HS girls stage a walkout as trans teen uses girls bathroom (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

If someone is going to enter when no one is watching and wait for a victim, this policy does nothing about it. If someone is going to enter when people are watching, THERE ARE PEOPLE WATCHING. Which means the crime that was going to happen is extremely unlikely to happen.

 

[whiskey7]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

Which would be...what?

 

[timschochet]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

its designed to bring them to the voting booth.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

So some young girl is going to have to judge the intent of the guy(transgender..sorry) whipping out his junk? Is he trying to piss or does he have other ideas? It just seems like an excessive risk to me.

Also, sorry that no one has gone on fact finding mission to see how many women have been assaulted as a result of the new policy. I guess that means it's never happened or will never happen. Glad that's settled.

 

[Hang 10]

So what?

It concerns me that predators may try to use this policy to their advantage. Was that not clear from my initial question?

Use this policy to their advantage in what way? That's what I'm asking. What is going to happen if it passes that doesn't happen now?

Use your imagination, counselor.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

Which would be...what?

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for answer to this.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

So some young girl is going to have to judge the intent of the guy(transgender..sorry) whipping out his junk? Is he trying to piss or does he have other ideas? It just seems like an excessive risk to me.

Also, sorry that no one has gone on fact finding mission to see how many women have been assaulted as a result of the new policy. I guess that means it's never happened or will never happen. Glad that's settled.

No, not some young girl. Law enforcement, and if necessary a jury, will judge the intent of the guy or the transgender. Just as they do with virtually every other crime on the books that include intent as an element of the crime, including voyeurism and indecent exposure laws. Nothing regarding these sorts of crimes would be changed by non-discrimination laws. Nobody has a defense available to them that they did not have before.

As for the fact-finding mission- shouldn't fact-finding be the responsibility of those who are claiming it has or will happened? Claiming that people will be victimized by sex crimes without a basis for such claims is just fear-mongering, isn't it?

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

So some young girl is going to have to judge the intent of the guy(transgender..sorry) whipping out his junk? Is he trying to piss or does he have other ideas? It just seems like an excessive risk to me.

Also, sorry that no one has gone on fact finding mission to see how many women have been assaulted as a result of the new policy. I guess that means it's never happened or will never happen. Glad that's settled.

No, not some young girl. Law enforcement, and if necessary a jury, will judge the intent of the guy or the transgender. Just as they do with virtually every other crime on the books that include intent as an element of the crime, including voyeurism and indecent exposure laws. Nothing regarding these sorts of crimes would be changed by non-discrimination laws. Nobody has a defense available to them that they did not have before.

As for the fact-finding mission- shouldn't fact-finding be the responsibility of those who are claiming it has or will happened? Claiming that people will be victimized by sex crimes without a basis for such claims is just fear-mongering, isn't it?

Oh, let's let a jury decide the intent! That's just fantastic. Is that supposed to make someone feel better the moment it happens?

Most these laws are pretty new, right? Is it possible that there might not be enough data yet? Also, you don't think there's any burden on people that are trying to persuade us to change current policy?

 

[Henry Ford]

So what?

It concerns me that predators may try to use this policy to their advantage. Was that not clear from my initial question?

Use this policy to their advantage in what way? That's what I'm asking. What is going to happen if it passes that doesn't happen now?

Use your imagination, counselor.

I have. I'm coming up empty, which is why I'm asking you, because you have specific fears about this.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

So some young girl is going to have to judge the intent of the guy(transgender..sorry) whipping out his junk? Is he trying to piss or does he have other ideas? It just seems like an excessive risk to me.

Also, sorry that no one has gone on fact finding mission to see how many women have been assaulted as a result of the new policy. I guess that means it's never happened or will never happen. Glad that's settled.

No, not some young girl. Law enforcement, and if necessary a jury, will judge the intent of the guy or the transgender. Just as they do with virtually every other crime on the books that include intent as an element of the crime, including voyeurism and indecent exposure laws. Nothing regarding these sorts of crimes would be changed by non-discrimination laws. Nobody has a defense available to them that they did not have before.

As for the fact-finding mission- shouldn't fact-finding be the responsibility of those who are claiming it has or will happened? Claiming that people will be victimized by sex crimes without a basis for such claims is just fear-mongering, isn't it?

Oh, let's let a jury decide the intent! That's just fantastic. Is that supposed to make someone feel better the moment it happens? Most these laws are pretty new, right? Is it possible that there might not be enough data yet? Also, you don't think there's any burden on people that are trying to persuade us to change current policy?

Sorry, what's the alternative for crime other than letting a jury decide? Minority Report? That show sucks.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

Which would be...what?

Evidence that their gender identity is not the same as their assigned sex; that they live their life as a woman even though they have a penis or vice versa. That they didn't just decide to pretend that they were transgender for purposes of voyeurism.

Could someone hypothetically go through a lot of effort to make this a difficult thing to judge? Sure, I guess, hypothetically. But that's incredibly unlikely, considering the lengths they'd have to go through just to stare at the outside of a bathroom stall as a woman takes a dump. That's why there's no evidence that anyone's ever done it. It's a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

So some young girl is going to have to judge the intent of the guy(transgender..sorry) whipping out his junk? Is he trying to piss or does he have other ideas? It just seems like an excessive risk to me.

Also, sorry that no one has gone on fact finding mission to see how many women have been assaulted as a result of the new policy. I guess that means it's never happened or will never happen. Glad that's settled.

No, not some young girl. Law enforcement, and if necessary a jury, will judge the intent of the guy or the transgender. Just as they do with virtually every other crime on the books that include intent as an element of the crime, including voyeurism and indecent exposure laws. Nothing regarding these sorts of crimes would be changed by non-discrimination laws. Nobody has a defense available to them that they did not have before.

As for the fact-finding mission- shouldn't fact-finding be the responsibility of those who are claiming it has or will happened? Claiming that people will be victimized by sex crimes without a basis for such claims is just fear-mongering, isn't it?

Oh, let's let a jury decide the intent! That's just fantastic. Is that supposed to make someone feel better the moment it happens? Most these laws are pretty new, right? Is it possible that there might not be enough data yet? Also, you don't think there's any burden on people that are trying to persuade us to change current policy?

Sorry, what's the alternative for crime other than letting a jury decide? Minority Report? That show sucks.

Not having a policy that provides unnecessary risks?

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

So some young girl is going to have to judge the intent of the guy(transgender..sorry) whipping out his junk? Is he trying to piss or does he have other ideas? It just seems like an excessive risk to me.

Also, sorry that no one has gone on fact finding mission to see how many women have been assaulted as a result of the new policy. I guess that means it's never happened or will never happen. Glad that's settled.

No, not some young girl. Law enforcement, and if necessary a jury, will judge the intent of the guy or the transgender. Just as they do with virtually every other crime on the books that include intent as an element of the crime, including voyeurism and indecent exposure laws. Nothing regarding these sorts of crimes would be changed by non-discrimination laws. Nobody has a defense available to them that they did not have before.

As for the fact-finding mission- shouldn't fact-finding be the responsibility of those who are claiming it has or will happened? Claiming that people will be victimized by sex crimes without a basis for such claims is just fear-mongering, isn't it?

Oh, let's let a jury decide the intent! That's just fantastic. Is that supposed to make someone feel better the moment it happens? Most these laws are pretty new, right? Is it possible that there might not be enough data yet? Also, you don't think there's any burden on people that are trying to persuade us to change current policy?

Sorry, what's the alternative for crime other than letting a jury decide? Minority Report? That show sucks.

Not having a policy that provides unnecessary risks?

How does this differ from current risks?

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

Which would be...what?

Evidence that their gender identity is not the same as their assigned sex; that they live their life as a woman even though they have a penis or vice versa. That they didn't just decide to pretend that they were transgender for purposes of voyeurism.

Could someone hypothetically go through a lot of effort to make this a difficult thing to judge? Sure, I guess, hypothetically. But that's incredibly unlikely, considering the lengths they'd have to go through just to stare at the outside of a bathroom stall as a woman takes a dump. That's why there's no evidence that anyone's ever done it. It's a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

How exactly does one prove they are living their life as the opposite sex before they enter a public restroom? Bring a time stamped photo album with them?

 

[whiskey7]

So what?

It concerns me that predators may try to use this policy to their advantage. Was that not clear from my initial question?

Use this policy to their advantage in what way? That's what I'm asking. What is going to happen if it passes that doesn't happen now?

Use your imagination, counselor.

I have. I'm coming up empty, which is why I'm asking you, because you have specific fears about this.

A male who likes looking at naked young girls no longer has to do so only in pics on the innerweb. He can drive down to his local gym/community center/etc and walk into the women's locker room and see the real thing. If the authorities are called and come to take him out, he says "I am a woman. Who are you to tell me I am not. Prove I am not."

 

[Uwe Blab]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate though to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there. Right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

So some young girl is going to have to judge the intent of the guy(transgender..sorry) whipping out his junk? Is he trying to piss or does he have other ideas? It just seems like an excessive risk to me.

Also, sorry that no one has gone on fact finding mission to see how many women have been assaulted as a result of the new policy. I guess that means it's never happened or will never happen. Glad that's settled.

No, not some young girl. Law enforcement, and if necessary a jury, will judge the intent of the guy or the transgender. Just as they do with virtually every other crime on the books that include intent as an element of the crime, including voyeurism and indecent exposure laws. Nothing regarding these sorts of crimes would be changed by non-discrimination laws. Nobody has a defense available to them that they did not have before.

As for the fact-finding mission- shouldn't fact-finding be the responsibility of those who are claiming it has or will happened? Claiming that people will be victimized by sex crimes without a basis for such claims is just fear-mongering, isn't it?

Oh, let's let a jury decide the intent! That's just fantastic. Is that supposed to make someone feel better the moment it happens? Most these laws are pretty new, right? Is it possible that there might not be enough data yet? Also, you don't think there's any burden on people that are trying to persuade us to change current policy?

Sorry, what's the alternative for crime other than letting a jury decide? Minority Report? That show sucks.

Not having a policy that provides unnecessary risks?

How does this differ from current risks?

I think there's a good possibility that it would increase them.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

Which would be...what?

Evidence that their gender identity is not the same as their assigned sex; that they live their life as a woman even though they have a penis or vice versa. That they didn't just decide to pretend that they were transgender for purposes of voyeurism.

Could someone hypothetically go through a lot of effort to make this a difficult thing to judge? Sure, I guess, hypothetically. But that's incredibly unlikely, considering the lengths they'd have to go through just to stare at the outside of a bathroom stall as a woman takes a dump. That's why there's no evidence that anyone's ever done it. It's a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

How exactly does one prove they are living their life as the opposite sex before they enter a public restroom? Bring a time stamped photo album with them?

How do they prove they are biologically female before entering a public restroom? Show their junk?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

OK, I'm going to hate myself for engaging with Hang 10, particularly as his "point" has been addressed ad nauseum.

You seem to equate sexual assault with the presence of disparate genitals in a bathroom. This just does not make sense. Let's start with a point that has been made at least a dozen times in this thread. Unless your community is different than mine, you currently don't know the biological sex of the people in your public bathrooms. I don't think I've seen a set of genitalia in a public bathroom except when I've changed a baby. That's because peering at people's genitalia without consent is gross, icky, and a crime. It's all of those things whether the person doing the peering has the same genitalia as me or different genitalia than me.

As has been pointed out, the majority of transgender people are attracted to members of their birth sex. So if transgender people were advocating for using the bathrooms that offered them the best peeping opportunities they would logically want to be in the bathroom with the gender they are attracted to. Of course, transgender people, like everyone else, really want to go in the bathroom where they feel comfortable, but even assuming your ridiculous fears were warranted, you've got it completely backwards.

 

[Hang 10]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Pretty much this.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think there's a good possibility that it would increase them.

In what way, and what risks?

 

[Henry Ford]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't get your question Hang 10. Why would transgenders be more likely to be sexual predators than non transgenders?

I'm not saying transgenders are more likely to be predators. I'm saying if the only qualification to determine gender identity is to say you're a girl/guy, then some weirdos could try to take advantage and have protection under the law.

No, they wouldn't. First, it's not illegal to walk in to the wrong bathroom; people do it accidentally all the time. What makes the act criminal is your intent and your behavior once you're in there. A statute protecting transgenders will do nothing to protect someone who can offer no evidence that they're transgender. If someone enters the restroom and whips out their junk with intent to offend, it's still indecent exposure. If they're in there with intent to check out women's private parts without their consent, it's still voyeurism. If they commit a sexual assault after accessing the restroom, it's still a sexual assault. Nothing will change.

Second, there are already places that have such protections in place for transgenders and nobody can produce even a single example of someone committing one of these crimes and citing the anti-discrimination statute as their defense.

I can understand people who aren't comfortable with transgenders and don't want their children exposed to it. I disagree, but that's a position that at least makes sense. But this fear of providing cover for sexual predators doesn't make sense at all. It's total nonsense. It's a boogeyman story the religious right is selling people to scare them and win their support, nothing more.

Which would be...what?

Evidence that their gender identity is not the same as their assigned sex; that they live their life as a woman even though they have a penis or vice versa. That they didn't just decide to pretend that they were transgender for purposes of voyeurism.

Could someone hypothetically go through a lot of effort to make this a difficult thing to judge? Sure, I guess, hypothetically. But that's incredibly unlikely, considering the lengths they'd have to go through just to stare at the outside of a bathroom stall as a woman takes a dump. That's why there's no evidence that anyone's ever done it. It's a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid idea.

How exactly does one prove they are living their life as the opposite sex before they enter a public restroom? Bring a time stamped photo album with them?

How do they prove they are biologically female before entering a public restroom? Show their junk?

I guess they can't really. But maybe with new policy guys don't even have to go through an elaborate charade of trying to look like a woman to gain access.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess they can't really. But maybe with new policy guys don't even have to go through an elaborate charade of trying to look like a woman to gain access.

Why not?

 

[TobiasFunke]

So what?

It concerns me that predators may try to use this policy to their advantage. Was that not clear from my initial question?

Use this policy to their advantage in what way? That's what I'm asking. What is going to happen if it passes that doesn't happen now?

Use your imagination, counselor.

I have. I'm coming up empty, which is why I'm asking you, because you have specific fears about this.

A male who likes looking at naked young girls no longer has to do so only in pics on the innerweb. He can drive down to his local gym/community center/etc and walk into the women's locker room and see the real thing. If the authorities are called and come to take him out, he says "I am a woman. Who are you to tell me I am not. Prove I am not."

OK, I'll bite. Let's use your state's statute and pretend you have an anti-discrimination statute in place for transgenders. There's two ways this goes down:

One, the local gym bars the man and he sues under the anti-discrimination statute. In this case he'd likely have to present evidence that he has been living life as a transgender, which means he's going to have to tell his friends and family he's transgender, start dressing as a woman, etc. Do you think some would go through that just to be able to check out some boobs?

Two, the local gym lets him in but women call the police and have him arrested under the linked statute. If he wishes to use the defense of transgenderism, he's going to have to claim that he's not doing his surreptitiously gazing but that he's actually there in a legitimate capacity as a transgender. Once again he's going to have to present evidence that he's living life as a transgender to validate his defense, and he's also going to have to join the gym. And since there's obviously a chance that someone under 18 will be in a local gym, he's risking a felony conviction to do this. Do you think someone would do that just to check out boobs?

 

[Hang 10]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

 

[whiskey7]

OK, I'm going to hate myself for engaging with Hang 10, particularly as his "point" has been addressed ad nauseum.

You seem to equate sexual assault with the presence of disparate genitals in a bathroom. This just does not make sense. Let's start with a point that has been made at least a dozen times in this thread. Unless your community is different than mine, you currently don't know the biological sex of the people in your public bathrooms. I don't think I've seen a set of genitalia in a public bathroom except when I've changed a baby. That's because peering at people's genitalia without consent is gross, icky, and a crime. It's all of those things whether the person doing the peering has the same genitalia as me or different genitalia than me.

As has been pointed out, the majority of transgender people are attracted to members of their birth sex. So if transgender people were advocating for using the bathrooms that offered them the best peeping opportunities they would logically want to be in the bathroom with the gender they are attracted to. Of course, transgender people, like everyone else, really want to go in the bathroom where they feel comfortable, but even assuming your ridiculous fears were warranted, you've got it completely backwards.

The part of his point you (and Hank Ford) seem to be missing is its not necessarily a fear of what the legitimate tg folks are going to do. Its a worry that (in an attempt to cater to the tg) we'd be opening the door for individuals with bad intentions and they could potentially be protected by law.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Let's use the old policy. You see a bearded guy entering the ladies room. You move to stop him.

"What are you doing you pervert," you say.

"I'm terribly, sorry," he says. "I am a transgender male. I would prefer to use the men's room, consistent with my gender identity, but I am legally obligated to use the ladies room."

The dude then strolls casually into the ladies room. Do you feel better? More secure? You get that nobody has the right to make him prove that he has female genitalia, right? So what "protection" have you achieved?

 

[whiskey7]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

This is what I wanted Henry to speak on yesterday. Are we in the business of defining how a woman lives? What does that mean? What she wears? What she does for a living? Whom she has sex with? How do we define what constitutes a woman? Seems stereotypical and dangerous to me.

 

[Hang 10]

I guess they can't really. But maybe with new policy guys don't even have to go through an elaborate charade of trying to look like a woman to gain access.

Why not?

Because most of us don't have a ####ing clue what it takes to be considered transgender?

 

[Henry Ford]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

Is there a legal definition written into the ordinance as to what "marital status" is? Or sexual orientation? No, because those words also have meanings.

Transgender means a persistent (last I heard 2-year) desire to live as the non-birth-assigned gender or persistent feeling that someone is the non-birth assigned gender. Houston actually used the term "gender identity" in its ordinance.

It's like the legal standard for a sincerely held religious belief. No, we don't want to deny the rights of newly-converted religious people. But you're going to have to convince people of a sincerely held religious belief in order to get out of some stuff if you get caught smoking weed as part of your religious ceremony. Or not paying taxes on the money you get for your bookie operation for the Church of Betting.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess they can't really. But maybe with new policy guys don't even have to go through an elaborate charade of trying to look like a woman to gain access.

Why not?

Because most of us don't have a ####ing clue what it takes to be considered transgender?

So?

 

[TobiasFunke]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

 

[Henry Ford]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

This is what I wanted Henry to speak on yesterday. Are we in the business of defining how a woman lives? What does that mean? What she wears? What she does for a living? Whom she has sex with? How do we define what constitutes a woman? Seems stereotypical and dangerous to me.

Well, from a capitalist standpoint, yeah. We kind of are. Which is a whole 'nother topic.

As to what gender expression means, it means how she expresses herself to the outside world in terms of gender. Yes, that has to do with clothing and attitudes and all kinds of stuff. Gender roles involve a huge number of things - including which bathroom we choose to use. Which is what this is about. But most importantly, yes, it deals with self identification. Like it always has.

 

[Hang 10]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

Is there a legal definition written into the ordinance as to what "marital status" is? Or sexual orientation? No, because those words also have meanings.

Transgender means a persistent (last I heard 2-year) desire to live as the non-birth-assigned gender or persistent feeling that someone is the non-birth assigned gender. Houston actually used the term "gender identity" in its ordinance.

It's like the legal standard for a sincerely held religious belief. No, we don't want to deny the rights of newly-converted religious people. But you're going to have to convince people of a sincerely held religious belief in order to get out of some stuff if you get caught smoking weed as part of your religious ceremony. Or not paying taxes on the money you get for your bookie operation for the Church of Betting.

You serious? Yes, let's compare the definition to terms that are completely common knowledge. The definition of transgender is definitely not something everyone is familiar with.

And oh, the last you heard it was two year? You seem to be the board expert and you're not 100% sure? But we also shouldn't discount new converts? Yeah, this definition is quite clear!

 

[Hang 10]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

I was actually saying that by the time a jury "decides intent", it may be a little too late but you already knew that.

 

[timschochet]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

I really don't think this makes any difference. I believe the people who feel the way Hang 10 does would be opposed no matter what logic you throw at them, because the root of the opposition to this issue is emotional, not rational. They begin opposed and look for reasons to justify it afterwards.

 

[Henry Ford]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

Is there a legal definition written into the ordinance as to what "marital status" is? Or sexual orientation? No, because those words also have meanings.

Transgender means a persistent (last I heard 2-year) desire to live as the non-birth-assigned gender or persistent feeling that someone is the non-birth assigned gender. Houston actually used the term "gender identity" in its ordinance.

It's like the legal standard for a sincerely held religious belief. No, we don't want to deny the rights of newly-converted religious people. But you're going to have to convince people of a sincerely held religious belief in order to get out of some stuff if you get caught smoking weed as part of your religious ceremony. Or not paying taxes on the money you get for your bookie operation for the Church of Betting.

You serious? Yes, let's compare the definition to terms that are completely common knowledge. The definition of transgender is definitely not something everyone is familiar with.

And oh, the last you heard it was two year? You seem to be the board expert and you're not 100% sure? But we also shouldn't discount new converts? Yeah, this definition is quite clear!

To be fair, the last I heard was a week ago, and I've posted it about ten times in this thread. It was a touch tongue in cheek.

 

[Henry Ford]

If it helps, here's a guide to treatment coverage for Gender Identity Disorder that was published just over a month ago.

The medical community has been shifting its terminology in recent years and the new ICD codes came out within the last few months. That's why terminology is weird.

 

[Hang 10]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

Is there a legal definition written into the ordinance as to what "marital status" is? Or sexual orientation? No, because those words also have meanings.

Transgender means a persistent (last I heard 2-year) desire to live as the non-birth-assigned gender or persistent feeling that someone is the non-birth assigned gender. Houston actually used the term "gender identity" in its ordinance.

It's like the legal standard for a sincerely held religious belief. No, we don't want to deny the rights of newly-converted religious people. But you're going to have to convince people of a sincerely held religious belief in order to get out of some stuff if you get caught smoking weed as part of your religious ceremony. Or not paying taxes on the money you get for your bookie operation for the Church of Betting.

You serious? Yes, let's compare the definition to terms that are completely common knowledge. The definition of transgender is definitely not something everyone is familiar with.

And oh, the last you heard it was two year? You seem to be the board expert and you're not 100% sure? But we also shouldn't discount new converts? Yeah, this definition is quite clear!

To be fair, the last I heard was a week ago, and I've posted it about ten times in this thread. It was a touch tongue in cheek.

It doesn't really matter what you've heard or stated if there's no legal standard. How can make public policy based on something that appears to be a moving target?

 

[Hang 10]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

I really don't think this makes any difference. I believe the people who feel the way Hang 10 does would be opposed no matter what logic you throw at them, because the root of the opposition to this issue is emotional, not rational. They begin opposed and look for reasons to justify it afterwards.

Not really. People are trying to change current policy and I think they have a duty to persuade us that it's for the common good. To me it seems like they are willing to disregard or step on the vast majorities rights to get there way.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

I was actually saying that by the time a jury "decides intent", it may be a little too late but you already knew that.

By the time a jury decides intent if someone who kills a person lies and claims they were hallucinating and thought the person was trying to kill them it's already a little too late. So what? Should we get rid of the element of intent, or get rid of affirmative defenses? I'm really not sure what you're saying at all.

 

[Henry Ford]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

Is there a legal definition written into the ordinance as to what "marital status" is? Or sexual orientation? No, because those words also have meanings.

Transgender means a persistent (last I heard 2-year) desire to live as the non-birth-assigned gender or persistent feeling that someone is the non-birth assigned gender. Houston actually used the term "gender identity" in its ordinance.

It's like the legal standard for a sincerely held religious belief. No, we don't want to deny the rights of newly-converted religious people. But you're going to have to convince people of a sincerely held religious belief in order to get out of some stuff if you get caught smoking weed as part of your religious ceremony. Or not paying taxes on the money you get for your bookie operation for the Church of Betting.

You serious? Yes, let's compare the definition to terms that are completely common knowledge. The definition of transgender is definitely not something everyone is familiar with.

And oh, the last you heard it was two year? You seem to be the board expert and you're not 100% sure? But we also shouldn't discount new converts? Yeah, this definition is quite clear!

To be fair, the last I heard was a week ago, and I've posted it about ten times in this thread. It was a touch tongue in cheek.

It doesn't really matter what you've heard or stated if there's no legal standard. How can make public policy based on something that appears to be a moving target?

Who says there's no legal standard? And everything is a moving target. You know that. Many laws are based on community standards or standard practices. Those change very quickly. We use those laws.

 

[Henry Ford]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

I really don't think this makes any difference. I believe the people who feel the way Hang 10 does would be opposed no matter what logic you throw at them, because the root of the opposition to this issue is emotional, not rational. They begin opposed and look for reasons to justify it afterwards.

Not really. People are trying to change current policy and I think they have a duty to persuade us that it's for the common good. To me it seems like they are willing to disregard or step on the vast majorities rights to get there way.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what rights we are talking about that are being disregarded. Actual rights.

 

[thayman]

I still want to hear how those in favor of gender identity as the arbiter propose to deal with gender-neutral/questioning non-binary identifications.

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day or does the school have to build bathrooms with a big ? on the door?

Sorry, I appear to have been missing this. You're positing a person who has determined the gender he or she is in a daily basis? And you have some belief that that's how gender identity works?

I know a person who does this, and yes that is how his/her gender identity works.Also there's the list of 40-some classifications, most of which don't fit with four different classifications. It's not binary, and it can be a matter of choice. At least that's my understanding.

Oh, gotcha. Does he or she change what pronouns he or she uses on a daily basis, too? How does he or she handle restroom use?

Not sure. I only interact with him/her in a bar setting and occasionally at large parties. I just call him/her Van and the bar he/she works at already has single-use, unisex bathrooms.

I am not close enough to Van to really feel comfortable digging into how he/she handles his/her gender identity. I have just seen times where he is obviously taking hormone therapy and wearing makeup and feminine clothing, and other times where he is not doing any of those things. And it does vary.

A person who is transitioning their sex is not the same as someone who dresses up in drag.

 

[Hang 10]

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

The commercial is hilariously ridiculous. It needs slasher movie music. Political rhetoric always fascinates me and how low it will go to move the masses.

I'll play devil's advocate thought to throw something in the discussion. Their (ALARMING!!) argument is you're taking one more layer of "protection" away. Say at the mall, you see a guy walking into the ladies room or a woman walks into the ladies room and a guy is is in there, right now you/she alerts security. You wouldn't do that in a post bill world because "he could just identify as a woman and so its none of my business". Mr. Friendly Predator hangs out in there until said innocent girl skips her way into the mall restroom and she's alone. Annnnnd scene fades to black.

Sure you would. If someone is clearly not expressing himself as a woman in public, he isn't living as a woman. Which makes him not transgender, without some evidence to the contrary. Which makes it just as illegal to be in the restroom.

Just saying "I'm a woman today" isn't enough to create transgender status. That's what the whole discussion I had with Clifford yesterday was about.

Is there a legal definition written into these policies that actually identifies what a transgender is and says, "living life as a man/woman"? And what is the legal standard of "living life"? How long does that mean? You want to deny the rights of the brand new trans folk?

Is there a legal definition written into the ordinance as to what "marital status" is? Or sexual orientation? No, because those words also have meanings.

Transgender means a persistent (last I heard 2-year) desire to live as the non-birth-assigned gender or persistent feeling that someone is the non-birth assigned gender. Houston actually used the term "gender identity" in its ordinance.

It's like the legal standard for a sincerely held religious belief. No, we don't want to deny the rights of newly-converted religious people. But you're going to have to convince people of a sincerely held religious belief in order to get out of some stuff if you get caught smoking weed as part of your religious ceremony. Or not paying taxes on the money you get for your bookie operation for the Church of Betting.

You serious? Yes, let's compare the definition to terms that are completely common knowledge. The definition of transgender is definitely not something everyone is familiar with.

And oh, the last you heard it was two year? You seem to be the board expert and you're not 100% sure? But we also shouldn't discount new converts? Yeah, this definition is quite clear!

To be fair, the last I heard was a week ago, and I've posted it about ten times in this thread. It was a touch tongue in cheek.

It doesn't really matter what you've heard or stated if there's no legal standard. How can make public policy based on something that appears to be a moving target?

Who says there's no legal standard? And everything is a moving target. You know that. Many laws are based on community standards or standard practices. Those change very quickly. We use those laws.

Didn't I just ask like 5 minutes ago if there was a legal standard about what a trans was and how it applied to this policy? Your response indicated there wasn't.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Let's use the old policy. You see a bearded guy entering the ladies room. You move to stop him.

"What are you doing you pervert," you say.

"I'm terribly, sorry," he says. "I am a transgender male. I would prefer to use the men's room, consistent with my gender identity, but I am legally obligated to use the ladies room."

The dude then strolls casually into the ladies room. Do you feel better? More secure? You get that nobody has the right to make him prove that he has female genitalia, right? So what "protection" have you achieved?

This is kinda a good point.

 

[Henry Ford]

Didn't I just ask like 5 minutes ago if there was a legal standard about what a trans was and how it applied to this policy? Your response indicated there wasn't.

No, you asked if there was a written definition written into these policies.

 

[T J]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

I really don't think this makes any difference. I believe the people who feel the way Hang 10 does would be opposed no matter what logic you throw at them, because the root of the opposition to this issue is emotional, not rational. They begin opposed and look for reasons to justify it afterwards.

Not really. People are trying to change current policy and I think they have a duty to persuade us that it's for the common good. To me it seems like they are willing to disregard or step on the vast majorities rights to get there way.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what rights we are talking about that are being disregarded. Actual rights.

Privacy. You were an idiot then and you still are.

 

[Henry Ford]

My one takeaway from this thread is that a lot of people have no idea how much subjectivity there is in virtually every criminal statute and criminal prosecution. I think it may have peaked when Hang 10 was outraged at the farcical notion of letting juries gauge intent.

I really don't think this makes any difference. I believe the people who feel the way Hang 10 does would be opposed no matter what logic you throw at them, because the root of the opposition to this issue is emotional, not rational. They begin opposed and look for reasons to justify it afterwards.

Not really. People are trying to change current policy and I think they have a duty to persuade us that it's for the common good. To me it seems like they are willing to disregard or step on the vast majorities rights to get there way.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what rights we are talking about that are being disregarded. Actual rights.

Privacy. You were an idiot then and you still are.

It's a bathroom or locker room. Privacy from what?