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

[Hang 10]

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.

Yeah and then you compared it to stuff that's common knowledge.

 

[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.

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

 

[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.

Yeah and then you compared it to stuff that's common knowledge.

Okay. What would you say gender identity is comparable to as far as general knowledge, so I know how to discuss this with you?

 

[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.

Henry doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

Sure I do. I'm just saying they should stay that way. You're the one on the side of changing that.

 

[Hang 10]

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.

Yeah and then you compared it to stuff that's common knowledge.

Okay. What would you say gender identity is comparable to as far as general knowledge, so I know how to discuss this with you?

Sure I do. I'm just saying they should stay that way. You're the one on the side of changing that.

Hey look semantics! Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[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 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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

Yeah, I was thinking about something almost exactly along these lines this morning while I was on the treadmill. Basically, I disagree with Henry than the TG's student's comfort should automatically trump other students' privacy concerns. Whether the law is on my side is immaterial to me. What I'd like to see is a solution that makes all parties as comfortable as possible, within reason (e.g. no individual bathrooms for everybody). But if that's my standard, it seems to me that RHE is right that forcing people into the facilities of their biological sex actually increases the overall level of weirdness and discomfort, whereas going with gender identity is actually more privacy-friendly.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So the simple solution is just have co-ed change rooms everywhere, right? No downside in that

 

[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.

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

And these preferences came from thin air, I suppose? I'm sure it had nothing to do with privacy.

 

[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.

Henry doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

They were segregated in the 1800s because women were allowed out of the house and as part of the public, and men decided that their property should be protected from other men. At the same time gender-specific facilities for other purposes were put into public life. Train cars, entrances to buildings, etc. were also segregated for the same reason.

The first U.S. law requiring women's bathrooms didn't happen until after the Civil War.

 

[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 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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

And these preferences came from thin air, I suppose? I'm sure it had nothing to do with privacy.

They come from a desire to cater to people's comfort and peace of mind, not their right to privacy. Again, there's no right to privacy in a public facility. If there were then we'd have to mandate individual showers and changing areas, do away with urinals in favor of stalls, legislate the types of stall doors and other privacy protections afforded, etc.

And as myself and others have explained over and over and over and nobody has yet to dispute, people will be far more comfortable if transgenders use the facilities of the gender with which they identify than if they use the facility that matches their biological sex. Do you disagree?

 

[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.

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

They were segregated in the 1800s because women were allowed out of the house and as part of the public, and men decided that their property should be protected from other men. At the same time gender-specific facilities for other purposes were put into public life. Train cars, entrances to buildings, etc. were also segregated for the same reason.

The first U.S. law requiring women's bathrooms didn't happen until after the Civil War.

So you might say that they were segregated right around the time indoor plumbing was invented? I'm sure that's a coincidence.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

This won't be an issue when the people who make and amend the laws realize that this is a f-up by- product of poorly thought out law.

 

[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.

Henry doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

They were segregated in the 1800s because women were allowed out of the house and as part of the public, and men decided that their property should be protected from other men. At the same time gender-specific facilities for other purposes were put into public life. Train cars, entrances to buildings, etc. were also segregated for the same reason.

The first U.S. law requiring women's bathrooms didn't happen until after the Civil War.

So you might say that they were segregated right around the time indoor plumbing was invented? I'm sure that's a coincidence.

1596?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

Are you saying we can't even exclude the Germans or the Irish? That can't be right. What about attorneys, can we at least insist that they have to #### and change clothes in separate facilities, facilities well away from children and decent folk?

 

[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.

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

And these preferences came from thin air, I suppose? I'm sure it had nothing to do with privacy.

They come from a desire to cater to people's comfort and peace of mind, not their right to privacy. Again, there's no right to privacy in a public facility. If there were then we'd have to mandate individual showers and changing areas, do away with urinals in favor of stalls, legislate the types of stall doors and other privacy protections afforded, etc.

And as myself and others have explained over and over and over and nobody has yet to dispute, people will be far more comfortable if transgenders use the facilities of the gender with which they identify than if they use the facility that matches their biological sex. Do you disagree?

I'm sure the comfort and peace of mind has nothing to do with perceived privacy? You aren't seeing a theme here?

I think public policy should hang it's hat on something less ambiguous than the definition of what trans is these days. If you have a V, you go to the girls room and if you have a D you use the boys room.

 

[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.

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

They were segregated in the 1800s because women were allowed out of the house and as part of the public, and men decided that their property should be protected from other men. At the same time gender-specific facilities for other purposes were put into public life. Train cars, entrances to buildings, etc. were also segregated for the same reason.

The first U.S. law requiring women's bathrooms didn't happen until after the Civil War.

So you might say that they were segregated right around the time indoor plumbing was invented? I'm sure that's a coincidence.

1596?

Sorry, when it was introduced to the public. Also, we're talking about America, right?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

And these preferences came from thin air, I suppose? I'm sure it had nothing to do with privacy.

They come from a desire to cater to people's comfort and peace of mind, not their right to privacy. Again, there's no right to privacy in a public facility. If there were then we'd have to mandate individual showers and changing areas, do away with urinals in favor of stalls, legislate the types of stall doors and other privacy protections afforded, etc.

And as myself and others have explained over and over and over and nobody has yet to dispute, people will be far more comfortable if transgenders use the facilities of the gender with which they identify than if they use the facility that matches their biological sex. Do you disagree?

I'm sure the comfort and peace of mind has nothing to do with perceived privacy? You aren't seeing a theme here?

I think public policy should hang it's hat on something less ambiguous than the definition of what trans is these days. If you have a V, you go to the girls room and if you have a D you use the boys room.

What if I have VD?

 

[Henry Ford]

Incidentally, indoor flush toilets have been around a lot longer than U.S. flush toilets. Like, 3500 years longer.

 

[Henry Ford]

What if I have VD?

Interestingly, the articulated reason used to keep toilets separate based on race.

 

[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 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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

And these preferences came from thin air, I suppose? I'm sure it had nothing to do with privacy.

They come from a desire to cater to people's comfort and peace of mind, not their right to privacy. Again, there's no right to privacy in a public facility. If there were then we'd have to mandate individual showers and changing areas, do away with urinals in favor of stalls, legislate the types of stall doors and other privacy protections afforded, etc.

And as myself and others have explained over and over and over and nobody has yet to dispute, people will be far more comfortable if transgenders use the facilities of the gender with which they identify than if they use the facility that matches their biological sex. Do you disagree?

I'm sure the comfort and peace of mind has nothing to do with perceived privacy? You aren't seeing a theme here?

I think public policy should hang it's hat on something less ambiguous than the definition of what trans is these days. If you have a V, you go to the girls room and if you have a D you use the boys room.

I am. I'm just wondering why you think people are more comfortable and will perceive less violation of their privacy if these people use the ladies room instead of the men's room.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What if I have VD?

Interestingly, the articulated reason used to keep toilets separate based on race.

You know as much about toilets as my good friends at Kohler.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry, when it was introduced to the public. Also, we're talking about America, right?

Oh. Yeah, the modern flush toilet in mass production and use was mostly after that law was passed. Bathrooms in factories would mostly have been non-indoor-plumbing-flush toilets, I'd imagine.

 

[bigbottom]

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?

Here's the definition in the Houston ordinance that was the subject of the linked video.

"Gender identity means an individual's innate identification, appearance,

expression or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not

correspond to the individual's body or gender as assigned at birth."

 

[CBusAlex]

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?

I thought we were making Em do that.

 

[Hang 10]

Here's the definition in the Houston ordinance that was the subject of the linked video.

"Gender identity means an individual's innate identification, appearance,

expression or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not

correspond to the individual's body or gender as assigned at birth."

"or behavior as either male or female"?

Why is that line in there? Are they purposely trying to make the definition as vague as possible?

 

[Thorn]

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 doesn't know why bathrooms were segregated by gender in the first place.

They were segregated by gender due to preferences, not rights. There's no right to a bathroom that is free of a particular kind of person, be they transgender, homosexual, leprous, saggy, gassy, bigoted, or anything else. None.

Are you saying we can't even exclude the Germans or the Irish? That can't be right. What about attorneys, can we at least insist that they have to #### and change clothes in separate facilities, facilities well away from children and decent folk?

or at least be segregated into their own thread?

 

[Henry Ford]

Hey, look what failing to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't prevent:

Link

HOUSTON (KTRK) --
Southside Place Police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl while inside a CVS store.

[...]

Kelly tells Eyewitness News the man coaxed the girl then into the women's restroom where they had sex. "She was not necessarily all that unwilling, but at the age of 12 it doesn't matter," said Kelly.

 

[Hang 10]

Hey, look what failing to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't prevent:

Link

HOUSTON (KTRK) --
Southside Place Police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl while inside a CVS store.

[...]

Kelly tells Eyewitness News the man coaxed the girl then into the women's restroom where they had sex. "She was not necessarily all that unwilling, but at the age of 12 it doesn't matter," said Kelly.

Was the man made of straw though?

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

Colorado:

2008

Connecticut:

2011

Hawaii:

2006

Iowa:

2007

Maine:

2005

Cambridge, Mass:

1997

Minnesota:

1993

Nevada:

2011

New Mexico:

2003

Oregon:

2007

Rhode Island:

2001

Vermont:

2007

Experts in 12 states -- including law enforcement officials, government employees, and advocates for victims of sexual assault -- have debunked the right-wing myth that sexual predators will exploit transgender non-discrimination laws to sneak into women's restrooms, calling the myth baseless and "beyond specious."

Source.

 

[Henry Ford]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

 

[DoubleG]

Hey, look what failing to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't prevent:

Link

HOUSTON (KTRK) --
Southside Place Police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl while inside a CVS store.

[...]

Kelly tells Eyewitness News the man coaxed the girl then into the women's restroom where they had sex. "She was not necessarily all that unwilling, but at the age of 12 it doesn't matter," said Kelly.

You're smarter than this.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hey, look what failing to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't prevent:

Link

HOUSTON (KTRK) --

Southside Place Police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl while inside a CVS store.

[...]

Kelly tells Eyewitness News the man coaxed the girl then into the women's restroom where they had sex. "She was not necessarily all that unwilling, but at the age of 12 it doesn't matter," said Kelly.

You're smarter than this.

Than what?

 

[DoubleG]

Hey, look what failing to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't prevent:

Link

HOUSTON (KTRK) --

Southside Place Police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl while inside a CVS store.

[...]

Kelly tells Eyewitness News the man coaxed the girl then into the women's restroom where they had sex. "She was not necessarily all that unwilling, but at the age of 12 it doesn't matter," said Kelly.

You're smarter than this.

Than what?

Than weak non sequitur.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hey, look what failing to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't prevent:Link

HOUSTON (KTRK) --

Southside Place Police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl while inside a CVS store.

[...]

Kelly tells Eyewitness News the man coaxed the girl then into the women's restroom where they had sex. "She was not necessarily all that unwilling, but at the age of 12 it doesn't matter," said Kelly.

You're smarter than this.

Than what?

Than weak non sequitur.

There was a whole discussion about what refusing to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance would and would not protect against. It doesn't protect against a man going into a woman's bathroom and committing sexual assault against a child in any circumstance anyone has come up with, there's no known instance in 22 years of these ordinances of them facilitating a single sex crime, and the city that just refused to pass the ordinance two days ago had the exact crime people were making commercials about trying to stop the ordinance happen at a CVS yesterday. So... Yeah.

 

[Clifford]

Blog advocating gender neutral restrooms

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2014/04/gender-neutral-bathroom-sign/

Pretty funny too. It features Nicholas Cage as a toilet.

If we can get to the heart of this, it really is about societal acceptance of a TG as the actual gender they identify with. The poll should really be: how many of you view Caitlyn Jenner and [insert Woman] as the exact same when it comes to gender.

Personally, when I see Caitlyn my mind does not think woman, it thinks Transgender. This is probably because I know the whole story, but also honestly a good close look and I notice the masucline face, big hands, voice, etc. But not hard to imagine a scenario where it is literally impossible to tell.

Next poll is if you made out with someone you thought to be a natural born woman, but was actually TG, would that change the way you think about that make-out session.

If the answers are yes and no for you, then you are fully transitioned to the TG world. If not, you're not quite there.

My answers are no and yes, so while I can honestly say I do not support discrimination, I can't really say I am fully supportive of the TG community either. I still identify people as their birth gender rather than gender identity.

 

[dparker713]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

For the most part, those protections already exist through the Constitution or federal statutes.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Haven't been at a trough lately?

 

[DoubleG]

Had you guys seen this ad for Houston's ant-discrimination proposition that just failed? As the father of a daughter....brutal, reminded me of the anti-Goldwater ad in days of yore.

They do - but local ordinances are much easier for local law enforcement to uphold - rather than, say, a federal court case.

But I think the problem is (as is typical in politics) - the measure was surrounded by so many things that everybody agrees on, that they figured including "gender" would allow it to pass. Ironically, if they would have left that out, it probably would have passed. The issue is... well that IS the issue.

 

[DoubleG]

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.

Haven't been at a trough lately?

"Eyes front...always eyes front."

 

[dparker713]

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.

You've said that the primary factor in the analysis is the belief of the person. So when does the change take place? Is there an established amount of time that must be observed? You've complained about people using quotes for transgender woman or man, but by making a delay aren't you essentially creating the same class? People that you're unwilling to classify as their preferred gender.

 

[dparker713]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

Depends, how long has the public even been aware its been on the books?

 

[Henry Ford]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

Depends, how long has the public even been aware its been on the books?

Well, it's been a law for 22 years... I guess you have to tell me what you mean by the public being aware and how you'd like me to prove that to you.

 

[dparker713]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

Depends, how long has the public even been aware its been on the books?

Well, it's been a law for 22 years... I guess you have to tell me what you mean by the public being aware and how you'd like me to prove that to you.

Plenty of laws pass without any publicity or anyone knowing they've passed. Kinda hard for them to change public behavior if no one even knows they're on the books.

 

[Henry Ford]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

Depends, how long has the public even been aware its been on the books?

Well, it's been a law for 22 years... I guess you have to tell me what you mean by the public being aware and how you'd like me to prove that to you.

Plenty of laws pass without any publicity or anyone knowing they've passed. Kinda hard for them to change public behavior if no one even knows they're on the books.

It's the Minnesota Human Rights Act, so I'd imagine it's what every person who's ever sued about workplace discrimination has sued under in the last 22 years.

 

[Hang 10]

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.

Haven't been at a trough lately?

Probably a stall man.

 

[CBusAlex]

So this is what it has come to? "What if a guy whips out his #### at the trough in the women's room?"

 

[Hang 10]

So this is what it has come to? "What if a guy whips out his #### at the trough in the women's room?"

I think we're talking about women whipping it out unfortunately.

 

[dparker713]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

Depends, how long has the public even been aware its been on the books?

Well, it's been a law for 22 years... I guess you have to tell me what you mean by the public being aware and how you'd like me to prove that to you.

Plenty of laws pass without any publicity or anyone knowing they've passed. Kinda hard for them to change public behavior if no one even knows they're on the books.

It's the Minnesota Human Rights Act, so I'd imagine it's what every person who's ever sued about workplace discrimination has sued under in the last 22 years.

You think that people in Minnesota that have sued for racial discrimination in the past 22 years were made aware of the state's policy regarding gender, the difference between gender and sex, and transgender rights in general? Bit of a stretch.

 

[the moops]

So this is what it has come to? "What if a guy whips out his #### at the trough in the women's room?"

Why is there a trough in the women's room?