If you're born with a woo-woo, it's sex. If you identify, it's simply a choice. Now pick your bathroom to dump in. (1 Viewer)

[Apple Jack]

Aren't Republicans supposed to be opposed to laws and constraints? Are there existing laws against using the other sexes bathrooms that I am unaware of? Seemed things were fine how they were on the bathroom front. Accept for these lunatics who put the tp rolls on backwards.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Your opinion is that we should restrict access based on an unenforceable standard?

What's not enforceable?  Say your workplace has a locker room or bathroom and you work with a transgender woman.  If it is common knowledge and that woman is using the women's bathroom/locker room and it makes another individual uncomfortable, then that second individual should have to right to ask that the transgender woman use the men's locker room or bathroom.  If the transgender woman refuses, the company should be allowed to impose disciplinary action.

 

[Henry Ford]

What's unenforceable about it? And at what point does unenforceability become a standard for the invalidity of statutory (drafted) law. See, you still think legalisms and judiciary extension of analogy. You forget the potential for drafting laws. If we want to, sure we can have the TSA at the bathroom. 

*Is it practical? No. Is it sane? Probably not. But is a 6'4" guy named Dirty Delta that Japanese businessmen #### in the closet of a (cat) piss-stained Vegas room who snorts all your cocaine and lolls around naked (with penis) in your suite at the Stardust to wake up in the morning and put a red high heel into a cab while wearing camo clothing and walk back to the bar to buy more cocaine and then loll around in your suite tub naked some more sane? 

Probably not.

The women scared of these guys are not shrinking wallflowers. These guys can be big.  

*eta no hyperbole -- true story 

I'm actually responding to his own post that says "is it enforceable? Of course not."

 

[Henry Ford]

What's not enforceable?  Say your workplace has a locker room or bathroom and you work with a transgender woman.  If it is common knowledge and that woman is using the women's bathroom/locker room and it makes another individual uncomfortable, then that second individual should have to right to ask that the transgender woman use the men's locker room or bathroom.  If the transgender woman refuses, the company should be allowed to impose disciplinary action.

Requiring people to use bathrooms based on genitalia is unenforceable (as the post I was responding to BY YOU said, by the way) because even coworkers don't get to look at each other's genitalia.

 

[rockaction]

I'm actually responding to his own post that says "is it enforceable? Of course not."

Okay.  

 

[Peyton Marino]

rockaction thread title or name of a fallout boy song?

 

[Henry Ford]

Okay.  

Who will get to demand to see people's genitalia under this standard?

 

[rockaction]

Who will get to demand to see people's genitalia under this standard?

Bad facts make bad law. 

eta* emphasis on facts, not self-defined identity.  

 

[Henry Ford]

Bad facts make bad law. 

Unenforceable standards make bad law.

The standard here is the existence of a body part that no one gets to verify exists.

 

[Psychopav]

I demand to see people's genitalia all the time.  Usually it just gets me funny looks, but occasionally the authorities are called in.

 

[rockaction]

Unenforceable standards make bad law.

The standard here is the existence of a body part that no one gets to verify exists.

I get it. 

I'll place the emphasis on facts, not an arbitrary standard of identification or enforceability.  You're getting prudential. I'm abstract. 

:shrugs:   

 

[Henry Ford]

I get it. 

Emphasis on facts, not an arbitrary standard of identification or enforceability.  You're getting prudential. I'm abstract. 

:shrugs:   

So, again, we agree that the standard of genitalia determinative bathroom use is unenforceable, correct?

 

[rockaction]

So, again, we agree that the standard of genitalia determinative bathroom use is unenforceable, correct?

No, it's enforceable. The question is the trade-off. It's ridiculous, until you consider erring on the side of cautionary measures of big transgenders in a women's bathroom, which I believe we've argued a bit before. 

I'm no protector. H.L. Mencken comes into play here with me and American women. You made your bed, honey.  

 

[Henry Ford]

No, it's enforceable. The question is the trade-off. It's ridiculous, until you consider erring on the side of cautionary measures of big transponders in a women's bathroom, which I believe we've argued a bit before. 

I'm no protector. H.L. Mencken comes into play here with me and American women. You made your bed, honey.  

Okay.  Do you believe that the courts in this country will allow a law to stand that requires people to show strangers their genitals in order to use the bathroom? That the enforcement of this law passes Constitutional scrutiny?

 

[rockaction]

Okay.  Do you believe that the courts in this country will allow a law to stand that requires people to show strangers their genitals in order to use the bathroom? That the enforcement of this law passes Constitutional scrutiny?

Sex is only a suspect class, right? So what is gender? 

Nothing. 

 

[James Daulton]

How have we been able to handle this for all these years?

 

[rockaction]

AND THAT'S THE JOKE. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Sex is only a suspect class, right? So what is gender? 

Nothing. 

Allowing people to look at your genitals doesn't involve a class determination 

 

[acapella]

How have we been able to handle this for all these years?

Apparently, by suppressing the right of people to express their "gender".

 

[rockaction]

Allowing people to look at your genitals doesn't involve a class determination 

Constitutionally, are we talking 14th now?  That's where you'll have to go, IMO. But the TSA already does it for travel. So what's the difference between travel and bathroom? Gutter piss? 

eta* both are fundamental rights, IIRC. 

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Requiring people to use bathrooms based on genitalia is unenforceable (as the post I was responding to BY YOU said, by the way) because even coworkers don't get to look at each other's genitalia.

That's not remotely what I said.

 

[Henry Ford]

Constitutionally, are we talking 14th now?  That's where you'll have to go, IMO. But the TSA already does it for travel. So what's the difference between travel and bathroom? Gutter piss? 

1. There's a compelling governmental interest in the TSA searches backed up by actual data showing violent attacks on and using airlines.  There is no similar history of transgender or "fake" transgender attacks in bathrooms.

2. You can opt out of full body scans to avoid the genital determination and instead get a pat down.

Courts have regularly held that even TSA searches must be "minimally intrusive, well-tailored to protect personal privacy, and neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives."

It's also an unenforceable standard to require every restroom to have a full body scanner.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Henry if you're around is there a law on this in LA? Had this conversation with a friend the other day, is outright illegal to go into an opposite sex bathroom here? So many unisex bathrooms these days, can't be right?

 

[rockaction]

1. There's a compelling governmental interest in the TSA searches backed up by actual data showing violent attacks on and using airlines.  There is no similar history of transgender or "fake" transgender attacks in bathrooms.

2. You can opt out of full body scans to avoid the genital determination and instead get a pat down.

Courts have regularly held that even TSA searches must be "minimally intrusive, well-tailored to protect personal privacy, and neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives."

It's also an unenforceable standard to require every restroom to have a full body scanner.

Unenforceable, not anti-constitutional. Which argument are you picking? You just argued it was anti-constitutional. It's not. 

Is it prudential or jurisprudential, my friend? And at what point does democracy and decency demand it?    

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry if you're around is there a law on this in LA? Had this conversation with a friend the other day, is outright illegal to go into an opposite sex bathroom here? So many unisex bathrooms these days, can't be right?

Bill failed last month.  Still nothing on the books.

 

[Henry Ford]

Unenforceable, not anti-constitutional. Which argument are you picking? You just argued it was anti-constitutional. It's not. 

Is it prudential or jurisprudential, my friend? And at what point does democracy and decency demand it?    

Sorry, based on what is it not? You've offered no enforcement mechanism that is possible and Constitutional. 

The possible avenues for enforcement are either blatantly unconstitutional ("you have to unzip to walk in") or almost certainly unconstitutional and impossible to require ("full body TSA scans")

Something can be unconstitutional because of its only conceivable enforcement mechanisms.  That's what I'm talking about. 

Defining bathrooms based on genitals might not be unconstitutional as an idea, it would be unconstitutional in enforcement. Which is why NC based it on birth certificate sex.  North Carolina reissues a birth certificate after sex reassignment surgery.  It's as close as they can get to what you want without requiring a genitalia basis for bathroom use.

Of course, it now means people probably need to carry their birth certificates around.  Though driver's licenses may double for that one.

But it's important to note that some percentage of people will still not fit your definition due to intersex births and sex determinations on those people's birth certificates.  As close as you can probably get, though.

 

[rockaction]

Sorry, based on what is it not? You've offered no enforcement mechanism that is possible and Constitutional. 

The possible avenues for enforcement are either blatantly unconstitutional ("you have to unzip to walk in") or almost certainly unconstitutional and impossible to require ("full body TSA scans")

Something can be unconstitutional because of its only conceivable enforcement mechanisms.  That's what I'm talking about. 

Defining bathrooms based on genitals might not be unconstitutional as an idea, it would be unconstitutional in enforcement. Which is why NC based it on birth certificate sex.  North Carolina reissues a birth certificate after sex reassignment surgery.  It's as close as they can get to what you want without requiring a genitalia basis for bathroom use.

Of course, it now means people probably need to carry their birth certificates around.  Though driver's licenses may double for that one.

But it's important to note that some percentage of people will still not fit your definition due to intersex births and sex determinations on those people's birth certificates.  As close as you can probably get, though.

I already spoke about intersex births and am not immune to sympathy. 

That said; wisdom of 3,000 years and segregated sex will hold weight in court. You dabble with logic -- watch wisdom unfold.  A dongle is a dongle, and we protect the innocent.  Unenforceability will always be solved, good or ill. 

 

[Henry Ford]

I already spoke about intersex births and an not immune to sympathy. 

That said; wisdom of 3,000 years and segregated sex will hold weight in court. You dabble with logic -- watch wisdom unfold.  A dongle is a dongle, and we protect the innocent.  Unenforceability will always be solved, good or ill. 

Just to recap, you can't give me a method of enforcement that's constitutional and reasonably possible?

 

[rockaction]

Just to recap, you can't give me a method of enforcement that's constitutional and reasonably possible?

Anything is constitutional if one wants it to be. 

Reasonably possible is another issue, and an efficiency argument. 

 

[rockaction]

Also, I can reframe this. Is it against the nature of ordered liberty to order co-ed bathrooms due to enforcement problems? 

That might be the best way to look at this if you're trying to win cases, my man.  

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, I can reframe this. Is it against the nature of ordered liberty to order co-ed bathrooms due to enforcement problems? 

That might be the best way to look at this if you're trying to win cases, my man.  

There's nothing unreasonable about non-coed bathrooms, according to many courts.

I'm good with my case win rate, thanks.

 

[rockaction]

There's nothing unreasonable about non-coed bathrooms, according to many courts.

I'm good with my case win rate, thanks.

I wasn't being condescending. I think you're brilliant. It's fun to spar.  

 

[Henry Ford]

I wasn't being condescending. I think you're brilliant. It's fun to spar.  

I wasn't, either.  

The major issue I have with most of these laws is this:

These laws are allegedly designed to protect people from predators.  I have no problem with protecting people from predators.  Big fan of that.  But it can only do that in two ways:

Be enforceable before the point where the predator would take predatory action; or

Be more punitive or significantly more likely to lead to arrest than the predatory action they're willing to take anyway.

I think we can all dispense with the notion that anyone drafting these laws cares what happens in the men's room.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should jail people using the "wrong" bathroom longer than rapists or video voyeurists.  I don't think anyone reasonably believes that genitalia-based bathrooms are going to deter perpetrators of physical sexual violence.  Someone is going to report that much quicker than "I think that person may have a penis."  And the punishment is much more severe. And I'm not aware of a case of this ever, though I'm sure it happened once or twice in the history of the English speaking world.  No doubt someone will find it and post it if it has happened. Which leaves us with a pretty sad equation:

We are really talking about is weighing the interest of a significant and growing population of people to use public restrooms in a way they currently do against the likelihood of a voyeur pretending to be transgender in order to get sexual gratification from watching or recording women in bathrooms or locker rooms or an exhibitionist from exposing genitals for gratification. Which completely leaves aside the already existing similar threat from lesbian women.

I also have a serious problem with a growing criminalization of penises in this country.  But that's likely a topic for another time.  These bills are saying "we cannot trust a penis to be in the women's room, because penises are attached to rapists and murderers, and women can't be subjected to that sort of thing during bathroom time." I think this sort of attitude leads to the current sentencing and conviction differential between men and women - and even trans women and biological women.  And its continued codification is problematic for me.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I also have a serious problem with a growing criminalization of penises in this country.

 

[cstu]

Substituting the traditional notions of "sex" for "gender" caused a movement from biological determinism to identity determinism. It caused this bathroom problem. 

For instance, if bathrooms are based on "sex," those people with penises have to use the men's room. 

If bathrooms are based on "gender," then it becomes self-defined. Gendered people can use whatever bathrooms they want at their whim. 

That's why the movement from determinism, i.e., sex, to identity, i.e., gender, made public accommodations law problematic. 

It's also why the government does not ask you for your gender anymore, but rather, your sex.  

Seems you're really worked up over where people empty their bladder and bowels.

 

[Henry Ford]

Very sad banana.

 

[cstu]

That said; wisdom of 3,000 years will hold weight in court.

Tell that to the plantation owners.

 

[The Football Freak]

Very sad banana.

Looks more like a guilty banana to me. What is it hiding? Better lock it up to be sure. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Looks more like a guilty banana to me. What is it hiding? Better lock it up to be sure. 

A study a few years ago found that a man convicted in a federal court gets, on average, an extra 63% tacked onto his sentence over a woman. Mrs. Jamison? 10 years. Mr. Jamison? 16.5 years.  Have a nice day.

 

[Wrigley]

I'll poop next to anyone, bring it.

It's already established, I'll poop next to my wife and kids.

:nobigthing:

 

[The Football Freak]

A study a few years ago found that a man convicted in a federal court gets, on average, an extra 63% tacked onto his sentence over a woman. Mrs. Jamison? 10 years. Mr. Jamison? 16.5 years.  Have a nice day.

63%? That's eye opening. Incarcerated banana.

 

[cstu]

A study a few years ago found that a man convicted in a federal court gets, on average, an extra 63% tacked onto his sentence over a woman. Mrs. Jamison? 10 years. Mr. Jamison? 16.5 years.  Have a nice day.

The more dangerous you're considered, the longer sentence you get. Same reason black men get longer sentences than white men.  Just a guess, but Asian women probably get the lightest sentences of all.

 

[Henry Ford]

The more dangerous you're considered, the longer sentence you get. Same reason black men get longer sentences than white men.  Just a guess, but Asian women probably get the lightest sentences of all.

Tough to get concrete data on Asian offenders because they get put into "other" on most studies, but Asians in general are 40% more likely to get jail time for drug offenses than white people last I checked.

 

[Wrigley]

I demand to see people's genitalia all the time.  Usually it just gets me funny looks, but occasionally the authorities are called in.

SHOW ME YOUR DONG NOW!!!!!

 

[Rove!]

A study a few years ago found that a man convicted in a federal court gets, on average, an extra 63% tacked onto his sentence over a woman. Mrs. Jamison? 10 years. Mr. Jamison? 16.5 years.  Have a nice day.

But the judge was a somewhat sexually frustrated man and Mrs. Jamison was hot.

 

[rockaction]

I wasn't, either.  

The major issue I have with most of these laws is this:

These laws are allegedly designed to protect people from predators.  I have no problem with protecting people from predators.  Big fan of that.  But it can only do that in two ways:

Be enforceable before the point where the predator would take predatory action; or

Be more punitive or significantly more likely to lead to arrest than the predatory action they're willing to take anyway.

I think we can all dispense with the notion that anyone drafting these laws cares what happens in the men's room.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should jail people using the "wrong" bathroom longer than rapists or video voyeurists.  I don't think anyone reasonably believes that genitalia-based bathrooms are going to deter perpetrators of physical sexual violence.  Someone is going to report that much quicker than "I think that person may have a penis."  And the punishment is much more severe. And I'm not aware of a case of this ever, though I'm sure it happened once or twice in the history of the English speaking world.  No doubt someone will find it and post it if it has happened. Which leaves us with a pretty sad equation:

We are really talking about is weighing the interest of a significant and growing population of people to use public restrooms in a way they currently do against the likelihood of a voyeur pretending to be transgender in order to get sexual gratification from watching or recording women in bathrooms or locker rooms or an exhibitionist from exposing genitals for gratification. Which completely leaves aside the already existing similar threat from lesbian women.

I also have a serious problem with a growing criminalization of penises in this country.  But that's likely a topic for another time.  These bills are saying "we cannot trust a penis to be in the women's room, because penises are attached to rapists and murderers, and women can't be subjected to that sort of thing during bathroom time." I think this sort of attitude leads to the current sentencing and conviction differential between men and women - and even trans women and biological women.  And its continued codification is problematic for me.

I think this is well thought-out. Also, lesbians hitting on women in the women's room is very common if you ask my not-even-that-straight female friends. One has a particular problem with it. 

I also agree about the criminalization of penises. How do you feel about campus due process with respect to sexual assault? Are you more Gillibrand or IOJ?   

I'll hang up and listen.  

 

[Kal El]

Here's an idea: why don't we just try to use the restrooms at home, and avoid all this hassle?

But seriously, I'm of the opinion that an easier way around this is to have a third bathroom set, labeled "unisex." There's one toilet and sink, and it can be used one at a time.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Requiring people to use bathrooms based on genitalia is unenforceable (as the post I was responding to BY YOU said, by the way) because even coworkers don't get to look at each other's genitalia.

Do you have kids? It wouldn't bother you that your 10yr old daughter was in a bathroom and some dude decides he's a woman so goes in to use the womens bathroom?

People are bat#### crazy

 

[Henry Ford]

Do you have kids? It wouldn't bother you that your 10yr old daughter was in a bathroom and some dude decides he's a woman so goes in to use the womens bathroom?

People are bat#### crazy

I've covered this repeatedly.  Trans people in bathrooms don't bother me.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I've covered this repeatedly.  Trans people in bathrooms don't bother me.

They don't bother me either, now if my 10yr old daughter was in the bathroom and one went in..... No chance I'd be happy. Sure they might be legit, but too many perverts nowadays. No way in todays society

:facepalm:

ETA: I don't give a flying fig what's PC when it comes to kids. I'm not letting my kid get hurt, not taking that chance and I don't care what people think.