North Carolina Passes Law Blocking Measures To Protect LGBT People
The North Carolina state Legislature has passed a law blocking local governments from passing anti-discrimination rules to grant protections to gay and transgender people.
The law comes a month after the city of Charlotte passed a measure protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from being discriminated against by businesses.
That measure was set to go into effect on April 1.
The state's General Assembly wasn't due to meet until late April, but it scheduled a special session — for the first time in 35 years, member station WUNC reports — on Wednesday to respond to the Charlotte measure before it went into effect.
Over the course of 12 hours, the state legislators introduced, debated and passed the bill, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law.
The new law establishes a statewide nondiscrimination ordinance that explicitly supersedes any local nondiscrimination measures. The statewide protections cover race, religion, color, national origin and biological sex — but not sexual orientation or gender identity.
WFAE's Tom Bullock noted a possible implication of those categories: "Since religion is a protected class, and the definition of religion is broad enough, this could be a kind of backdoor religious freedom restoration act — allowing businesses the right to refuse to serve customers based on the owner's religious beliefs."
One word dominated the debate over the bill and the Charlotte ordinance before it: "bathroom."
Charlotte already protected residents from discrimination based on race, age, religion and gender. On Feb. 22, the city council voted to expand those protections to apply to sexual orientation and gender identity, too.
The most controversial element of Charlotte's expanded ordinance was the fact that it would allow trans people to use the bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
Opponents argued this would make bathrooms unsafe for women and children. WFAE's Sarah Delia, reporting on NPR in February, spoke to Pam Burton of Charlotte.
"I'm not scared of transgenders. That's not what I think the problem is. Sexual predators are not good people," Burton said. "They don't do the right thing. They're going to see this ordinance as a golden opportunity for fresh victims — our children. My 16-year-old daughter swims at The Y year-round. I'm not going to be able to confidently continue to allow her to use that locker room if this passes."
Charlotte resident Lara Nazario, a trans woman, said critics of the measure have it backward. The idea that it would be dangerous to defend trans people's rights to use the bathroom of their gender identity "is opposite to the reality that I live in," Nazario said.
It's forcing trans people to use the bathroom of the opposite gender that is dangerous, she said:
"If I were to walk into a men's bathroom, I would either be told that I'm in the wrong bathroom or I'd be outed as a transgender woman. This can often lead to violence or harassment, especially when there's no protection in place for people like me."
The Charlotte nondiscrimination ordinance extends protections to LGBT customers at bars, restaurants and stores, and in taxis. The heated debate over trans access to restrooms led to it being labeled by some as the "bathroom ordinance."
And North Carolina's response, in turn, is being called the "bathroom bill."
The law opens by requiring all government-controlled facilities — including schools and universities — to assign all multiple-occupancy bathrooms and locker rooms to a single sex and prevent anyone who doesn't match that biological sex from using the facility.
It later declares nondiscrimination "an issue of general, statewide concern," and says local jurisdictions can't craft their own nondiscrimination measures.
That nullifies Charlotte's ordinance — as well as existing LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances in a half-dozen other jurisdictions in North Carolina, WFAE reports. It also blocks any other city or local government from extending such protections to LGBT residents in the future.
Biogen, which employs more than 1,000 people in North Carolina's Research Triangle, and the Dow Chemical Co. have both tweeted their objections, as employers, to the new law.
The law bars local governments from passing other ordinances, as well.
Again, WFAE's Tom Bullock, from the station's extensive coverage during the bill's debate and passage yesterday:
"The bill would bar cities or counties from imposing their own minimum wage. So any move to establish a local minimum wage higher than the $7.25 an hour federal minimum wage would be a nonstarter. This has been done by other cities such as Seattle, which is phasing in a $15 an hour minimum wage.
"Cities and counties often have employment rules for companies seeking contracts. This bill also bars counties or municipalities from requiring these companies to pay a higher minimum wage in order to qualify for contracts. ... This provision also bars requirements like companies provide paid sick leave."
The bill passed the Republican-controlled General Assembly 82-26 in the House, and 32-0 in the Senate.
Gov. McCrory, after signing the bill late Wednesday, described the bill's passage as "bipartisan." But The Associated Press notes:
"Although 12 House Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting for the bill in the afternoon, later all Senate Democrats in attendance walked off their chamber floor during the debate in protest. Remaining Senate Republicans gave the legislation unanimous approval.
" 'We choose not to participate in this farce,' Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue of Raleigh said after he left the chamber."
McCrory also said he was acting to protect citizens' privacy, and criticized the Charlotte ordinance as "government overreach and intrusion."
So in this bill we have provisions blocking an increase to the minimum wage, provisions specifically intended to feth over LGBT* people and in particular trans people, and a block on paid sick leave requirements.
Well done NC, you're acting like a bunch of fething morons.
Goliath wrote: So in this bill we have provisions blocking an increase to the minimum wage, provisions specifically intended to feth over LGBT* people and in particular trans people, and a block on paid sick leave requirements.
Well done NC, you're acting like a bunch of fething morons.
The amazing thing is that they follow the same pattern as Oklahoma:
The party of Small Government(TM) and followers of the "local government knows best" and "let people govern themselves" motto is passing more laws telling local government what to do and preventing people from governing themselves.
Unisex toilet / toilet stalls is the only way to satisfy both sides. The inconvenient truth is that by allowing people identifying themselves as the opposite gender to use the other gender's bathroom inconveniences a lot of people. They feel less safe by allowing the presence of another gender in their bathroom and what many people don't like to hear is that those people have rights too. Their feelings count as well. It's extremely irrational and downright...foolish to just waltz over those people because of a very vocal, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny minority.
On the other hand, by not giving in to that vocal minority, you certainly upset them and act against their feelings.
Thus - unisex. Everyone going in there knows what he is to expect. You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
It was a very good decision that promotes justice for /everyone/ and not bending over for a vocal minority just because they are loud.
Thus - unisex. Everyone going in there knows what he is to expect. You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
Why would the taxpayer be expected to flip the bill on bathroom renovations for private companies? Let them pay for it.
The law looks like it's over the bathroom/locker thing... not on anti-gay policies.
anti LGBT legislation, it even says that in the title whembly
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also ironic only 25 percent of NC supports this bill but it was still ramrodded in by the republicans and their lobbyists
Sigvatr wrote: Unisex toilet / toilet stalls is the only way to satisfy both sides. The inconvenient truth is that by allowing people identifying themselves as the opposite gender to use the other gender's bathroom inconveniences a lot of people. They feel less safe by allowing the presence of another gender in their bathroom and what many people don't like to hear is that those people have rights too. Their feelings count as well. It's extremely irrational and downright...foolish to just waltz over those people because of a very vocal, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny minority.
On the other hand, by not giving in to that vocal minority, you certainly upset them and act against their feelings.
Thus - unisex. Everyone going in there knows what he is to expect. You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
It was a very good decision that promotes justice for /everyone/ and not bending over for a vocal minority just because they are loud.
Separate bathrooms based on gender isn't a problem for anyone. There aren't any bathrooms in the state that have attendants in them that are checking people's genitaia to make sure they're in the appropriate bathroom. The Charlotte bathroom ordinance was an unnecessary law that created an easily exploitable loophole that caused widespread concern. The concept of unisex bathrooms makes people in NC uncomfortable enough that they want legal protection against it so that if a problem arises from having a person in the wrong bathroom there is a path for recourse. That's why we have laws to give the state legal and moral authority to punish people who behave in a way that society deems harmful. The only barrier to entry into a public bathroom is failing to appear upon the most cursory of inspections to be of the appropriate gender to someone in that bathroom who raises an objection. Again, there aren't any public bathrooms in NC that require people to show that they have the appropriate genitalia so there is nothing preventing trans people from using the bathroom of the gender they identify with. More than likely a trans person is going to have at least some outward appearance of being the gender they identify with and nobody is going to object in the time it takes that person to walk into a bathroom stall.
The law looks like it's over the bathroom/locker thing... not on anti-gay policies.
anti LGBT legislation, it even says that in the title whembly
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also ironic only 25 percent of NC supports this bill but it was still ramrodded in by the republicans and their lobbyists
The bill only removes LGBT as a protected in class in the municipalities that had them listed as such. For the geographical majority of the state nothing changes. Is there any evidence of LGBT discrimination in the area that didn't have them listed as a protected class? Is there reason to believe that in municipalities that did have LGBT as a protected class, like Asheville, will now see LGBT discrimination? For this bill to negatively impact the LGBT community we would have to presume that the only thing preventing LGBT descrimination in Asheville was the ordinance making them a protected class, not the absence of people who wished to descriminate against LGBT people.
So by that logic we should get rid of all discrimination legislation because I mean it doesn't actually protect people from being discriminated against. Finally I can kick all of them pesky blacks out of my store for being black
Its about time. For years the citizens of North Carolina have suffered under the oppression of LG...wait what? No thats just stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Regarding the bathroom issue: Sexless bathrooms. Every toilet must have a stall with decent privacy. Done. Star Trek rules.
I know right. I just want better doors. This fascination with toilets is a little disturbing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: So in this bill we have provisions blocking an increase to the minimum wage, provisions specifically intended to feth over LGBT* people and in particular trans people, and a block on paid sick leave requirements.
Well done NC, you're acting like a bunch of fething morons.
Its just taking care of all the state's biggest concerns in one fell swoop.
Ustrello wrote: So by that logic we should get rid of all discrimination legislation because I mean it doesn't actually protect people from being discriminated against. Finally I can kick all of them pesky blacks out of my store for being black
No, by that logic you can't proclaim that the new bill harms LGBT people without supporting evidence that not making them a protected class is subjecting them to incidents of discrimination. Again, in the majority of the state they weren't a protected class ever, was LGBT discrimination ocurring in those areas?
Ustrello wrote: So by that logic we should get rid of all discrimination legislation because I mean it doesn't actually protect people from being discriminated against. Finally I can kick all of them pesky blacks out of my store for being black
Huge misunderstanding. Anti-discrimination laws are important, but a blanket allowance is the most stupid change that could take place and thus it's a good thing this got slammed down. Discrimination laws must be taken step-by-step, law-by-law, not by taking the biggest brush available and stroking over the legislation in a single stroke. Get on a round table with everyone, read: EVERYONE, involved and try to find a solution. Every other way of tackling this is unethical and unacceptable.
Thus - unisex. Everyone going in there knows what he is to expect. You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
Why would the taxpayer be expected to flip the bill on bathroom renovations for private companies? Let them pay for it.
It's something that is enforced upon a company due to a political agenda with the company having zero benefit. If you want a political agenda, you pay for it with your own money, simple as that. If people aren't willing to pay for what they want to change, then they don't want a change to begin with.
The law looks like it's over the bathroom/locker thing... not on anti-gay policies.
anti LGBT legislation, it even says that in the title whembly
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also ironic only 25 percent of NC supports this bill but it was still ramrodded in by the republicans and their lobbyists
I hate to break it to you, but most of the State's rural and semi-rural right and center-right politicians are Democrats. North Carolina is mostly controlled by a corrupt Democratic Party machine that dates back to the pre-Civil War era. They just change their spots to appeal to the people in their district and for the times. The fact that the Republican Party has gained ground since the 1980s, and last few governors have been mostly Republican, is largely irrelevant.
Can anyone here guarantee they've NEVER had a trans-person pooping in the stall next to them in a public restroom? Prove it. And yet here we all are, completely unmolested.
Remove all urinals. Toilets only in all restrooms. Other than at the sinks washing your hands (where it's now a moot point as you're already done making your horrible noises) there is no way you can ever tell who is entering the stall next to you as you sit there.
What a hilarious first-world problem. A vast part of the world don't even have the luxury of a toilet to use at all.
Since this is stupid laws passed by idiots we just one of the most draconian Abortion Bills in America in Indiana. I have yet to run into anyone here, either R or D that thought it was a good idea but it made it through the Legislation so there must be some religious zealot somewhere happy about it.
Can anyone here guarantee they've NEVER had a trans-person pooping in the stall next to them in a public restroom? Prove it. And yet here we all are, completely unmolested.
Remove all urinals. Toilets only in all restrooms. Other than at the sinks washing your hands (where it's now a moot point as you're already done making your horrible noises) there is no way you can ever tell who is entering the stall next to you as you sit there.
What a hilarious first-world problem. A vast part of the world don't even have the luxury of a toilet to use at all.
For myself, after a couple of incidents I walked in on going to the men's room, I began using stalls as a matter of course anyway.
It would be interesting to draw a venn diagram between people who believe you shouldn't pass gun laws because criminals don't follow the law, and people who think we need to pass legislation preventing people from using the restroom of the sex they identify as, because it will prevent pedophiles from having access to children in the bathroom.
Ouze wrote: It would be interesting to draw a venn diagram between people who believe you shouldn't pass gun laws because criminals don't follow the law, and people who think we need to pass legislation preventing people from using the restroom of the sex they identify as, because it will prevent pedophiles from having access to children in the bathroom.
Maybe we should pass a law that lets us shoot pedophiles, and everyone can be happy?
Ouze wrote: It would be interesting to draw a venn diagram between people who believe you shouldn't pass gun laws because criminals don't follow the law, and people who think we need to pass legislation preventing people from using the restroom of the sex they identify as, because it will prevent pedophiles from having access to children in the bathroom.
Maybe we should pass a law that lets us shoot pedophiles, and everyone can be happy?
It's already legal you just have to catch them in the act or the attempt.
Relapse wrote: For myself, after a couple of incidents I walked in on
Where are you going to the restroom? I've never had it happen once but you've had it happen "a couple" of times? Goodness me.
In my younger years, I used to travel around the country a lot by bus, and would sometimes walk into a station restroom to find some interesting things happening.
Can anyone here guarantee they've NEVER had a trans-person pooping in the stall next to them in a public restroom? Prove it. And yet here we all are, completely unmolested.
Remove all urinals. Toilets only in all restrooms. Other than at the sinks washing your hands (where it's now a moot point as you're already done making your horrible noises) there is no way you can ever tell who is entering the stall next to you as you sit there.
What a hilarious first-world problem. A vast part of the world don't even have the luxury of a toilet to use at all.
What about gyms, swimming pools and such?
I'm assuming this bill doesn't refer exclusively to defection.
djones520 wrote: Maybe we should pass a law that lets us shoot pedophiles, and everyone can be happy?
It's already legal you just have to catch them in the act or the attempt.
Not entirely certain that is the case... certainly not in every state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buttery Commissar wrote: What about gyms, swimming pools and such?
I'm assuming this bill doesn't refer exclusively to defection.
A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.
A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.
I was in Germany with a school trip in the mid 90s and I discovered that their pools, or at least the on one Oberstdorf, had a mixed open plan changing room. An interesting experience for a 14 year old.
A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.
I was in Germany with a school trip in the mid 90s and I discovered that their pools, or at least the on one Oberstdorf, had a mixed open plan changing room. An interesting experience for a 14 year old.
While not quite the same I was at a European wide training course in Germany last year; at several points people were called on to be demo models for various clinical examinations and it was pretty amazing how fine most of the continental atendees were with stripping down to underwear while the Brits were turning various shades of red and squirming!
A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.
Michigan's Adventure, which for non-Americans is a waterpark/rollercoaster park, has changing rooms on the waterpark side that are all individual stalls, on top of being gender-segregated. So other than the risk of some randome d-bag sticking their head under the stall door (solved easily with floor-ceiling doors, duh) might as well be unisex outside of the sinks which are in a common room of each changing area.
The problem is that Americans are super-creeped out by public nudity of any kind, even on the other side of a wall so it's technically private nudity.
That would terrify most Americans, lol. 'Anyone can just walk in and get me! Where's the door for me to lock! It's just sitting out there in the open, and anyone could stick their head under there, or be waiting for me outside!"
I bet if we threw the entire NC state legislature in Boston Harbor, there would be some nice tea to drink. Or perhaps the simple act of putting them in Massachusetts would make them react much like a acid interacting with an alkali.
In all seriousness, BS like this makes me ashamed to live in NC.
I live in 'a major city in Texas'. One of the problems we've had in our park areas are 'transgendered' persons that are really just guys in dresses hanging out in the women's bathroom.
No, I'm not knocking them for being transgendered. I'm saying that these guys are perverts that put on a dress so they can go hang out in womens' bathrooms. My ex went in there and they would wait until a lady sits down in a stall, then go sit in the next one, and lean in against the barrier and listen and breathe heavily- I'm sure you can imagine. There was also an issue with another girl I know that saw one of them trying to peep through the crack in the door. They've been known to uh... protrude... through the dresses, too. Yeah, I'll let you figure that one out.
I am not saying all transgendered persons are like this. What I am saying is, let's be honest- people are probably concerned about their children. And I don't care what you think about 'Prudish' Americans and our aversion to public nudity- when it comes to one person, their body, and their children... that's where your opinion stops being worth the air that carried it past your lips.
Now let's be real about 'religion' and 'declining services'. In America, it's easy to rage at Christian fundamentalists when they do this. Sure, I think it's a bit silly when they do it- last I checked, gay money spends just like straight money (it just smells a bit nicer). But what no one wants to understand is that- well, maybe that bakery could say "We won't do the two grooms/brides, but we will happily bake you the cake and let you purchase the toppers". It's not hard.
However, let's be real.
Find a Jewish tattoo artist, and ask him to draw a Swastika.
Find a Muslim baker, and ask him to make a black 'Infidel' cake.
I promise, if they decline your service the 'outrage' will be significantly... smaller.
skyth wrote: Outrage is always bigger when the most powerful person is involved.
It doesn't matter. Either the law is for everyone, and across the board- or it's not. We can't make any exceptions based on what people perceive to be 'powerful' or 'marginalized'. Generalizing people and treating them as if they are anything other than individual human beings is what got this whole 'discrimination' idea rolling in the first place.
Compel wrote: When I read this, my first thought was, "How much money does a urinal or trough end up saving anyways? It can't be that much."
Depends on gallons of water used for flush, complexity of maintainence and repairs, how much space is needed by one vs. the other, affecting the size of the facility, etc.
As I think of it, in terms of saving water alone, a urinal would possibly be a good thing to install in private residences.
skyth wrote: Outrage is always bigger when the most powerful person is involved.
It doesn't matter. Either the law is for everyone, and across the board- or it's not. We can't make any exceptions based on what people perceive to be 'powerful' or 'marginalized'. Generalizing people and treating them as if they are anything other than individual human beings is what got this whole 'discrimination' idea rolling in the first place.
Just a fact of life. Not saying the laws should be different, just the reason that there is more outrage for one compared to the other. Plus the items you listed don't seem to be on the same level. Nazis doesn't deserve special protection. Not sure what a black infidel cake is...but intolerant views in public accomodations do not deserve legal protection when they harm other people.
skyth wrote: Just a fact of life. Not saying the laws should be different, just the reason that there is more outrage for one compared to the other. Plus the items you listed don't seem to be on the same level. Nazis doesn't deserve special protection. Not sure what a black infidel cake is...but intolerant views in public accomodations do not deserve legal protection when they harm other people.
We don't get to pick and choose who's 'more' equal than others. And 'views' don't harm people, actions harm people. While I may find someone's views to be appalling or disgusting- I will, to the death, defend their right to express them.
Now, if you want to get to the meat and potatoes of this- anyone 'creating' something that would be considered the work of an artisan should be allowed to decline services for whatever reason. If I am an artist, and I offer to draw peoples' characters for money, I should be able to decline drawing a Nazi character, or a nude woman, or something else. My reason could be as simple as "I don't like drawing things like that".
However, if my job is to sell potatoes to people, I'm not creating anything. I'm selling a product, and if I refuse service to another person then I'm wrong- unless said person is causing a disturbance or something like that.
I mean, there is a limit to which a business must provide services either way. Nightclubs, bars, and other places consistently refuse entry to persons based on something as simple as a sports jersey, wearing their baseball caps backwards, or just being too many dudes. Some have even refused entry to older women to keep their patrons 'young and beautiful'.
I differ. I see a difference when you are talking stuff that should be a protected class like race or sexual orientation. I see Nazism in an entitely different light. Yes, I defend someone's ability to BE a Nazi but I will defend someone else's right to refuse to serve a Nazi. I do not feel the same about race or sex discrimination (and discrimination against homosexuals IS sex discrimination).
I used the lady's room once. In my defense, I was travelling back from Angola with a severe case of the squirts, and at the nearest toilets I found at the airport (not the one in Angola) the men's facilities were closed off for cleaning.
With pressure mounting exponentially, I broke the rules and used a lady's room. Just in time, too!
Needs must when the devil drives and such, but I don't think it's a very good idea to make using the opposite bathroom an outright offense based on that experience alone, and that's before taking things like LGBT discrimination into account!
...
Also, if people are so concerned about perverts, where's the outrage over homosexuals using the normal men's room where they can sneak a peak at straight men's equipment? I would think that the logical call for discrimination would be to ban gays from using their own gender's bathrooms!
Bran. That's totally excusable. I did the same to coming back from South Korea and hitting Seattle. Was a knee grabber and felt like I hovered off the lid four inches for seconds at a time
Brother Armiger wrote: I'm saying that these guys are perverts that put on a dress so they can go hang out in womens' bathrooms.
There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.
Brother Armiger wrote: I'm saying that these guys are perverts that put on a dress so they can go hang out in womens' bathrooms.
There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.
Indeed, this is a good way to frame my issues with the stance that "perverts do it so that means people can't use their bathroom"
But the pro-2nd side already uses that argument every time it comes up, 'don't blame the majority of gun owners for X'. Then a group, which shares a lot of the same users (but not all mind), comes on here and starts disagreeing with this exact same argument when it comes to a population that's different to them.
Also, if people are so concerned about perverts, where's the outrage over homosexuals using the normal men's room where they can sneak a peak at straight men's equipment? I would think that the logical call for discrimination would be to ban gays from using their own gender's bathrooms!
Exactly. Frankly, I find the whole thing pretty sexist as noone ever gives examples about female-to-male trans using a mens room. It feels like everything's all focusing on this hypothetical situation of male-to-female trans using their newfound ability to go into a women's room as an excuse to sexually assault someone with the penis they might still have like they are all deviant predators.
It's some sick paranoia, especialy the "think of the children" angle. There's just as much danger to my young son in a men's room right now from any creepy guy, as someone's young daughter in a womens room from some errant penis on a trans woman who is somehow there just for the sexual assault lols, rather than to feel frigging normal.
motyak wrote: But the pro-2nd side already uses that argument every time, only for a group which shares a lot of the same users to come on here and start disagreeing with it when it comes to a population that's different to them.
Pretty broad brush there, Hoss.
I happen to believe that the 2nd Admendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, is an inalienable, enshrined right. However, having a transsexual using the same restroom as the gender they proclaim to be doesn't bother me in the slightest. Most law abiding people who use most public restrooms go in, do their business, and leave. And the last time I checked, not all transsexuals are criminals.
The law is nonsensical from my point of view, and a waste of the General Assembly's time. Our State taxes at work. Yet Raleigh claims to be broke half the damned time.
That's why I went from the general 'pro 2nd amendment side uses that argument', which isn't inaccurate as far as arguments on this board go, to a less general 'a group which shares a lot of the same users'. That's where you'd not be from what you just said.
motyak wrote: That's why I went from the general 'pro 2nd amendment side uses that argument', which isn't inaccurate as far as arguments on this board go, to a less general 'a group which shares a lot of the same users'. That's where you'd not be from what you just said.
CptJake wrote: I may have to use that quote in the next gun control thread.
Besides the fact that already brought up I'm also not seeing parity between being Transgendered and discussion how and when weapons are used. A lot of times the issues are brought during actual killings using firearms where this is more of a boogeyman situation where there is a mix of fear and hatred leading to meaningless government overreach. Conflating multiple mass shootings with treating Transgendered people as if they are perverts isn't a good argument, and probably one more reason sensible gun owners have to deal with irrational gun owners saying crazy things.
There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.
"Not transgendered in any meaningful way"
Hey, good luck getting away with saying that to their supporters. I don't know if you've been paying attention to things lately, cis-scum...
2nd Amendment into a transgender bathroom thread......got to be kidding me right....rriigghhhhtttttt
So the Transgender blows away a Peeping Tom in the Transgender Bathroom....with a 20mm with 30 rounds in it clip. One round center mass rest was misses. Transgender a former Marine with Bronze Star of Valor, three Purple Hearts and a "Atta boy Ribbon"
Then I expect a 2nd Amendment debate.....again....for the 200th times...
One of the 2nd amendment related threads was a commentary on the argument getting used in both threads. One was a barely legible mess of a post. The former is ok, the latter is not. Please stay on topic.
There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.
"Not transgendered in any meaningful way"
Hey, good luck getting away with saying that to their supporters. I don't know if you've been paying attention to things lately, cis-scum...
So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.
So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.
Let's put something into perspective. Yes, it's illegal. You, me, or any rational person could see this.
The area in which I live has quite a few progressive persons. Which is fine, it's a decent mix.
But these guys- all it would take is talking to the right people, claiming the stories are fabrications to persecute them. Claim that any 'protrusions' were their bodies adjusting to their new clothing.
Have you paid attention to some of the crazies on the internet these days, out hunting their next little fix for their 'outrage fetish'? It's a big thing. And the people who write about it make good money doing so. They catch wind of this 'persecution', and now my city is flooded with angry protestors. The internet is awash accusing people of bigotry. Stupidity goes full blast.
So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.
Let's put something into perspective. Yes, it's illegal. You, me, or any rational person could see this.
The area in which I live has quite a few progressive persons. Which is fine, it's a decent mix.
But these guys- all it would take is talking to the right people, claiming the stories are fabrications to persecute them. Claim that any 'protrusions' were their bodies adjusting to their new clothing.
Have you paid attention to some of the crazies on the internet these days, out hunting their next little fix for their 'outrage fetish'? It's a big thing. And the people who write about it make good money doing so. They catch wind of this 'persecution', and now my city is flooded with angry protestors. The internet is awash accusing people of bigotry. Stupidity goes full blast.
So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.
Let's put something into perspective. Yes, it's illegal. You, me, or any rational person could see this.
The area in which I live has quite a few progressive persons. Which is fine, it's a decent mix.
But these guys- all it would take is talking to the right people, claiming the stories are fabrications to persecute them. Claim that any 'protrusions' were their bodies adjusting to their new clothing.
Have you paid attention to some of the crazies on the internet these days, out hunting their next little fix for their 'outrage fetish'? It's a big thing. And the people who write about it make good money doing so. They catch wind of this 'persecution', and now my city is flooded with angry protestors. The internet is awash accusing people of bigotry. Stupidity goes full blast.
Back to square one.
And your evidence for this ever happening is...?
He told you, where he lives in Texas with his South Korean flag it's happened. That's evidence.
Wasn't a city nearby where you live in flames a couple of years ago, because people didn't want to wait for the facts... or didn't like the facts when they came out?
No, but "X city had a riot therefore I'm correct" is hopefully not the basis of yours...
As an Australian, I don't expect you to fathom the stupidity of large numbers of low-information American outrage fetishists. It's sort of becoming an issue here. People find something to get pissed off about, lose their cool and go full spaghetti, and the details and facts aren't even out before there's conflict and mayhem of some sort. It gets to be annoying, there's knee-jerk 'solutions' and in the end it becomes a divisive issue that shouldn't have ever been an issue.
Do I expect a riot over a few perverts? Of course not. Do I expect unwarranted outrage, and yet another misguided attempt to stereotype a city or state based on one particular event? Well, yeah. Happens every day.
Don't get me wrong, if you read the substance of my post- my point was 'this isn't one-sided', and 'I understand the concerns of other people'. I'm by far no fool- I do realize a child is much, much more likely to be victimized by a parent, relative, neighbor, or schoolteacher than some transgendered person taking a piss.
The counter for this issue is to basically be honest with people. The bathroom isn't a social area. If someone, regardless of the equipment between their legs, harasses you- then it's harassment plain and simple. Transgender acceptance is a relatively new thing in the US. And some people- let's be clear- are a bit uncomfortable around what they perceive to be 'a guy in a dress'. Most people think 'drag queen'- and let's admit, they do play on the dramatic aspects of it for kicks and that can disturb some people.
EDIT:
I can give you an example of how this occurred in Australia a few years ago, with low-information outrage.
An Australian gay couple was in the news, because one of them was being deported back to Pakistan. Apparently, this was 'horrible treatment of homosexuals' by 'bigots in Australian government'. People were signing petitions, launching massive tirades about how terrible these homophobes were...
In the end, the guy from Pakistan had never finished filling out all of his paperwork to stay in the country. He just didn't do it. That's all it was.
Does this 'pervert pretending to be transgender' have any basis in reality? I mean, for real. It seems like people are just trying to find something to be scared of/outraged over, which is a thing of monstrous irony since it is what they are accusing the opposition of.
More importantly, even if it did, harassment is harassment whether you're transgender or not. The comparison to banning gay men from men's bathrooms because they could go there to check out hot guys is an apt one.
Ashiraya wrote: Does this 'pervert pretending to be transgender' have any basis in reality? I mean, for real. It seems like people are just trying to find something to be scared of/outraged over, which is a thing of monstrous irony since it is what they are accusing the opposition of.
More importantly, even if it did, harassment is harassment whether you're transgender or not. The comparison to banning gay men from men's bathrooms because they could go there to check out hot guys is an apt one.
Which is something I've stated clearly. And you'll also notice I said it was far more likely to occur with a parent, teacher, relative, etc. than some random stranger in a public bathroom where they are much more likely to be caught.
Does the incident have basis in reality? Well, considering that it occurred... I'd say so. I would say those people I know that had to deal with it shouldn't be invalidated. The experience bothered them, but since it isn't 'common'... should we just completely disregard them?
It doesn't just have to happen, it has to happen to a realistic enough degree for the actions taken to prevent it to be at all reasonable compared to the problems said actions will create.
There was a man who was struck by lightning seven times in his lifetime, only to have an eighth strike his gravestone, but this is not something anyone else has to really factor in in their burial plans even if I am sure it caused much discomfort to the undertaker.
You will also forgive me if I have some doubt for your personal anecdote given that it seems like a very unlikely thing to happen.
Ashiraya wrote: It doesn't just have to happen, it has to happen to a realistic enough degree for the actions taken to prevent it to be at all reasonable compared to the problems said actions will create.
There was a man who was struck by lightning seven times in his lifetime, only to have an eighth strike his gravestone, but this is not something anyone else has to really factor in in their burial plans even if I am sure it caused much discomfort to the undertaker.
You will also forgive me if I have some doubt for your personal anecdote given that it seems like a very unlikely thing.
Not to get on someone else's bandwagon, but the same logic when applied to banning a specific type of weapon is met with disgust and outrage.
And your doubt, or belief thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the reality of it. And it isn't completely unheard of, either...
I also must admit, it's a bit comical when someone who appears to be somewhat progressive is now on the side of 'not believing' when a woman is sexually harassed.
Wow, two whole times, two years apart, and in different countries.
Stop drilling you've struck oil!
Perverts gonna perv, breh.
Astute observation, you'll fit in nicely here!
I also must admit, it's a bit comical when someone who appears to be somewhat progressive is now on the side of 'not believing' when a woman is sexually harassed.
You're new here so save your concern trolling for elsewhere.
Wow, two whole times, two years apart, and in different countries.
Stop drilling you've struck oil!
So, it's rare. That means no one should be concerned about it. Screw the victims. When there's more, you can give a damn. If that's how you see things, I won't be attempting to sway your mentality. Unfortunately, 'one time' is significant enough to warrant someone's concern being placed at ease.
Actually, it's starting to seem like it'd be easier to do this if I didn't think for myself and just desperately try to be a contrarian for everything.
And I'm new here, so I don't particularly understand your definition of 'trolling', but I can understand if someone having an opinion you dislike is bothersome for you. Many people who lack maturity and think little for themselves have difficulty accepting their narrative being trampled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: Let's not equate disbelief in personal anecdotes with blaming the victim, hardly a constructive way to argue your points.
Oh? Seems to be working with the 'Rape Culture' cult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: Let's not equate disbelief in personal anecdotes with blaming the victim, hardly a constructive way to argue your points.
Oh? Seems to be working with the 'Rape Culture' cult.
My question for you is this: At what point have my points been indicative that someone should be 'punished', and not 'inform all sides and hear their concerns'? You seem more desperate to lash out at an argument I'm not making. You're disregarding the concerns of the other side and attempting to mock them, rather than have dialogue. With that attitude, don't expect things to get better.
Considering it's already illegal to put on a dress in order to facilitate shaking your peen at someone in public, there is no reason to remove protections for people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons.
Passing legislation protecting people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons also doesn't extent that protection to people putting on a dress in order to facilitate shaking their peen at someone in public.
So there is really no purpose in using perverts in an argument against protections for LGBT people.
motyak wrote: Let's not equate disbelief in personal anecdotes with blaming the victim, hardly a constructive way to argue your points.
Oh? Seems to be working with the 'Rape Culture' cult.
My question for you is this: At what point have my points been indicative that someone should be 'punished', and not 'inform all sides and hear their concerns'? You seem more desperate to lash out at an argument I'm not making. You're disregarding the concerns of the other side and attempting to mock them, rather than have dialogue. With that attitude, don't expect things to get better.
I don't see where you've been punished. That account hasn't received any warnings or suspensions, you haven't done anything to be removed from the off topic section so you are still here 'voicing your concerns'. I'm just not sure where this feeling of persecution sprung up from, unless you're bringing it from elsewhere/other times on the internet?
d-usa wrote: Considering it's already illegal to put on a dress in order to facilitate shaking your peen at someone in public, there is no reason to remove protections for people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons.
Passing legislation protecting people putting on dresses for legitimate reasons also doesn't extent that protection to people putting on a dress in order to facilitate shaking their peen at someone in public.
So there is really no purpose in using perverts in an argument against protections for LGBT people.
Noted in my original post, I stated that not all of them were like this. I simply stated that it was a concern for some people. You can say 'there is no merit to the argument', but demonstrably some individuals have exploited the law. Does that mean the others should be punished? No. They are innocent people.
For some people, this can be a concern. Slinging mud at someone with a concern is far less effective than a dialogue, and usually tends to make things even worse. Take the climate change argument for example- many rabid deniers are only deniers because when they asked for 'proof' and 'solid information' they were called 'stupid Teabillies'.
When people have a concern, it should be addressed.
"Hey, if you're worried about this happening, go with your kids. Teach them what to do if ANYONE tries to touch them or something."
"If you don't want to change in front of people ask for a private stall."
"The solution could be resolved by making all stalls 'boxed' so everyone can have a bit of privacy."
Again, I go to the bathroom to push one out or drain my bladder. Personally, I don't care of there's a silverback gorilla in the next stall breastfeeding a koala bear.
Actually, I do. I want a picture.
But regardless- people tend to get defensive and ignore legitimate concerns that may bother some people and lash out, rather than having dialogue. Look, I personally have no dog in the fight. But you can keep lashing out, and it's not going to make the other side any more welcoming to the idea.
I don't see where you've been punished. That account hasn't received any warnings or suspensions, you haven't done anything to be removed from the off topic section so you are still here 'voicing your concerns'. I'm just not sure where this feeling of persecution sprung up from, unless you're bringing it from elsewhere/other times on the internet?
Oh, I think there's miscommunication. Let me clarify:
"I am not saying transgendered people should be punished for these concerns. I am saying that the people with concerns should be heard and a discussion should be made, rather than making this issue even more divisive."
Noted in my original post, I stated that not all of them were like this. I simply stated that it was a concern for some people. You can say 'there is no merit to the argument', but demonstrably some individuals have exploited the law.
Perverts and exhibitionists who have purposefully exposed themselves have been able to successfully exploit laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination to get away with it?
Well, so are terrorist attacks on American soil, right? They happen... but not very often. Yet people have concerns about them. So, you put them at ease.
"You're more likely to be killed by a domestic criminal."
"It's rare, but if you see something suspicious you should do X, Y, Z..."
"There have only been X attacks on American soil, and generally they target Y and Z."
Those people who are scared don't feel better if you accuse them of being bigots that hate Muslims.
The issue at hand is, as I've said- low-information people. Grandma that believes everything in the Facebook feed. Billy that's never lived in a major city before. Little Susie that doesn't know how to research statistics and information quite yet.
You don't combat low-information reactionaries with vitriol, you win with information.
I mean, for example- I thought Age of Sigmar was awful until a few hours ago when I found out it was easy to familiarize yourself with all the armies because war scrolls are free. Now I'm considering a boxed set.
Perverts and exhibitionists who have purposefully exposed themselves have been able to successfully exploit laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination to get away with it?
Yes. Individuals see those stories and panic. They worry. Some mom doesn't want her small daughter traumatized. Some people are scared of this sort of thing happening.
I mean, it has happened. Demonstrably. Whether it's common or not isn't the issue, it's that it has happened. Most people just simply need assurances, and let's be completely honest: "Have faith in humanity" isn't really reassuring right now.
One of those stories includes the person being arrested and charged, because what he did was a crime regardless of any laws protecting LGBT from discrimination. Turns out that assaulting people is illegal if you are a man, or a woman, or a man pretending to be a woman, or a man pretending to be transgender, or any combination of anything.
The other article also doesn't serve as an example of someone getting away with it due to these laws. As per the article:
On Monday, Feb. 8, around 5:30 p.m., an individual, a young adult, came into the pool lobby, paid the fee for lap swim, and went into the woman’s locker room to change. At no time did he verbally “identify” as female. Staff didn’t see which locker room he entered as it was a busy time of day with a lot of swimmers coming and going. Previous to lap swim time at the pool was a local youth swim team practice. After lap swim was another children’s swim time.
Seeing this individual in the locker room, parents of swim team members (girls) and women who had paid for lap swim became alarmed and alerted our front desk staff. In response, an Evans pool staff member entered the women’s locker room and asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room. Other patrons were also offered the alternative of the family changing room. He eventually left the women’s locker room. After the lap swim, he again entered the women’s locker room to change. Front desk staff again asked him to leave and he eventually did.
This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was “identifying” as a woman. We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities.”
He was kicked out of the locker room, twice. At no point did he use laws protecting LGBT as an excuse, and at no point did laws protecting LGBT result in people allowing him to continue.
So in the end, you have yet to provide an example where someone got away with it because of those laws. There is no reason to restrict protections for LGBT because people somewhere are afraid that perverts are going to get away with being perverts.
One of those stories includes the person being arrested and charged, because what he did was a crime regardless of any laws protecting LGBT from discrimination. Turns out that assaulting people is illegal if you are a man, or a woman, or a man pretending to be a woman, or a man pretending to be transgender, or any combination of anything.
The other article also doesn't serve as an example of someone getting away with it due to these laws. As per the article:
.....
He was kicked out of the locker room, twice. At no point did he use laws protecting LGBT as an excuse, and at no point did laws protecting LGBT result in people allowing him to continue.
So in the end, you have yet to provide an example where someone got away with it because of those laws. There is no reason to restrict protections for LGBT because people somewhere are afraid that perverts are going to get away with being perverts.
And that's a fair point, but let's look at the context with a different subject entirely:
A man buys an AR-15 and shoots a bunch of people. He does not get away with it. But the damage has been done, right?
Now, some would say "Well, that's no reason to ban AR-15's for everyone, this was a rare case". And they'd be right, to a degree.
But, when the damage is done- people prefer preventive measures to reactive measures... if those measures are possible.
No, they didn't get away with it. They shouldn't have gotten away with it. But the damage is already done to a victim. That's what 'Grandma' sees in her facebook feed, and she wants to know 'how are you going to prevent this from happening again?"
And as I've said before, the response is "Grandma- this isn't really a crime that's exclusive to transgenders. They're more likely to be the victims by a long shot. A guy in the bathroom in a dress harassing a child is no different than a woman in a bathroom in a dress harassing a child. This isn't a cause for panic, but these rare cases are newsworthy because they're rare. You just need to talk to little Johnny or little Suzie about how to deal with strangers when something like this happens so she doesn't develop this irrational fear of a transgendered person."
But, "Stop being stupid about this, it won't happen, it is not cause for concern" is not reassuring to these people. It's brushing off their fears. It's invalidating them, when showing them information and educating them- addressing their concern- is much more effective.
At the end of the day, your objective should be resolution and peacekeeping, not looking for a platform to call someone intolerant and treat their experiences or fears like they aren't valid.
One of those stories includes the person being arrested and charged, because what he did was a crime regardless of any laws protecting LGBT from discrimination. Turns out that assaulting people is illegal if you are a man, or a woman, or a man pretending to be a woman, or a man pretending to be transgender, or any combination of anything.
The other article also doesn't serve as an example of someone getting away with it due to these laws. As per the article: .....
He was kicked out of the locker room, twice. At no point did he use laws protecting LGBT as an excuse, and at no point did laws protecting LGBT result in people allowing him to continue.
So in the end, you have yet to provide an example where someone got away with it because of those laws. There is no reason to restrict protections for LGBT because people somewhere are afraid that perverts are going to get away with being perverts.
And that's a fair point, but let's look at the context with a different subject entirely:
A man buys an AR-15 and shoots a bunch of people. He does not get away with it. But the damage has been done, right?
Now, some would say "Well, that's no reason to ban AR-15's for everyone, this was a rare case". And they'd be right, to a degree.
But, when the damage is done- people prefer preventive measures to reactive measures... if those measures are possible.
No, they didn't get away with it. They shouldn't have gotten away with it. But the damage is already done to a victim. That's what 'Grandma' sees in her facebook feed, and she wants to know 'how are you going to prevent this from happening again?"
And as I've said before, the response is "Grandma- this isn't really a crime that's exclusive to transgenders. They're more likely to be the victims by a long shot. A guy in the bathroom in a dress harassing a child is no different than a woman in a bathroom in a dress harassing a child. This isn't a cause for panic, but these rare cases are newsworthy because they're rare. You just need to talk to little Johnny or little Suzie about how to deal with strangers when something like this happens so she doesn't develop this irrational fear of a transgendered person."
But, "Stop being stupid about this, it won't happen, it is not cause for concern" is not reassuring to these people. It's brushing off their fears. It's invalidating them, when showing them information and educating them- addressing their concern- is much more effective.
At the end of the day, your objective should be resolution and peacekeeping, not looking for a platform to call someone intolerant and treat their experiences or fears like they aren't valid.
Care to elaborate how any of that has anything to do at all with legislation preventing discrimination of LGBT people?
Edit: After rereading that entire post again I want to clarify the argument again.
The argument is not "it's rare", the argument is "the laws have nothing to do with the crime that is rare to begin with".
Care to elaborate how any of that has anything to do at all with legislation preventing discrimination of LGBT people?
It was the same discussion in a different context. Take your time reading it.
I have, and it still makes no sense to me.
If you could do without the whole "guns" thing, which has nothing to do with anything here, and explain how passing laws that have nothing to do with exposing yourself to anyone have anything to do with perverts exposing themselves to people, that would be great.
If you could go as far as providing a single source for your claim that people have actually used these laws to commit crimes and got away with it, that would be even better.
And just for fairness I will post my argument again:
Edit: Saw your edit.
I usually don't shoot people down. I do try to point out when people make an argument that equates perverts with transgender people, but often that equation is the result of a poorly worded argument and not an intend to say that transgender people are perverts. I think some of your earlier posts felt like you may have been equating those two, but you have clarified your posts IMO so I don't think that you are trying to do that.
And I honestly don't try to use the "it's rare" argument. But I do try to point out that if someone tries to exploit laws protecting LGBT laws, they haven't been successful because these laws don't protect criminals. I might mention that it is rare, but it will always be in conjunction with "it's a rare instance, but it's an instance that is still illegal regardless of the law".
Laws protecting LGBT from discrimination have nothing to do with people committing crimes, because the laws don't protect criminals committing crimes.
If you could do without the whole "guns" thing, which has nothing to do with anything here, and explain how passing laws that have nothing to do with exposing yourself to anyone have anything to do with perverts exposing themselves to people, that would be great.
If you could go as far as providing a single source for your claim that people have actually used these laws to commit crimes and got away with it, that would be even better.
And just for fairness I will post my argument again:
Laws protecting LGBT from discrimination have nothing to do with people committing crimes, because the laws don't protect criminals committing crimes.
And I will post mine again. I will elaborate just a bit.
-There is no problem with a law that allows transgenders to use a bathroom or changing room.
-Some folks are concerned that sexual predators will attempt to exploit this to watch girls change, etc.
-While this is -possible-, and some have attempted it before- addressing this concern (as you did- 'it's still illegal to do pervert stuff, no matter your gender identity') is more productive than just shouting these people down as intolerant bigots.
-Shouting them down adds fuel to the fire.
-At the end of the day, a parent that doesn't feel comfortable having their daughter change in front of a stranger with a penis is a valid concern of that parent. The option for private changing booths should be available.
d-usa wrote: I saw your post above and edited mine, so please see above.
I think we are mostly on the same page now.
I got the feeling you were thinking that I was saying:
"What about perverts that go in there wearing dresses just to watch girls change?"
My statement was, "Hey, things like this have happened and it scares people, that's why things like this get push-back."
Like I said, man- there's this dude and a couple of his friends that do that near where I live. They just lurk in public bathrooms like that, it makes people uncomfortable. And yes, chances are- they're just perverts and probably also mentally ill vagrants, maybe even addicts (I'd love to get my phone sent over and show a picture, you'd agree that something other than gender identity is at play here- but that'd be kinda wrong). People say something, and eventually someone will handle it, but in the area it's almost kind of a running joke. Some ladies will be like, "Well, come with me to the bathroom just in case our Divas are in there."
The problem is, you bring the issue up around some folks, and you get the loaded reaction: "Who are you to determine that they aren't really identifying as women?", or "Is it illegal to sit in a restroom? Maybe it's where they feel safe!", and other things such as "Not everyone can fit your standards for what a woman looks like!"
It's kinda one of those things you have to take a breath and be careful. The police don't want to bring undue attention on the city for this and get people riled up. To a certain degree, their hands are tied because they can't legally tell these guys to 'go somewhere else'... and they have to actually 'do' something to get arrested. IMHO, it's probably more of a mental health issue than a legal one.
Considering that we've got plenty of Transgendered people in town, none of which have been anything short of cool, fun people- it's certainly not a 'transgendered' issue, but I can see how someone who hasn't been around them before would see the weirdos in the bathrooms and get uncomfortable about the laws.
Jihadin wrote: Bran. That's totally excusable. I did the same to coming back from South Korea and hitting Seattle. Was a knee grabber and felt like I hovered off the lid four inches for seconds at a time
Ashiraya wrote: It doesn't just have to happen, it has to happen to a realistic enough degree for the actions taken to prevent it to be at all reasonable compared to the problems said actions will create.
There was a man who was struck by lightning seven times in his lifetime, only to have an eighth strike his gravestone, but this is not something anyone else has to really factor in in their burial plans even if I am sure it caused much discomfort to the undertaker.
You will also forgive me if I have some doubt for your personal anecdote given that it seems like a very unlikely thing.
Not to get on someone else's bandwagon, but the same logic when applied to banning a specific type of weapon is met with disgust and outrage.
And your doubt, or belief thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the reality of it. And it isn't completely unheard of, either...
I also must admit, it's a bit comical when someone who appears to be somewhat progressive is now on the side of 'not believing' when a woman is sexually harassed.
In addition to what the others said while I slept, you are posting a very biased source on the Seattle case that is getting key facts wrong.
A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.
I was in Germany with a school trip in the mid 90s and I discovered that their pools, or at least the on one Oberstdorf, had a mixed open plan changing room. An interesting experience for a 14 year old.
Germany (and most of Europe, and Asia, actually) seems to be a lot less backwards than the UK/US when it comes to decency. Nudity is perfectly acceptable, it's a normal natural thing after all. Violence is heavily censored, because it's an awful thing. Being a Brit I'm not the most comfortable in open changing rooms due to 30 years of conditioning, but the way the rest of the world handles it makes perfect sense.
I've used mixed-gender bathrooms with minimal hassle, including a few with urinals (it takes a few seconds to get over the confusion of there being women in there), and a few urinals that aren't exactly discrete (from personal experience there are plenty in Poland and pretty much every other one in Japan where you're side on to the door if there even is a door). You just realise that seeing someone pee isn't a big deal and get on with it (after being desperate enough, and twisting away from the crowds).
There's nothing stopping you having urinals in cubicles either, even if they are longer versions of the dividers with no door. It's probably worth having both for the water saving (seems to be the norm in Poland).
Like I said, man- there's this dude and a couple of his friends that do that near where I live. They just lurk in public bathrooms like that, it makes people uncomfortable. And yes, chances are- they're just perverts and probably also mentally ill vagrants, maybe even addicts (I'd love to get my phone sent over and show a picture, you'd agree that something other than gender identity is at play here- but that'd be kinda wrong). People say something, and eventually someone will handle it, but in the area it's almost kind of a running joke. Some ladies will be like, "Well, come with me to the bathroom just in case our Divas are in there."
Wouldn't they be just as much of a nuisance if they were actually female though? Would that nuisance actually decrease if it was mixed gender?
You've got a problem with some people being inappropriate around other people, why not try and address it like that? If you suspect the problem involves drugs and the people are potentially dangerous, maybe an attendant is required, or making police reports that don't start with "There's a man in a dress in ladies bathrooms".
I think we already have; there's been Muslims in/around Europe for hundreds of years. Sure, we spent a lot of the middle ages fighting with them in the middle east.
You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.
Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.
You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.
Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.
If you don't, you can actually be sued for damages.
You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.
Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.
If you don't, you can actually be sued for damages.
And fined.
And if you have some sort of business license to operate, that could be put in peril in extreme cases.
Edit: I'm not saying that it's wrong to force businesses to do X, Y, or Z for public safety, etc. That's not my argument or point in posting.
You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.
Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.
If you don't, you can actually be sued for damages.
And fined.
And if you have some sort of business license to operate, that could be put in peril in extreme cases.
Edit: I'm not saying that it's wrong to force businesses to do X, Y, or Z for public safety, etc. That's not my argument or point in posting.
Indeed.
I think a compromise is to encourage unisex single stall restrooms. Most locations have Men & Women restrooms AND a "Family" restroom. The Family restroom is usually a single stall with baby changing station.
NORTH CAROLINA -
Governor Pat McCrory's office sent out a release which it called "Myths vs Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren't saying about common-sense privacy law." This refers to NC House Bill 2, which overrides all local ordinances concerning wages, employment and public accommodations. Thus, the law now bars local municipalities from creating their own rules prohibiting discrimination in public places based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It's this bill that shot down Charlotte's recently-passed ordinance that would have allowed transgender people to use the bathroom of the sex they identified with, not the sex they were born as.
Here are the statements sent out by McCrory's office, which supports House Bill 2.
1. Does the new bill limit or prohibit private sector companies from adopting their own nondiscrimination policies or practices?
Answer: No. Businesses are not limited by this bill. Private individuals, companies and universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies.
2. Does this bill take away existing protections for individuals in North Carolina?
Answer: No. In fact, for the first time in state history, this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government's. This also means that the law in North Carolina is not different when you go city to city.
3. Can businesses and private facilities still offer reasonable accommodations for transgender people, like single occupancy bathrooms for instance?
Answer: Yes. This bill allows and does nothing to prevent businesses, and public or private facilities from providing single use bathrooms.
4. Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with, or provide other accommodations?
Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. For instance, if a privately-owned sporting facility wants to allow attendees of sporting events to use the restroom of their choice, or install unisex bathrooms, they can. The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.
5. Does this law prohibit towns, cities or counties in North Carolina from setting their own nondiscrimination policies in employment that go beyond state law?
Answer: No. Town, cities and counties in North Carolina are still allowed to set stricter non-discrimination policies for their own employees if they choose.
6. Does this bill mean transgender people will always have to use the restroom of the sex of their birth, even if they have undergone a sex change?
Answer: No. This law simply says people must use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. Anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate.
7. I'm worried about how this new law affects transgender children or students in North Carolina. Does this bill allow bullying against transgender children in schools?
Answer: Absolutely not. North Carolina law specifically prohibits bullying and harassing behavior against children on the basis of sexual identity.
8. Does this bill affect people with disabilities?
Answer: No. Statewide law also bans discrimination based on disability.
9. Why did North Carolina pass this law in the first place?
Answer: The bill was passed after the Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women's restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice. This new local regulation brought up serious privacy concerns by parents, businesses and others across the state, as well as safety concerns that this new local rule could be used by people who would take advantage of this to do harm to others.
In fact, the Charlotte City Council tried to pass this ordinance before but failed, and passed the same ordinance in February of 2016 despite serious concerns from state officials, business leaders and other concerned citizens.
10. What about parents or caregivers bringing children into the restroom?
Answer: The law provides exceptions to young children accompanied by parents or care givers.
While having all unisex bathrooms would be a solution, currently North Carolina building code requires separate facilites for each sex:
Spoiler:
[P] 2902.2 Separate facilities.
Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities shall be provided for each sex.
Exceptions:
1. Separate facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units.
2. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a total occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 15 or less.
3. Separate facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 100 or less.
[P] 2902.2.1 Family or assisted-use toilet facilities serving as separate facilities.
Where a building or tenant space requires a separate toilet facility for each sex and each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet, two family/assisted-use toilet facilities shall be permitted to serve as the required separate facilities. Family or assisted-use toilet facilities shall not be required to be identified for exclusive use by either sex as required by Section 2902.4.
[P] 2902.3 Employee and public toilet facilities.
Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization. The number of plumbing fixtures located within the required toilet facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 2902.1 for all users. Employees shall be provided with toilet facilities in all occupancies. Employee toilet facilities shall either be separate or combined employee and public toilet facilities.
Exception: Public toilet facilities shall not be required in open or enclosed parking garages. Toilet facilities shall not be required in parking garages where there are no parking attendants.
[P] 2902.3.1 Access.
The route to the public toilet facilities required by Section 2902.3 shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms or closets. Access to the required facilities shall be from within the building or from the exterior of the building. All routes shall comply with the accessibility requirements of this code. The public shall have access to the required toilet facilities at all times that the building is occupied.
[P] 2902.3.2 Location of toilet facilities in occupancies other than malls.
In occupancies other than covered and open mall buildings, the required public and employee toilet facilities shall be located not more than one story above or below the space required to be provided with toilet facilities, and the path of travel to such facilities shall not exceed a distance of 500 feet (152 m).
Exception: The location and maximum travel distances to required employee facilities in factory and industrial occupancies are permitted to exceed that required by this section, provided that the location and maximum travel distance are approved.
[P] 2902.3.3 Location of toilet facilities in malls.
In covered and open mall buildings, the required public and employee toilet facilities shall be located not more than one story above or below the space required to be provided with toilet facilities, and the path of travel to such facilities shall not exceed a distance of 300 feet (91 440 mm). In mall buildings, the required facilities shall be based on total square footage (m2) within a covered mall building or within the perimeter line of an open mall building, and facilities shall be installed in each individual store or in a central toilet area located in accordance with this section. The maximum travel distance to central toilet facilities in mall buildings shall be measured from the main entrance of any store or tenant space. In mall buildings, where employees’ toilet facilities are not provided in the individual store, the maximum travel distance shall be measured from the employees’ work area of the store or tenant space.
[P] 2902.3.4 Pay facilities.
Where pay facilities are installed, such facilities shall be in excess of the required minimum facilities. Required facilities shall be free of charge.
[P] 2902.3.5 Door locking.
Where a toilet room is provided for the use of multiple occupants, the egress door for the room shall not be lockable from the inside of the room. This section does not apply to family or assisted-use toilet rooms.
[P] 2902.4 Signage.
Required public facilities shall be designated by a legible sign for each sex. Signs shall be readily visible and located near the entrance to each toilet facility. Signs for accessible toilet facilities shall comply with Section 1110.
Since the law requires separate bathrooms for each sex be built, then laws governing use should reflect that reality. The issue with the Charlotte law was a classic case of RAW vs RAI. We've all seen rules discussions here where somebody points out a poorly written rule that creates an exploitable loophole and somebody else counters that such an exploitation would rarely, if ever happen. The occurence rate of the exploitation of the loophole doesn't change a poorly written rule into a well written rule.
A law that says you can use the bathroom for whichever gender you identify with isn't that different from saying you can use whichever bathroom you want. That provides a flimsy excuse for some people to walk into bathrooms for inappropriate reasons. I'm sure that transgenderd women want the womens' restroom to be for women just as much as women who were born women. There's nothing wrong with transgendered people who are for all intents and purposes the gender they identify with, using the bathroom of that gender or people who have changed their sex using the appropriate bathroom for their new sex. The trouble is trying to craft a law that says that gender specific bathrooms are for people who appear to be masculine or feminine enough to belong there without causing outrage, offense or poorly worded specificity. The requirement to use the restroom that is consistent with the sex on your birth certificate covers that well enough in practicality. Again, nobody is actually checking genitalia at the bathroom entrance so people who look like they belong and act appropriately while they're in the restroom aren't going to have a problem. Women, whether they were born female or are transgendered, deserve to have the exclusivity of womens bathrooms protected so that any women, biological or trans, can tell a man who's intruding in the women's restroom to GTFO and vice versa for the mens restroom.
The statute in Charlotte was trying to solve a problem that I haven't seen any put forth any evidence that it was prevalent or existed. If you're trying to look and act like the gender you identify with you are likely blending in well enough for nobody to realize you're in the "wrong" public bathroom.
It's like jay walking. You need a law that exists to discourage people from doing a dangerous thing, running out in front of oncoming traffic, but one that can be broken without penalty if it's done so in a sensible way, crossing the street when there is a safe break in traffic. If you passed a law that said it was legal to cross the street whenever you felt it was safe regardless of traffic signals or crosswalk signals then you could have people causing accidents by stepping out into the straight in a dangerous manner even though it may have been safe in their opinion.
I think the main problem here is some people tend to lump "transvestites" and "transsexuals" in the same category. Transsexuals who have had the sex change procedure, and legally change their sex, are fine under State law (and were never the target of this legislation to begin with). Transvestites, or "cross dressers", were already forbidden to use restrooms of the opposite sex (and rightfully so).
However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.
Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.
It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.
I think the main problem here is some people tend to lump "transvestites" and "transsexuals" in the same category. Transsexuals who have had the sex change procedure, and legally change their sex, are fine under State law (and were never the target of this legislation to begin with). Transvestites, or "cross dressers", were already forbidden to use restrooms of the opposite sex (and rightfully so).
However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.
Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.
It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.
The people you describe are already emulating the gender they indentify with and most likely appear to be that gender upon a cursory glance and behave in a typica appropriate manner in bathrooms. Those people aren't going to have any issues with public bathrooms whether the Charlotte law or new law is in effect. Most people go into a public bathroom for a specific reason, do their business and leave, it's not much of a place for social interactions or intrusive gender verification inspections.
I think the main problem here is some people tend to lump "transvestites" and "transsexuals" in the same category. Transsexuals who have had the sex change procedure, and legally change their sex, are fine under State law (and were never the target of this legislation to begin with). Transvestites, or "cross dressers", were already forbidden to use restrooms of the opposite sex (and rightfully so).
However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.
Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.
It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.
Pragmatically, I don't think this is an issue for anyone of concern for bona fide persons in that category. Its a rare subset. translation: in reality its not an issue for materially anyone so...who cares? Lets all move on and worry about something thats actually important.
So if owning a Wiener Dog but you wouldn't want your government passing laws specifically targeting Wiener Dog owners.
No if you were saying that right (see Mods, not correcting his typo ) you would be more accurate in saying: "your government wouldn't want to pass laws specifically targeting Wiener Dog owners, because it knows that wiener dogs will now specifically target them."
"Don't with me. I will cut a " -Rodney the wiener dog.
No, what I was referring to is this is a non-issue. We don't need legislation about it. We don't need to worry about "weirdoes in the bathrooms." Trans people don't have to worry it. People who seem really focused on bathroom issues don't have to worry about it. This is typical democrat/republican nonsense designed to distract you from the real problems: no freaking jobs and wage haven't gone up in decades.
EDIT: The whole issue is akin to this: "thats about as likely as a four eyed alien in your bathroom." "We need laws against dem four eyed aliens!" "Tell the truth, were you starved of oxygen as a baby?"
EDIT 2: I am sure there are some "pervs" who might take advantage of the lack of a law to be weird. But thats what chemical mace and Berettas are for. After nothing says "quit perving on me" like a little bear mace.
Given that at a glance it may be impossible to ascertain someone's sex with 100% accuracy and the clear, serious and immediate threat that someone may be going into the incorrect bathroom I now demand state & federal genital inspectors in every bathroom. You don't enter the law has verified you belong, period. This can't be some namby-pamby half baked inspection either, I'm talking no clothes, full squeeze for the gents, full probe for the ladies and the axe for anything in between. If you don't hate our children's safety™ you can't be opposed to this. Object to this post if you want but it only serves as definitive proof you support pervents & child molestors.
oldravenman3025 wrote: However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.
Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.
You realise that transitioning isn't an instantaneous process, right? One of my best friends has been presenting as female for almost a year now and has been on HRT for a month, but quite honestly she would be quite likely to be identified as male.
You seem to be framing this as transvestites (non-passing), pre-op (passing), and post-op (passing), when there's an entire subsection of pre-op people whom might still be identified as their birth sex.
You can even have a unisex stall in a regular toilet which costs very little - keeping in mind that 100% of the cost for every company would have to be paid by taxpayer money and 0% by the company itself.
Maybe in Germany. I don't know your laws as I am not a German Lawyer.
Here in the states, if a law (federal, state, county, city) requires to have a wheel chair ramp, uni-sex bathroom, or whatever, and there is no grand-father clause or other provision for exclusion, then you must install said thingy and pay for it yourself by whatever date you're told.
Germany forces you to be "disabled friendly", i.e. everyone must be able to safely get to work. This includes stuff like ramps for wheelchair drivers, additional handrailings, disabled parking etc. This makes sense for everyone because you want your employees to get to work and be productive. It's useful and you directly profit from such measures. This has nothing to do with trying to force a political agenda down other people's throats.
Most people go into a public bathroom for a specific reason, do their business and leave, it's not much of a place for social interactions
Chongara wrote: Given that at a glance it may be impossible to ascertain someone's sex with 100% accuracy and the clear, serious and immediate threat that someone may be going into the incorrect bathroom I now demand state & federal genital inspectors in every bathroom. You don't enter the law has verified you belong, period. This can't be some namby-pamby half baked inspection either, I'm talking no clothes, full squeeze for the gents, full probe for the ladies and the axe for anything in between. If you don't hate our children's safety™ you can't be opposed to this. Object to this post if you want but it only serves as definitive proof you support pervents & child molestors.
With a requirement to be signed off by multiple doctors, an internal ultrasound scan, the required reading of material outlining how horrible a human being they would be if they were to go into the wrong bathroom, and a several day wait before they could actually access the bathroom.
And of course they would have to pay for it all as all federal and state public bathroom gender checking services will have been defunded meaning people will also have to travel for several hours to get to the nearest gender checking service. Plus dodging all the protestors calling people who get their genders checked molestors.
Those pushing for "holding it in" only education in schools will continue to not understand that simple biology will continue to take place regardless of what they want to believe.
Not sure going pedantic here is the proper avenue for you to pursue, but to each his own I suppose.
Frazzled wrote: No, what I was referring to is this is a non-issue. We don't need legislation about it.
Then you really worded it badly because it came across more that it didn't matter so we shouldn't care that they made legislation about it. I agree this is a non-issue that doesn't need legislation.
I agree this is a non-issue that doesn't need legislation.
Exactly. What it needs is better stall doors.
Clearly what we need is a new government agency; BSA. The Bathroom Safety Administration. Before entering a bathroom, you will be required to walk through a full body scanner that will check your junk (and anything else you might have) to ensure that you're not a threat to others. This government body will be mandated to hire only unpleasant, bitter, and angry human beings who will revel in their new found power to feth with everyone desperately trying to get to the Restroom. When criticized, they will simply reply "you must want to transgenders to win!" and thus no one will do anything to fix their ineffective system which regularly fails inspections and random testing, all of which independently suggests that the BSA does very little to ensure bathroom security or stop transgenders from threatening our freedom.
oldravenman3025 wrote: However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.
Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.
It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.
I'm not one of those terminology police (the whole "born X" vs "assigned X", "cis", etc etc) but what you're saying is a generalisation of something that is already poorly misrepresented or understood in the public eye.
In our heads there are these three stages of trans: Unchanged, Crossdressing, and Surgery.
In truth, there are a great many steps, all of which are valid and "finished" if that is what that person feels comfortable with. Lower surgery is becoming less of a terrifying spectre, but an awful lot of people stop at hormones and top surgery, and remain there.
For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.
I have read cases in the news of trans kids and young teens making themselves sick by refusing to drink or pee at school because they are denied access to the bathroom they feel comfortable using. I have friends who only feel safe to go at home, or if I guard the door of an otherwise empty public bathroom for them. others use radar keys to access disabled toilets, which is not their intended use.
I really wish I knew what the right answer was.
For everyone let go of their fear and incorrect presuppositions, and accept that the decent thing to do is let people use the facility that they feel safest using. It's not a political agenda, its fething common courtesy.
For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.
Really, though, urinals are for lazy men-myself included, and kinda wierd if you really think about them too much (not as horrible as troughs, though!). Everyone can sit on a toilet. I actually can't think of a place where there were only urinals?
oldravenman3025 wrote: However, my concern are for those transsexuals who haven't gone all the way, and gotten the final procedure done. In other words, for want of better terminology, people whom the porn industry refers to as "she-males" or people call "pre-op trannies". They are more or less "transformed" into the opposite sex, with only their original "equipment" still intact (and it doesn't always work for some transsexuals). These are the people that the subject of the debate, and the target of both the Charlotte ordinance and State law.
Personally, I don't see the problem. Most of these "pre-op" transsexuals generally prefer men or are bi-sexual. So, it's no different than a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or gay woman using the ladies room.
It's a non-issue and nothing to get worked up over for all of us "squares" in North Carolina.
I'm not one of those terminology police (the whole "born X" vs "assigned X", "cis", etc etc) but what you're saying is a generalisation of something that is already poorly misrepresented or understood in the public eye.
In our heads there are these three stages of trans: Unchanged, Crossdressing, and Surgery.
In truth, there are a great many steps, all of which are valid and "finished" if that is what that person feels comfortable with. Lower surgery is becoming less of a terrifying spectre, but an awful lot of people stop at hormones and top surgery, and remain there.
For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.
I have read cases in the news of trans kids and young teens making themselves sick by refusing to drink or pee at school because they are denied access to the bathroom they feel comfortable using. I have friends who only feel safe to go at home, or if I guard the door of an otherwise empty public bathroom for them. others use radar keys to access disabled toilets, which is not their intended use.
I really wish I knew what the right answer was.
It wasn't my intention to throw off on transsexuals. I come from the "old school" when it comes to terminology, and describe it as I know it. Your post was reasoned and informative. I enjoyed reading it.
For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.
Really, though, urinals are for lazy men-myself included, and kinda wierd if you really think about them too much (not as horrible as troughs, though!). Everyone can sit on a toilet. I actually can't think of a place where there were only urinals?
I would prefer to not have to use the public john to take a dump unless I'm about to explode. People can be downright nasty.
For a male to female, their choices would not greatly affect bathroom use, as they can sit (though it is a braver woman than I that willingly sits in some public stalls!).
But for female to male, without the use of prosthesis or phalloplasty, they cannot stand to go. In places where there are only urinals, there is an entire industry based around passable, practical and comfortable prosthetic urinary devices, some are hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. Now I can't say the aesthetics are purely based on their ability to pass safely at a urinal, as non Stand to Void prosthesis can be similarly costed.
Really, though, urinals are for lazy men-myself included, and kinda wierd if you really think about them too much (not as horrible as troughs, though!). Everyone can sit on a toilet. I actually can't think of a place where there were only urinals?
oldravenman3025 wrote: It wasn't my intention to throw off on transsexuals. I come from the "old school" when it comes to terminology, and describe it as I know it. Your post was reasoned and informative. I enjoyed reading it.
And likewise it wasn't my intention to come off as the language police, or preachy. I also realise that it's not like how straight folk casually know about gay culture, or such... Without personal investment there really isn't a wider platform available for us to know a lot about trans people.
But yeah, a lot (can't pretend I know the proportion) of people never even plan to have lower surgery, even in countries where it's funded by insurance or heath services. Completion is in the mind of the particular person.
Anyway... If all there was to worry about in gender discussion was our use of language, it'd be a far happier world.
So we just saw the first major consequences of this law, as PayPal dropped their plans for a Charlotte based operations center that would have provided 400 job opportunities.
McCrory and the Republicans are blaming the Democrat mayor of Charlotte for the dropped plans, claiming that if she hadn't passed the law she did(which allowed for transgenders to use the facilities they identified with) they wouldn't have had to pass HB2.
This is my favorite part of the Republican stance:
Charlotte Republican Rep. Dan Bishop, who helped draft the law, said PayPal’s decision was “not about HB2.”
“It is instead about a frenzy that the mayor and her allies on City Council have whipped up,” he said. “I think she might consider that she stop calling in airstrikes on her own position.”
Asked if he and fellow legislators bore any responsibility, Bishop said, “I don’t have any further comment.”
Never mind that this exists:
After the passage of HB2, PayPal chief Dan Schulman, however, emerged as one of the more than 100 CEOs to condemn the law. On Tuesday, he announced in an open letter the company’s decision to nix the Charlotte operations center.
“The new law perpetuates discrimination, and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture. As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte,” Schulman said.
Kanluwen wrote: So we just saw the first major consequences of this law, as PayPal dropped their plans for a Charlotte based operations center that would have provided 400 job opportunities.
McCrory and the Republicans are blaming the Democrat mayor of Charlotte for the dropped plans, claiming that if she hadn't passed the law she did(which allowed for transgenders to use the facilities they identified with) they wouldn't have had to pass HB2.
This is my favorite part of the Republican stance:
Charlotte Republican Rep. Dan Bishop, who helped draft the law, said PayPal’s decision was “not about HB2.”
“It is instead about a frenzy that the mayor and her allies on City Council have whipped up,” he said. “I think she might consider that she stop calling in airstrikes on her own position.”
Asked if he and fellow legislators bore any responsibility, Bishop said, “I don’t have any further comment.”
Never mind that this exists:
After the passage of HB2, PayPal chief Dan Schulman, however, emerged as one of the more than 100 CEOs to condemn the law. On Tuesday, he announced in an open letter the company’s decision to nix the Charlotte operations center.
“The new law perpetuates discrimination, and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture. As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte,” Schulman said.
Yay... victory for that Supreme Court Citizen United ruling!
Company can haz political opinions... no?
You don't like that state's politics? Don't do business there!
So... yes, money does have a "voice" and is protected free speech.
McCrory and the Republicans are blaming the Democrat mayor of Charlotte for the dropped plans, claiming that if she hadn't passed the law she did(which allowed for transgenders to use the facilities they identified with) they wouldn't have had to pass HB2.
That is some Grade A finger pointing right there.
Republicans - " We only had to pass the law because they passed their law first! It's not our fault they passed that law!"
Kanluwen wrote: So we just saw the first major consequences of this law, as PayPal dropped their plans for a Charlotte based operations center that would have provided 400 job opportunities.
McCrory and the Republicans are blaming the Democrat mayor of Charlotte for the dropped plans, claiming that if she hadn't passed the law she did(which allowed for transgenders to use the facilities they identified with) they wouldn't have had to pass HB2.
This is my favorite part of the Republican stance:
Charlotte Republican Rep. Dan Bishop, who helped draft the law, said PayPal’s decision was “not about HB2.”
“It is instead about a frenzy that the mayor and her allies on City Council have whipped up,” he said. “I think she might consider that she stop calling in airstrikes on her own position.”
Asked if he and fellow legislators bore any responsibility, Bishop said, “I don’t have any further comment.”
Never mind that this exists:
After the passage of HB2, PayPal chief Dan Schulman, however, emerged as one of the more than 100 CEOs to condemn the law. On Tuesday, he announced in an open letter the company’s decision to nix the Charlotte operations center.
“The new law perpetuates discrimination, and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture. As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte,” Schulman said.
Yay... victory for that Supreme Court Citizen United ruling!
Company can haz political opinions... no?
You don't like that state's politics? Don't do business there!
So... yes, money does have a "voice" and is protected free speech.
Yay for trying to make CUvFEC good again and completely missing the point!
They could have done that no matter if CUvFEC ever happened.
Kanluwen wrote: So we just saw the first major consequences of this law, as PayPal dropped their plans for a Charlotte based operations center that would have provided 400 job opportunities.
McCrory and the Republicans are blaming the Democrat mayor of Charlotte for the dropped plans, claiming that if she hadn't passed the law she did(which allowed for transgenders to use the facilities they identified with) they wouldn't have had to pass HB2.
This is my favorite part of the Republican stance:
Charlotte Republican Rep. Dan Bishop, who helped draft the law, said PayPal’s decision was “not about HB2.”
“It is instead about a frenzy that the mayor and her allies on City Council have whipped up,” he said. “I think she might consider that she stop calling in airstrikes on her own position.”
Asked if he and fellow legislators bore any responsibility, Bishop said, “I don’t have any further comment.”
Never mind that this exists:
After the passage of HB2, PayPal chief Dan Schulman, however, emerged as one of the more than 100 CEOs to condemn the law. On Tuesday, he announced in an open letter the company’s decision to nix the Charlotte operations center.
“The new law perpetuates discrimination, and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture. As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte,” Schulman said.
Yay... victory for that Supreme Court Citizen United ruling!
Company can haz political opinions... no?
You don't like that state's politics? Don't do business there!
So... yes, money does have a "voice" and is protected free speech.
Yay for trying to make CUvFEC good again and completely missing the point!
They could have done that no matter if CUvFEC ever happened.
No, no, only the ones that support my point of view.
But, seriously, it's not about companies having a point of veiw (I'm perfectly alright with that, and this is how companies should exert/impose that POV, though market forces), it's about political donations. Basically threats are OK, but bribes are not.
So now The Boss has come out against HB2, as well.
A Statement from Bruce Springsteen on North Carolina BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN·FRIDAY, 8 APRIL 2016
As you, my fans, know I’m scheduled to play in Greensboro, North Carolina this Sunday. As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the “bathroom” law. HB2 — known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act — dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use. Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress. Right now, there are many groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments. Taking all of this into account, I feel that this is a time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters. As a result, and with deepest apologies to our dedicated fans in Greensboro, we have canceled our show scheduled for Sunday, April 10th. Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards. Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s Sunday April 10th show is canceled. Tickets will be refunded at point of purchase.
Since the whole basis of the 'bathroom regulation' seems to be 'to protect women from rapists', I'll just point this out.
Back in 1992, a girl was raped in the women's bathroom in a small coffee shop in St. Louis. The rapist was not trans, not a crossdresser, not even in women's clothes. He just waited for a moment when no one was watching and walked on in.
A basic websearch will turn up THOUSANDS of cases like that, where a rapist just walked on into the ladies' room and attacked a woman... in men's clothes.
Darn few come up where the rapist was in WOMEN'S clothes, but there are a few.
Now. We introduce a law saying people must use the restroom corresponding to their birth gender. Great. You're forcing surgically altered trans-men (that is, X-X but with a penis) to use the women's room.
But since no one is standing by to do genetic testing, a rapist can CLAIM to be trans and walk on in anyway.
In the meantime, a father is now banned from taking his infant daughter into EITHER restroom to change a diaper; ONE of them will be in violation of the law. Same thing with a mother and her infant son...
It's a poorly thought out law that solves nothing and creates a lot of needless controversy.
Want a law that makes women safer in the restroom? Mandate individual unisex restrooms - sink and toilet, four solid walls - WITH A LOCK ON THE DOOR so no one can get in, PERIOD.
Solves the whole issue; it doesn't matter who CAN use it if only one person can be in the restroom at a time.
In an amusing replication of gun owner arguments, I find that this new law mainly punishes well-behaving people, while doing little to stop the actual criminals who, as you say, walk in whether they are permitted to or not.
Also, who names a porn site with the word 'hamster'?
Indiana's paleolithic Abortion Bill, that was tabled then signed behind closed doors at the last minute like any good bit of legislature, is also being challenged and sued by others with the ACLU now going after it as unconstitutional. What a time to be alive!
On the flip side, this is what happens when you use judges to make new law, instead of the democratic process (which was working fine and changing in dramatically quick fashion). Judge interprets the law. Others change the law. Lawsuits.
Tomorrow the Tennessee House Finance Committee is scheduled to hear a bill that bans public schools and universities from allowing trans students to use restrooms that align with their gender identity. As it turns out, one of the bill’s GOP co-sponsors is an ACTUAL real life danger to women according to his own party. CBS News reports:
A Tennessee lawmaker is effectively being quarantined from lawmakers, lobbyists and interns after the state’s attorney general determined that he could pose a risk to “unsuspecting women” at the state Capitol complex.
House Speaker Beth Harwell announced Thursday that she is moving Rep. Jeremy Durham’s office to the ground floor of a building across the street and that his access to committee rooms and the House chamber will be limited to when meetings are taking place. The move comes amid a state attorney general’s investigation into the Franklin Republican’s “pattern of conduct” toward women.
Interviews with 34 current and former lawmakers, lobbyists, staffers and interns included allegations that Durham made sexual comments and inappropriate physical contact with women working at Legislative Plaza, according to Attorney General Herbert Slatery’s memorandum to Harwell.
Slatery recommended that the House take action to avoid a hostile work environment at the Capitol complex. “Representative Durham’s alleged behavior may pose a continuing risk to unsuspecting women who are employed by or interact with the Legislature,” Slatery said in the memo.
Several GOP leaders have called for Durham to step down, including Gov. Bill Haslam, Harwell, Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey and state Republican Party Chairman Ryan Haynes.
Durham’s colleagues also questioned previous behavior that included writing a letter on House stationery on behalf of a former pastor who pleaded guilty to child porn possession and statutory rape of a 16-year-old parishioner.
Prosecutors in 2014 sought fraud charges against Durham on allegations of altering medical prescriptions, but a grand jury declined to indict the lawmaker.
Perhaps its Republican politicans who need their own contained spaces.
Or after 8 years or so, when the election comes round you could discover that a nice man came and volunteered to take care of them. they're going to be living on a farm upstate where they can ......
Vulcan wrote: Great. You're forcing surgically altered trans-men (that is, X-X but with a penis) to use the women's room.
How many of these surgically altered trans-men are there? In a city of a few million, maybe a handful?
We should no longer call bathrooms "Men's" and "Women's". We should call them by their gender anatomy. "P" and "V". Problem solved. Whichever one of those two you currently have, that's where you go to do #1 and #2.
Vulcan wrote: Great. You're forcing surgically altered trans-men (that is, X-X but with a penis) to use the women's room.
How many of these surgically altered trans-men are there? In a city of a few million, maybe a handful?
We should no longer call bathrooms "Men's" and "Women's". We should call them by their gender anatomy. "P" and "V". Problem solved. Whichever one of those two you currently have, that's where you go to do #1 and #2.
What about single fathers with a daughter or single mothers with a son? Do you make exceptions for children? If so, how does that translate to a school? What about people born with both? Do they get to pick and choose or do they just deal with it?
No, making something "P" and "V" is not the solution.
Is it me, or is this #237 of real problems in the world that desperately need addressing, right behind obtaining an accurate count of sand grains on Venice Beach?
Frazzled wrote: Is it me, or is this #237 of real problems in the world that desperately need addressing, right behind obtaining an accurate count of sand grains on Venice Beach?
It's pretty high on the list of priorities for trans persons living in NC, I suspect.
Frazzled wrote: Is it me, or is this #237 of real problems in the world that desperately need addressing, right behind obtaining an accurate count of sand grains on Venice Beach?
There are many real problems in the world that need solving. But can we not focus on multiple problems at once?
What about single fathers with a daughter or single mothers with a son? Do you make exceptions for children? If so, how does that translate to a school? What about people born with both? Do they get to pick and choose or do they just deal with it?
No, making something "P" and "V" is not the solution.
If you have to split hairs about an adult taking a young child to the bathroom or the extraordinarily small population of hermaphrodites, I think there is a much larger issue at hand. Many time Laws have circumstances for which they can be bent and I don't think we can have much of a dispute that either of those things are the extreme exception and not what these new Bathroom laws are about.
You can come up with extreme examples all you like (the plight of the hermaphrodite population for example), but the fact of the matter is that those situations you describe do not apply here. They aren't part of the argument. If they were such a problem, why were they not addressed by other Laws in the past?
Frazzled wrote: Is it me, or is this #237 of real problems in the world that desperately need addressing, right behind obtaining an accurate count of sand grains on Venice Beach?
There are many real problems in the world that need solving. But can we not focus on multiple problems at once?
Well studies have proven that multitaskers multitask...poorly.
It's pretty high on the list of priorities for trans persons living in NC, I suspect.
I'd argue the opposite. It wasn't broke before. The new law was pushed for....reasons.
Vulcan wrote: Since the whole basis of the 'bathroom regulation' seems to be 'to protect women from rapists', I'll just point this out.
Back in 1992, a girl was raped in the women's bathroom in a small coffee shop in St. Louis. The rapist was not trans, not a crossdresser, not even in women's clothes. He just waited for a moment when no one was watching and walked on in.
A basic websearch will turn up THOUSANDS of cases like that, where a rapist just walked on into the ladies' room and attacked a woman... in men's clothes.
Darn few come up where the rapist was in WOMEN'S clothes, but there are a few.
Now. We introduce a law saying people must use the restroom corresponding to their birth gender. Great. You're forcing surgically altered trans-men (that is, X-X but with a penis) to use the women's room.
But since no one is standing by to do genetic testing, a rapist can CLAIM to be trans and walk on in anyway.
In the meantime, a father is now banned from taking his infant daughter into EITHER restroom to change a diaper; ONE of them will be in violation of the law. Same thing with a mother and her infant son...
It's a poorly thought out law that solves nothing and creates a lot of needless controversy.
Want a law that makes women safer in the restroom? Mandate individual unisex restrooms - sink and toilet, four solid walls - WITH A LOCK ON THE DOOR so no one can get in, PERIOD.
Solves the whole issue; it doesn't matter who CAN use it if only one person can be in the restroom at a time.
No one is being forced to do anything. It's a textbook case of an unenforceable law. Nobody is checking your equipment before letting you into a bathroom. If any person was using public restrooms without causing a disturbance with everyone else in the bathroom they can go on using the same bathrooms they already were before the law was passed.
This was a bad law to pass but it's actual enforcement is impossible.
Also, you can't build buildings in NC with only unisex bathrooms, current state building code requires gender specific bathrooms for most buildings and you'll need to comply in order to get permitted, pass inspection and get your certificate of occupancy. Communal bathrooms also save space. A mens bathroom that can serve 8 men, 4 stalls, 4 urinals, takes up much less space than 4 separate bathrooms. Also, a locking door does nothing to control how many people enter the bathroom at a time.
A better version of HB2 would have been a simple bathroom safety act that reaffirms the criminalization of dangerous predatory inappropriate behavior in bathrooms. That should have been enough to assuage the concerns of people upset with the Charlotte ordinance.
A better version of HB2 would have been a simple bathroom safety act that reaffirms the criminalization of dangerous predatory inappropriate behavior in bathrooms. That should have been enough to assuage the concerns of people upset with the Charlotte ordinance.
What about single fathers with a daughter or single mothers with a son? Do you make exceptions for children? If so, how does that translate to a school? What about people born with both? Do they get to pick and choose or do they just deal with it?
No, making something "P" and "V" is not the solution.
If you have to split hairs about an adult taking a young child to the bathroom or the extraordinarily small population of hermaphrodites, I think there is a much larger issue at hand. Many time Laws have circumstances for which they can be bent and I don't think we can have much of a dispute that either of those things are the extreme exception and not what these new Bathroom laws are about.
You can come up with extreme examples all you like (the plight of the hermaphrodite population for example), but the fact of the matter is that those situations you describe do not apply here. They aren't part of the argument. If they were such a problem, why were they not addressed by other Laws in the past?
Your opinion and mine differ. No worries.
I am sorry, if hermaphrodites and transsexuals are not part of the argument about bathrooms, what is the argument then? I am confused, I was of the understanding that this law was to force people to use the bathroom that other people think they should use, not the one they feel they should use.
I am sorry, if hermaphrodites and transsexuals are not part of the argument about bathrooms, what is the argument then? I am confused, I was of the understanding that this law was to force people to use the bathroom that other people think they should use, not the one they feel they should use.
Explain to me how they do not apply here, please.
One has both genitalia, the other does not. As explained there are exceptions to every rule. The hermaphrodite is the extreme exception. The transsexuals are also the exception, but they want to be made the rule. Changing laws to suit a very few is difficult. The transsexual community is learning this.
I don't want my pre-teen daughter in a bathroom alone with someone with mature male parts or being forced to change in a locker room with a someone with male equipment. If someone happens to have both parts, that's a bit of a different story.
I don't remember this being a problem in the Hermaphrodite population. Do you?
You also did not approach my comment about a parent taking a young child of opposite sex to the the bathroom.
I am sorry, if hermaphrodites and transsexuals are not part of the argument about bathrooms, what is the argument then? I am confused, I was of the understanding that this law was to force people to use the bathroom that other people think they should use, not the one they feel they should use.
Explain to me how they do not apply here, please.
One has both genitalia, the other does not. As explained there are exceptions to every rule. The hermaphrodite is the extreme exception. The transsexuals are also the exception, but they want to be made the rule. Changing laws to suit a very few is difficult. The transsexual community is learning this.
I don't want my pre-teen daughter in a bathroom alone with someone with mature male parts or being forced to change in a locker room with a someone with male equipment. If someone happens to have both parts, that's a bit of a different story.
I don't remember this being a problem in the Hermaphrodite population. Do you?
You also did not approach my comment about a parent taking a young child of opposite sex to the the bathroom.
Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else? Now, this was not a problem for the Hermaphrodite population until this specific thing happened. It was fine before, not so much now. That is why you are having trouble remembering.
Also, I did not approach your comment about a young child of opposite sex in the bathroom because you kind of really didn't make one. All you said was "there are exceptions" and then went on about hermaphrodites.
Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else?
You lost me. I don't think any female should be forced to have someone with male equipment use the same bathroom as her in any situation. If they have both genitals, that's a whole different story. I'm not sure how you can equate the two, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.
Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else?
You lost me. I don't think any female should be forced to have someone with male equipment use the same bathroom as her in any situation. If they have both genitals, that's a whole different story. I'm not sure how you can equate the two, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.
I lost you? I cannot describe to you how confused I am about what you just said.
Wait, why is it okay for somebody to have male equipment in the same room as your daughter but not somebody else?
You lost me. I don't think any female should be forced to have someone with male equipment use the same bathroom as her in any situation. If they have both genitals, that's a whole different story. I'm not sure how you can equate the two, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.
This is a bit of a red herring. In my entire life I've never seen anyone else's junk in a public washroom. I know it's there, but it's always in a stall or in in the urinal. Is waving your parts around a thing where you live?
You brought up "what about someone born with both". That's what a hermaphrodite is. Someone born with both male and female genitalia.
You also responded to my post about name bathrooms "P" and "V"and that that wasn't the solution to the bathroom problem.
I am saying that no female should be forced to be in the bathroom with someone with male parts. This is what the transgender population wants is it not?
If you have a "P", you use the "P" bathroom. If you have a "V" you use the "V" bathroom.
This is the internet. If you disagree with this premise, no amount of explanation by me is going to get you to change your mind and vis-a-versa. We have a different opinion and that's okay.
This is a bit of a red herring. In my entire life I've never seen anyone else's junk in a public washroom. I know it's there, but it's always in a stall or in in the urinal. Is waving your parts around a thing where you live?
Dreadwinter wrote: It is becoming clear to me that you do not really understand the argument here.....
Perhaps. Explain away!
I tried a couple times already.
Your argument is that you absolutely do not want anybody with male genitalia in the same restroom/changing room as your daughter. Hermaphrodites can have both. But for some reason they are alright. I do not understand why they are alright and what makes then acceptable here.
Over here in Europe-shire we have toilet cubicles with locks on them. It allows people to excrete-discrete, saving the embarrassment of stray genitalia being on display.
How would anyone know what's down below when there's a locked door in the way? Silliness.
Dreadwinter wrote: [Hermaphrodites can have both. But for some reason they are alright. I do not understand why they are alright and what makes then acceptable here.
Which I've also explained a few times. You don't get it. I don't get it. It's cool.
Dreadwinter wrote: [Hermaphrodites can have both. But for some reason they are alright. I do not understand why they are alright and what makes then acceptable here.
Which I've also explained a few times. You don't get it. I don't get it. It's cool.
When did you explain it? The only thing you said was "If they have both, its fine with me" then never went in to detail as to why that is fine.
Vulcan wrote: Great. You're forcing surgically altered trans-men (that is, X-X but with a penis) to use the women's room.
How many of these surgically altered trans-men are there? In a city of a few million, maybe a handful?
We should no longer call bathrooms "Men's" and "Women's". We should call them by their gender anatomy. "P" and "V". Problem solved. Whichever one of those two you currently have, that's where you go to do #1 and #2.
This idea falls short, regardless of intention, when it comes to those Ps and Vs. As I said on the previous page, we are accustomed to thinking of "completed transition" and "sex change" are a set point in progression - tick boxes: hormones, top and bottom surgery. Here's the kicker - it isn't always the case. No, I'm not one of the people who can name 35 variations (in fact my tumblr is almost entirely baking photos, sci fi and dinosaurs)...
But I'm saying that we can never pretend that physical or chemical alterations will biologically alter a person. With that in mind, it's not for us, or popular view, to set when somebody reaches personal completion. It is widely variable. I can't pretend I know the statistics, but I know personally about a 50-50 split of people who aim for 'the works" or are content without. Surgery in the basement is not a requisite to be a "fully" transitioned man or woman, if that particular person is happy.*
Plus, we are yet to reach an easily and safely attainable solution for lower surgeries - for example the most common, safest and uncomplicated FtM method does not give a penis that can urinate. Urethral hookup is beyond the capabilities of many surgeons and the financial or physical reach of many patients. Yet to look at those patients, you would be absolutely clueless in a great many cases.
And there's the danger. If you put one of those patients in the V room because he can't piss in a trough, he is visible. If you put a trans lady in the P room because she can piss in a trough, she is visible. Not only is it forcibly outing someone's identity, it's putting them in danger from people who witness them. Gender neutral bathrooms (when used as a third option) similarly run this issue. Plus, to receive surgeries, a doctor requires a patient to experience six months to two years of "Real Life Experience" - living as though you have already fully transitioned at work and at home.
Think back a few decades to how commonly accepted terrible things happening to gay people was. Then think about how frightening and dangerous it would have been to have a room that visually distinguished gays. Yes, there are far more important things to worry about in life... But it's not purely a big fuss about being thought of as weird, or being near kids, or having feelings hurt by going in the 'wrong' room... It's a genuinely frightening (inadvertent) move towards putting people in danger.
Education and being less fething interested in other people's business would be the ideal answer. But the world is what it is.
*I do realise some states(?) and countries only recognise a full transition and gender record change, after certain physical alterations.
Wulfmar wrote: Over here in Europe-shire we have toilet cubicles with locks on them. It allows people to excrete-discrete, saving the embarrassment of stray genitalia being on display.
How would anyone know what's down below when there's a locked door in the way? Silliness.
I don't get it either. America needs to chill out. Are rapists waiting in bathrooms a serious issue?
But seriously, cubicles. You could be peeing out of your nose and nobody would know.
The problem with NC's law is that it was already illegal to do these pervy things. Maybe the argument should stick with the concern that the Charllote's regulation gave an overt permission for some to go into the opposite sex facilities, and that the "get out of jail" card is simply stating "I feel like I'm the" opposite sex??!?!
My head is starting to hurt over this...
However, I will add that there's an element of SJW-ish reaction to the plight of trans...
Instead of trying to brow-beat everyone over it, use it a teaching opportunity.
Otherwise, stubborn people will simply just dig in.
A better approach for trans supports... maybe... is to try to get the ADA updated to force every public places to have single-use private bathrooms for all.
Goliath wrote: So in this bill we have provisions blocking an increase to the minimum wage, provisions specifically intended to feth over LGBT* people and in particular trans people, and a block on paid sick leave requirements.
Well done NC, you're acting like a bunch of fething morons.
All the recent political and social commotion about transgender people and bathrooms is even sillier when you look at the numbers. How many trans people have been arrested for sex acts in bathrooms? As best as we can tell, zero.
How many GOP politicians? At least three.
Via Deadstate, which got it from Dan Avery at NewNowNext:
According to Media Matters, there haven’t … been any reports of men ‘pretending’ to be transgender to gain access to women’s spaces and commit crimes against them. You know who have been arrested in public bathrooms for sexual misconduct?Republican politicians.
Without even diving too deep, we found three GOP legislators who were picked up for lavatory indiscretions.
Their names: Larry Craig (pictured), Jon Hinson, and Bob Allen.
exalted.
with me. I will cut a 
