now I am an Artillery Soldier. Im ok with this, but even we don't allow mixed showering or even mixed bunks. Write the law in a way that is the exact opposite of the bigoted law Oklahoma put in place. Do not allow discrimination period, but don't allow a law that lets scumbags hide behind it.
d-usa wrote: Yiu would think that the fact that it's Houston would be reason enough to move it...
At least we're not Dallas. How many other elected cities have a two term lesbian mayor AND pickup trucks larger than the Titanic?
You're from Oklahoma. Oklahoma is flat. Its so flat no one is allowed to have wheels because they'll just start rolling until they hit the Louisiana border (where they will be eaten by cannibalistic swamp rats).
Dallas is way better than Houston. Houston is an awful city.
d-usa wrote: Yiu would think that the fact that it's Houston would be reason enough to move it...
At least we're not Dallas. How many other elected cities have a two term lesbian mayor AND pickup trucks larger than the Titanic?
You're from Oklahoma. Oklahoma is flat. Its so flat no one is allowed to have wheels because they'll just start rolling until they hit the Louisiana border (where they will be eaten by cannibalistic swamp rats).
Dallas is way better than Houston. Houston is an awful city.
Dallas thinks its NY. Houston thinks its Pittsburgh. You want good quiche, go to Dallas. You want to go to tailgate at the Superbowl! go to Houston. (you want to see motorcycles go really really really fast go to Austin).
Ouze wrote: I dunno, when I think of organizations that are susceptible to pressures from what is a largely liberal cause... the NFL isn't foremost in my mind.
This isn't the first time they pulled out of a city, they canceled on phoenix arizona as well when arizona decided they weren't going to recognize MLK day as a federal holiday anymore. I guess the NFL is run by liberals who believe in equality for all, good for them.
Ouze wrote: I dunno, when I think of organizations that are susceptible to pressures from what is a largely liberal cause... the NFL isn't foremost in my mind.
This isn't the first time they pulled out of a city, they canceled on phoenix arizona as well when arizona decided they weren't going to recognize MLK day as a federal holiday anymore. I guess the NFL is run by liberals who believe in equality for all, good for them.
I'll actually be that guy and say that the MLK move probably had more to do with the racial makeup of their teams, potential recruits, and to a degree the fan base itself and less with "liberals" in general.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, MLK has a lot more support in virtually ANY city than do transexuals; it's not a apples to apples analogy.
I could be wrong obviously but my initial thought is that that the NFL won't be pressured.
I just don't think they're pressured into these things. I think they're willing participants and helping lead the way in fights for equality. Even the NBA willing joined the fight when they boycotted Indiana over their christians can discriminate laws. and once again the NFL was taking up arms against AZ for trying to enact the same laws
"Indiana now faces coordinated boycotts from a range of sources. And, if history is any lesson, they might just work. When the Arizona state legislature approved a similar bill allowing discrimination against homosexuals, widespread boycotts of the state, along with a threat by the NFL to move the following year's Super Bowl from Phoenix to Southern California, pushed Republican Governor Jan Brewer to veto it."
The NFL is the one pressuring and throwing their weight around.
The NFL likes money. They are definitely not liberal, but adapt to the circumstances. If it makes economic sense to make a "ethical stand," they will do it. Don't give them too much credit.
The superbowl SHOULD move from the bigoted city.
Your Daughters are not gonna get attacked by a guy in the shower. Get over yourself. This is about equality, not creeps.
God I hate the bible belt.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The superbowl SHOULD move from the bigoted city. Your Daughters are not gonna get attacked by a guy in the shower. Get over yourself. This is about equality, not creeps. .
How many homosexual mayors were elected in the hole you call a state again? Hating an entire region? How enlightened you are.
They still turned down the rights for people to use the bathroom they feel like. A very real issue for many trans-people. Its part of their transistion.
hotsauceman1 wrote: They still turned down the rights for people to use the bathroom they feel like. A very real issue for many trans-people. Its part of their transistion.
And upheld the right of women not to be told to shut up and do as they are told by men.
Again, how many lesbian mayors have been elected in Los Angeles? In the paradise of San Francisco? But yea Houston is the bad guy.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The superbowl SHOULD move from the bigoted city. Your Daughters are not gonna get attacked by a guy in the shower. Get over yourself. This is about equality, not creeps. God I hate the bible belt.
Here's a Title IX quandary for you...
In High School, your daughters are effectively told to look a penises in their showers...
Yet, in college, you have to get a notarized permission slip in blood to consent sex.
Bizzarro world indeed*.
Does the middle ground exist anymore?
(mods, please note that I'm being hyperbolic on purpose).
hotsauceman1 wrote: The superbowl SHOULD move from the bigoted city.
Your Daughters are not gonna get attacked by a guy in the shower. Get over yourself. This is about equality, not creeps.
God I hate the bible belt.
Here's a Title IX quandary for you...
In High School, your daughters are effectively told to look a penises in their showers...
Yet, in college, you have to get a notarized permission slip in blood to consent sex.
Bizzarro world indeed*.
Does the middle ground exist anymore?
(mods, please note that I'm being hyperbolic on purpose).
As said earlier, its less than 2% most girls wont have to deal with it. And no, no boy is gonna say "I think im actually a girl" just to see some boobies. they would be made fun of so much, and their life would be hell.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The superbowl SHOULD move from the bigoted city.
Your Daughters are not gonna get attacked by a guy in the shower. Get over yourself. This is about equality, not creeps.
God I hate the bible belt.
Here's a Title IX quandary for you...
In High School, your daughters are effectively told to look a penises in their showers...
Yet, in college, you have to get a notarized permission slip in blood to consent sex.
Bizzarro world indeed*.
Does the middle ground exist anymore?
(mods, please note that I'm being hyperbolic on purpose).
As said earlier, its less than 2% most girls wont have to deal with it. And no, no boy is gonna say "I think im actually a girl" just to see some boobies. they would be made fun of so much, and their life would be hell.
Sure... so, why isn't the "middle ground" option acceptable?
Me being hyperbolic was my point as that's how these issues are argued these days.
You're own, private unisex stall is that middle ground.
So its ok to flash 2% of high school girls? Those uppitty wimminz just need to sit down and shut up. How dare they object. if its not an issue why was there a bill in the first place?
You're own, private unisex stall is that middle ground.
Because, for many Trans-people, using the bathroom of their chosen sex is part of the process of that transition.
It may not sound like much, but chosen bathroom is very important for the transition for many.
Quite frankly, I think all bathrooms shoul be Unisex. Dorms do it just fine.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You do realize that it would also allow trans-men to use male.
And your choice of words is interesting "Flashing" is kinda not what their doing.
Flashing is illegal. At the school you supposedly go to that would be considered sexual assault. Once again, women are being told what to do.
I'm pretty sure the reason this got voted down is because it gives special rights to a certain group. If it was just about opposing transgender folks then I don't think those speaking against the bill would have gained much traction. As it stands, use of restrooms is based on physical gender. While this may put transgender people in a tough spot, there isn't much of an alternative at the moment since there is not an objective way to prove one's mental gender (that I know of). So ultimately it allows transgender individuals to use both restrooms based on which categorization they use, which amounts discrimination against everyone else. I understand that is not WHY there is an effort to allow them into the restroom of the gender they identify with, and I think that is the right way to go, but as of now there simply isn't a fair way to go about it. Sometimes we have to play with the hand we are dealt, even if it sucks. And say say that knowing personally how much these sorts of things can suck, if not the transgender situation specifically.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, being nekkid in a locker room is flashing?
BRB, I got some lawsuits to file.
Are If you are naked in front of an unwilling female thats either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm pretty sure the reason this got voted down is because it gives special rights to a certain group. If it was just about opposing transgender folks then I don't think those speaking against the bill would have gained much traction. As it stands, use of restrooms is based on physical gender. While this may put transgender people in a tough spot, there isn't much of an alternative at the moment since there is not an objective way to prove one's mental gender (that I know of). So ultimately it allows transgender individuals to use both restrooms based on which categorization they use, which amounts discrimination against everyone else. I understand that is not WHY there is an effort to allow them into the restroom of the gender they identify with, and I think that is the right way to go, but as of now there simply isn't a fair way to go about it. Sometimes we have to play with the hand we are dealt, even if it sucks. And say say that knowing personally how much these sorts of things can suck, if not the transgender situation specifically.
Don't think it was an issue in the first place, thats why I am not seeing the reason for a bill or special protection-which means mandates and that all important lucrative lawsuit.
But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.
Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?
The bill itself was very broad and covered many different areas and offered protection from discrimination for many different groups in many different areas: apartments not rending to you because you are gay, getting fired for being transgender, etc etc etc.
Some of the opponents went with the "this bill will allow men to lie about being transgender and force your daughters to be naked around them while they flash them", and used the "think of the children" tactics to drive voters against this bill.
Transgender people and public bathrooms was a very small part of that bill, but it is a controversial topic that will raise passions on both sides. All other discrimination issues in the bill were just caught in the crossfire.
d-usa wrote: The bill itself was very broad and covered many different areas and offered protection from discrimination for many different groups in many different areas: apartments not rending to you
hotsauceman1 wrote: But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.
Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?
So, a trans-guy being naked in a locker room is considered flashing. Besides, last time I checked, in high-school locker rooms you tend not to actually naked, but in underwear.
You are making some mental back-flips to criminalize being nekkid in a locker room. Now can I get people in trouble in the boys locker room if they are nekkid, they are flashing me after are.
CptJake wrote: Perhaps they should have put the bathroom portion in a separate bill so it would not have sunk the other portions?
I honestly don't know if there was an actual bathroom portion in the bill or if opponents just took a general "can't discriminate against transgender" portion and then used that as "that means that they can't keep men pretending to be women out of your daughters locker rooms", which wouldn't surprise me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.
Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?
So, a trans-guy being naked in a locker room is considered flashing.
No its considered at least a criminal misdemeanor FORM OF ASSAULT. This is not hard.
Besides, last time I checked, in high-school locker rooms you tend not to actually naked, but in underwear.
How do you know? Are you a woman? or are you once again speaking from your font of great knowledge from...what again?
You are making some mental back-flips to criminalize being nekkid in a locker room. Now can I get people in trouble in the boys locker room if they are nekkid, they are flashing me after are.
I've not seen statutes where revealing your male genitalia to other males in a gym setting would be considered a crime.
I thought you had sisters, yet seem not to care a whit about their rights.
CptJake wrote: Perhaps they should have put the bathroom portion in a separate bill so it would not have sunk the other portions?
I honestly don't know if there was an actual bathroom portion in the bill or if opponents just took a general "can't discriminate against transgender" portion and then used that as "that means that they can't keep men pretending to be women out of your daughters locker rooms", which wouldn't surprise me.
It was in the bill. It was then taken out, but then the mayor followed up with a tweet saying taking it out didn't really matter.
What killed this was the antics of the mayor. She tried to subpoena the sermons of multiple churches and that took this from a "no one cares or notices" ordnance to become a big deal. She essentially lost because of the inner city African American vote came out against her on the issue. Turner the new African American mayor who will win the runoff, could re institute the bill with a tweek like the Plano bill and no one would care.
When he starts to argue that 97% of the US population are criminals you should just walk away.
We all know this, so why are you encouraging him?
I am not arguing 97% of the population are criminals. I'm arguing the rights of women are being trampled on by the proposed ordnance, which in any other scenario would be crusaded against. But the proponents are telling them to sit down and shut up. Just look away, its your fault.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But changing in a locker room isnt flashing. And like I said, just like guys dont look at the penis of other guys in the locker room, the women dont have to.
Impressive. Wimminz if you don't like being assaulted, just don't look. And you have the authority to tell women what to do from where?
So, a trans-guy being naked in a locker room is considered flashing.
No its considered at least a criminal misdemeanor FORM OF ASSAULT. This is not hard.
Besides, last time I checked, in high-school locker rooms you tend not to actually naked, but in underwear.
How do you know? Are you a woman? or are you once again speaking from your font of great knowledge from...what again?
You are making some mental back-flips to criminalize being nekkid in a locker room. Now can I get people in trouble in the boys locker room if they are nekkid, they are flashing me after are.
I've not seen statutes where revealing your male genitalia to other males in a gym setting would be considered a crime.
I thought you had sisters, yet seem not to care a whit about their rights.
hotsauceman1 wrote: They still turned down the rights for people to use the bathroom they feel like. A very real issue for many trans-people. Its part of their transistion.
Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.
So Trans people dont deserve rights? Even to safety(Which this is also about, if a trans-person is seen using the wrong bath-room, they can often get harassed or even assaulted. its happened here in cali before
We have reached the usual genitals = gender deadlock, Frazzled arguing that somebody changing in a locker room is a criminal, this thread is only going to end in red text so we should just shut it down while we are ahead.
d-usa wrote: The bill itself was very broad and covered many different areas and offered protection from discrimination for many different groups in many different areas: apartments not rending to you
Do the apartments have to roll a 6+ for rending?
dont even need to role, it auto rends with instant death eviction
d-usa wrote: We have reached the usual genitals = gender deadlock, Frazzled arguing that somebody changing in a locker room is a criminal, this thread is only going to end in red text so we should just shut it down while we are ahead.
Can we agree that the Superbowl needs to move to Oklahoma first? Thats all I am asking for? Traffic is already a nightmare.
Sigvatr wrote: For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?
So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........
If you're permanently overexaggerating everything and taking everything to the highest drama level, you're making a fool both of yourself and your cause.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Genitals =/= Sex or gender. ITs more confusing than that
Restroom for people with a penis and Restroom for people with a vagina. No need to bring sex or gender into it at all since those seem to be so subjective. Wouldn't want folks to be confused.
Sigvatr wrote: For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?
So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........
If you're permanently overexaggerating everything and taking everything to the highest drama level, you're making a fool both of yourself and your cause.
Are you friends with several Trans people? did you live with one for an entire year? Are you dating someone who is part of the trans-right commitee on campus?
Im not exagerating anything. its an issue because they feel as if they cannot permanently change without that.
Nope, I don't. Neither do I have to. You are coming from an extremely emotionally involved micro level. I look at everyone involved. It's a conflict of interest and pushing agendas doesn't help. It was a democractic vote and it was clear. Very clear. That's the best that can happen. Period.
Sigvatr wrote: Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.
LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.
Sigvatr wrote: For a lot of people, people using the wrong bathroom is a serious issue. So some rights are better than other rights?
So, Marginilized groups dont deserve rights because the Majority think they dont..........
If you're permanently overexaggerating everything and taking everything to the highest drama level, you're making a fool both of yourself and your cause.
Are you friends with several Trans people? did you live with one for an entire year? Are you dating someone who is part of the trans-right commitee on campus?
Im not exagerating anything. its an issue because they feel as if they cannot permanently change without that.
I have offered the protection of my house and family to one, against their own parents if need be. And?
Personally I don't really care in a restroom context, but I don't really have the right to say because my right is not being impinged, and there are methods around that. This of course is part fo the problem as no law was needed, unless you're looking for someone to sue. I do care more about the locker/shower situation.
I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?
Sigvatr wrote: Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.
LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.
We did.
Slavery: Lincoln elected.
Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).
Sigvatr wrote: Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.
LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.
We did.
Slavery: Lincoln elected.
Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).
They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.
if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?
No, don't forget the the assaults/sexual assaults against trans people, just because they're trans. They are less safe in mens locker rooms.
Should we give them their own trains to ride in as well?
"Today, in news that’ll make you want to repeatedly poke yourself in the eye with a coffee stirrer: A video of two transgender women getting physically assaulted on an Atlanta train has gone viral, the GA Voice reports. The stomach-turning video shows the women being attacked by two men while onlookers record the incident on their phone and cheer."
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-assault-video/
Spinner wrote: I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?
...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?
I don't get that as much either. I think the issue not actually about trans there, but people using the law to cover for illicit activities. Then again I don't hang out in women's restrooms, so I am not sure about states of undress.
Sigvatr wrote: Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.
LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.
We did.
Slavery: Lincoln elected.
Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).
Lincoln: Shot
JFK: Shot
... That is a weird coincidence
What does JFK have t do with it? The only civil right he pushed was with Marilyn Monroe. Yea baby!
They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.
if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?
No, don't forget the the assaults/sexual assaults against trans people, just because they're trans. They are less safe in mens locker rooms.
Should we give them their own trains to ride in as well?
"Today, in news that’ll make you want to repeatedly poke yourself in the eye with a coffee stirrer: A video of two transgender women getting physically assaulted on an Atlanta train has gone viral, the GA Voice reports. The stomach-turning video shows the women being attacked by two men while onlookers record the incident on their phone and cheer."
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-assault-video/
If only they had been friends with Messers Smith and Wesson. next problem?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Are you dating someone who is part of the trans-right commitee on campus?
Dear god man. I hope you are up on your patriarchy, toxic masculinity and POC otherwise you're in for a special level of hell. Hmmmm, maybe you are there already. Does she happen to have red hair and horn-rimmed glasses?
Spinner wrote: I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?
...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?
I don't get that as much either. I think the issue not actually about trans there, but people using the law to cover for illicit activities. Then again I don't hang out in women's restrooms, so I am not sure about states of undress.
Sigvatr wrote: Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.
LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.
We did.
Slavery: Lincoln elected.
Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).
Lincoln: Shot
JFK: Shot
... That is a weird coincidence
What does JFK have t do with it? The only civil right he pushed was with Marilyn Monroe. Yea baby!
They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.
if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?
No, don't forget the the assaults/sexual assaults against trans people, just because they're trans. They are less safe in mens locker rooms.
Should we give them their own trains to ride in as well?
"Today, in news that’ll make you want to repeatedly poke yourself in the eye with a coffee stirrer: A video of two transgender women getting physically assaulted on an Atlanta train has gone viral, the GA Voice reports. The stomach-turning video shows the women being attacked by two men while onlookers record the incident on their phone and cheer."
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-assault-video/
If only they had been friends with Messers Smith and Wesson. next problem?
The idea that some particularly creepy dude is going to go through all the trouble of having his reputation, identity and family relations ruined by faking being transsexual so he can he maybe get a load some titties in his school locker room strikes me as silly. It's just not worth the costs no matter how creepy you are, and you can see all the titties you want on the internet. I mean further if they're that determined they're probably going to go about it in a way that garners them less scrutiny from both the locker-room goers and community at large. They'd load in a hidden camera, or just find some place to hide like all creeps do.
If we keep the transsexuals out of their preferred bathrooms, we'll keep the creeps pretending to be transsexual for jollies out just strikes me as anti-tiger rock levels of reasoning. You're just taking preventative measures against a threat that isn't there in the first place.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because, for many Trans-people, using the bathroom of their chosen sex is part of the process of that transition.
That isn't the issue. The issue is you are REQUIRING all women to participate in this regardless of their views/beliefs/etc. Being allowed to transition is a libertarian issue. It's your choice to do so. Requiring women in this city to allow you to use their restroom to benefit your self image issues is an imposition on them and brings the force of law down on their heads if they refuse to participate.
Spinner wrote: I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?
...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?
I don't get that as much either. I think the issue not actually about trans there, but people using the law to cover for illicit activities. Then again I don't hang out in women's restrooms, so I am not sure about states of undress.
Sigvatr wrote: Using the opposite gender's locker room isn't a basic right. Almost 2/3 spoke out against that decision, which makes the case pretty darn clear. Vocal minority doesn't always work.
LOL, sure we should have left slavery, civil rights & womens rights up to a popular vote.
We did.
Slavery: Lincoln elected.
Civil and Women's Rights: 1960s civil rights legislation based on previously done post ACW amendments (see Lincoln above).
Lincoln: Shot
JFK: Shot
... That is a weird coincidence
What does JFK have t do with it? The only civil right he pushed was with Marilyn Monroe. Yea baby!
They are not being visually assaulted. they are sharing a locker room with their fellow women, maybe one has a penis.
if its not an issue then they can stay in the men's locker room no?
No, don't forget the the assaults/sexual assaults against trans people, just because they're trans. They are less safe in mens locker rooms.
Should we give them their own trains to ride in as well?
"Today, in news that’ll make you want to repeatedly poke yourself in the eye with a coffee stirrer: A video of two transgender women getting physically assaulted on an Atlanta train has gone viral, the GA Voice reports. The stomach-turning video shows the women being attacked by two men while onlookers record the incident on their phone and cheer."
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-assault-video/
If only they had been friends with Messers Smith and Wesson. next problem?
Presidents get shot during civil rights stuff...
Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Kennedy wasn't a part of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Easy solution: one locker room, one bathroom, etc, that everyone uses regardless of gender.
I think you missed theo whole point of the objection. Women objecting to being around men in a locker room situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: The idea that some particularly creepy dude is going to go through all the trouble of having his reputation, identity and family relations ruined by faking being transsexual so he can he maybe get a load some titties in his school locker room strikes me as silly. It's just not worth the costs no matter how creepy you are, and you can see all the titties you want on the internet. I mean further if they're that determined they're probably going to go about it in a way that garners them less scrutiny from both the locker-room goers and community at large. They'd load in a hidden camera, or just find some place to hide like all creeps do.
If we keep the transsexuals out of their preferred bathrooms, we'll keep the creeps pretending to be transsexual for jollies out just strikes me as anti-tiger rock levels of reasoning. You're just taking preventative measures against a threat that isn't there in the first place.
And you've been given the right to speak on behalf of women from who?
Chongara wrote: The idea that some particularly creepy dude is going to go through all the trouble of having his reputation, identity and family relations ruined by faking being transsexual so he can he maybe get a load some titties in his school locker room strikes me as silly. It's just not worth the costs no matter how creepy you are, and you can see all the titties you want on the internet. I mean further if they're that determined they're probably going to go about it in a way that garners them less scrutiny from both the locker-room goers and community at large. They'd load in a hidden camera, or just find some place to hide like all creeps do.
If we keep the transsexuals out of their preferred bathrooms, we'll keep the creeps pretending to be transsexual for jollies out just strikes me as anti-tiger rock levels of reasoning. You're just taking preventative measures against a threat that isn't there in the first place.
After watching interviews and documentaries on criminals etc it's clear people who publicly flash or stalk and so on usually do it for the thrill that cannot be sated through mere images. Without trying to sound like one of them... this makes sense to me. If all they wanted was to see boobs then yes they could look on the net. Kind of like thrill seekers but perverted in a way.
Frazzled wrote: I think you missed theo whole point of the objection. Women objecting to being around men in a locker room situation.
Which one could argue stems from the fact we have separate bathrooms in the first place. Abolish the practice and objections would drop off sharply inside a decade and all but vanish (at least in polite society) inside a generation. Separate bathrooms for men and women is a mostly arbitrary cultural practice we have like any other separation of classes. It's not like our ancestors climbed down from the trees stark naked and suddenly started gaking behind different bushes.
There was a ton of objection to racially integrated anything back in the day up to and including bathrooms. Sexually integrating the few things that are separate is probably a smaller hurdle to be jumped in terms of getting past people's discomfort, all things told. Not that I'm really advocating for ditching this particular bit of segregation really, but I mean let's see for it for what it is.
Swastakowey wrote: After watching interviews and documentaries on criminals etc it's clear people who publicly flash or stalk and so on usually do it for the thrill that cannot be sated through mere images. Without trying to sound like one of them... this makes sense to me. If all they wanted was to see boobs then yes they could look on the net. Kind of like thrill seekers but perverted in a way.
And if someone is in a locker room flashing people, regardless of their sex/gender relative to what sign is on the door, you can do something about that. So what you really mean is that someone could be in there discreetly looking at people they find sexually appealing, while trying not to get noticed and get kicked out. And I fail to see how this is a reasonable objection. After all, gay people exist and are allowed to share locker rooms with their preferred gender.
Spinner wrote: I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?
...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?
I spent my childhood going to swimming classes and races, and school ages 5-18 doing gym, and I could probably count the amount of genital encounters on one hand.
Most of those would be when parents let their little babies run around naked, which is another matter entirely, and only really bugs me in case they pee on things.
Nobody is going to pretend to be something they aren't to see some towel wrapped wobbly bits of either variety. The entire concept is farcical.
I can see this being used as a stick to beat the LGBT community, and it deeply saddens me.
Swastakowey wrote: After watching interviews and documentaries on criminals etc it's clear people who publicly flash or stalk and so on usually do it for the thrill that cannot be sated through mere images. Without trying to sound like one of them... this makes sense to me. If all they wanted was to see boobs then yes they could look on the net. Kind of like thrill seekers but perverted in a way.
And if someone is in a locker room flashing people, regardless of their sex/gender relative to what sign is on the door, you can do something about that. So what you really mean is that someone could be in there discreetly looking at people they find sexually appealing, while trying not to get noticed and get kicked out. And I fail to see how this is a reasonable objection. After all, gay people exist and are allowed to share locker rooms with their preferred gender.
I was just contesting the fact that nobody would do such a thing given the consequences.
Nowhere did I object.
I do however think restrooms and so on should be segregated by sex. Especially when teens are involved. Unisex bathrooms with stalls would have been great for my mates and I with our Gfs back in the day. They would need to be monitored unless parents are comfortable giving their teens more chances for happy fun time.
Changing rooms however have groups of people and aren't as much of a problem.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The superbowl SHOULD move from the bigoted city.
Your Daughters are not gonna get attacked by a guy in the shower. Get over yourself. This is about equality, not creeps.
.
How many homosexual mayors were elected in the hole you call a state again? Hating an entire region? How enlightened you are.
You gotta admit Fraz, Texas is taking over Florida's spot in the headlines lately.
Swastakowey wrote: After watching interviews and documentaries on criminals etc it's clear people who publicly flash or stalk and so on usually do it for the thrill that cannot be sated through mere images. Without trying to sound like one of them... this makes sense to me. If all they wanted was to see boobs then yes they could look on the net. Kind of like thrill seekers but perverted in a way.
And if someone is in a locker room flashing people, regardless of their sex/gender relative to what sign is on the door, you can do something about that. So what you really mean is that someone could be in there discreetly looking at people they find sexually appealing, while trying not to get noticed and get kicked out. And I fail to see how this is a reasonable objection. After all, gay people exist and are allowed to share locker rooms with their preferred gender.
I was just contesting the fact that nobody would do such a thing given the consequences.
Nowhere did I object.
I do however think restrooms and so on should be segregated by sex. Especially when teens are involved. Unisex bathrooms with stalls would have been great for my mates and I with our Gfs back in the day. They would need to be monitored unless parents are comfortable giving their teens more chances for happy fun time.
Changing rooms however have groups of people and aren't as much of a problem.
If you think simply not having the same changing rooms is providing any sort of non-trivial barrier to teenagers fething each other you don't remember being a teenager very well. Not to mention we have sex segregated bathrooms already and people feth in the those anyway.
Chongara wrote: If you think simply not having the same changing rooms is providing any sort of non-trivial barrier to teenagers fething each other you don't remember being a teenager very well. Not to mention we have sex segregated bathrooms already and people feth in the those anyway.
And really, a public bathroom is pretty close to the bottom of the list of places where I'd want to have sex with someone. It might be private, but it's also disgusting.
(Then there's the question of why it's so important to prevent teenagers from having sex in the first place.)
Swastakowey wrote: After watching interviews and documentaries on criminals etc it's clear people who publicly flash or stalk and so on usually do it for the thrill that cannot be sated through mere images. Without trying to sound like one of them... this makes sense to me. If all they wanted was to see boobs then yes they could look on the net. Kind of like thrill seekers but perverted in a way.
And if someone is in a locker room flashing people, regardless of their sex/gender relative to what sign is on the door, you can do something about that. So what you really mean is that someone could be in there discreetly looking at people they find sexually appealing, while trying not to get noticed and get kicked out. And I fail to see how this is a reasonable objection. After all, gay people exist and are allowed to share locker rooms with their preferred gender.
I was just contesting the fact that nobody would do such a thing given the consequences.
Nowhere did I object.
I do however think restrooms and so on should be segregated by sex. Especially when teens are involved. Unisex bathrooms with stalls would have been great for my mates and I with our Gfs back in the day. They would need to be monitored unless parents are comfortable giving their teens more chances for happy fun time.
Changing rooms however have groups of people and aren't as much of a problem.
If you think simply not having the same changing rooms is providing any sort of non-trivial barrier to teenagers fething each other you don't remember being a teenager very well. Not to mention we have sex segregated bathrooms already and people feth in the those anyway.
Most schools have cameras today (I was a teenager merely 3 years ago), If I went into the same bathroom as the other sex it would have been noticed, outside of school well it entirely depends on the location.
As I said, changing rooms are obviously a different matter since everyone is in a group. But I think there is some legitimate concern especially in schools for sex segregated toilets etc.
Spinner wrote: I'm kinda curious as to why sharing a restroom with someone automatically seems to indicate that you'll see their genitals. How are they supposedly laid out? There's stalls, right? Like, with doors? People don't just walk in and drop their pants in front of everyone, right?
...have I been doing it wrong this entire time?
I spent my childhood going to swimming classes and races, and school ages 5-18 doing gym, and I could probably count the amount of genital encounters on one hand.
Most of those would be when parents let their little babies run around naked, which is another matter entirely, and only really bugs me in case they pee on things.
Nobody is going to pretend to be something they aren't to see some towel wrapped wobbly bits of either variety. The entire concept is farcical.
I can see this being used as a stick to beat the LGBT community, and it deeply saddens me.
I don't see it impacting the LGB community at all, except insuring the rights of the L and half the B portion are respected.
Why make private businesses and organizations legally liable unless you want to sue them for something?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of people do object to shared changing rooms. It is currently a social norm to have separate changing rooms.
Separate rooms and showers. That could be ameliorated over time with changing physical facilities, but why make it a legal liability? Where is the respect for women here?
hotsauceman1 wrote: The superbowl SHOULD move from the bigoted city.
Your Daughters are not gonna get attacked by a guy in the shower. Get over yourself. This is about equality, not creeps.
.
How many homosexual mayors were elected in the hole you call a state again? Hating an entire region? How enlightened you are.
You gotta admit Fraz, Texas is taking over Florida's spot in the headlines lately.
Again, when NYC elects a lesbian mayor they can talk. until then they can get off their high horse.
Swastakowey wrote: But I think there is some legitimate concern especially in schools for sex segregated toilets etc.
But, again, the premise of this argument is that schools/governments/whatever have an obligation to prevent teenagers from having sex. And not just an obligation, but one that is significant enough that it takes priority over respecting the chosen gender identity of transgender people. Why is this? Why, assuming that everyone involved consents to the sex, do we have any obligation to stop them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Separate rooms and showers. That could be ameliorated over time with changing physical facilities, but why make it a legal liability? Where is the respect for women here?
You know, it's interesting that you ask this but don't think to ask where the respect for men is. Why is it assumed that mixed-gender bathrooms/locker rooms/whatever are disrespectful to women but not to men?
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course, the idea of sexually segregated changing rooms is a social construct.
Everything outside of pure math is a social construct.
Well no. I'll starve to death if I don't eat. I require food and water that's a real thing that isn't math. You can describe some of it in mathematical terms. On the gender front that men on average are taller than women on average isn't a social construct it's an observable trend. Poop, smelling bad and being something people generally want to avoid is not a social construct but a pretty universal survival adaptation. Babies being cute also not a social construct.
Lots of things are social constructs however certainly not every aspect of daily existence. We take for granted that fire is hot and burns you not because we've decided as a collective that fire is and hurt burns you but because if you catch on fire it burns you and it's hot.
You'll starve to death because you're burning more energy than taking in. thats math.
"Everything's math! Even the mathematical perfection of canines! Even Malfred's fascination with other people's socks!" -Frazzled, dad of a future Math PhD.
Frazzled wrote: You'll starve to death because you're burning more energy than taking in. thats math.
"Everything's math! Even the mathematical perfection of canines! Even Malfred's fascination with other people's socks!"
-Frazzled, dad of a future Math PhD.
It's something that described with math it's... oh why even bother.
Something Something, something weiner dog joke. That about sum it up?
Frazzled wrote: You'll starve to death because you're burning more energy than taking in. thats math.
"Everything's math! Even the mathematical perfection of canines! Even Malfred's fascination with other people's socks!"
-Frazzled, dad of a future Math PhD.
It's something that described with math it's... oh why even bother.
Something Something, something weiner dog joke. That about sum it up?
Dont forget, he needs to refer to someone as 'boyo' and make a comment about how his son would find something trivial. (Though it appears that that's already happened)
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course, the idea of sexually segregated changing rooms is a social construct.
Everything outside of pure math is a social construct.
Jesus Christ, you've actually turned into Peter Wiggin.
Frazzled wrote: Again, when NYC elects a lesbian mayor they can talk. until then they can get off their high horse.
You realise that this argument is basically the equivalent of 'we're not racist, we have a black friend' right? If you replace 'black' with 'gay' and 'friend' with 'mayor', and 'racist' with 'acting like donkey-caves'.
