The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[nannygovtsucks]

 

[Spatial Ed]

Don't be dissing your Dabs.

 

[nannygovtsucks]

 

[Guest]

OK, I'll put you down in the "men can walk into a public women's restroom and locker room anytime they feel like it" column. Good to know.

You can do whatever you like to avoid the point. Doesn't make it so.

Fact remains, you're talking about public amenities & open change/shower . People using those rooms & getting naked in them are accepting that third-parties from the public may see them naked. You have well established case law about doing things in public spaces and how that waives one's right to privacy. That's not my fault and has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings on the matter of who goes in what bathroom.

You don't like the idea that doing something in a public bathroom/shower waives the right of privacy - take that up with the judiciary, not the person pointing it out.

Sorry, it doesn't and won't work like you think it does no matter what you say or think. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion nor be having any of these legal issues right now. The fact of the matter is that there IS an expectation of privacy in a same-sex PUBLIC restroom or shower facility that does not include members of the opposite sex. I guarantee you that if you tested that in any court in the US that a man could freely walk into a women's shower room and hang out naked - you would be laughed out by every judge in the land.

Or I should say that would be the case before Obama's executive order........ that just opened that up for that very thing to be pushed and tested. I sincerely hope that some fat, beer-bellied, grizzly old guy like Gouv does exactly that, gets arrested for it and it goes to the SCOTUS.

Perhaps we should decide whether we want to discuss this in the context of a public bathroom or school locker room. The rights to privacy and/or expectations thereof, are quite likely different, given the custodial nature of the child in school, and the communal nature of school locker rooms.
Time to anchor those goalposts and get down to brass tacks.

Sol, from the very very beginning of this I clearly said this was about locker/shower rooms. Not bathrooms. Go back and read my early posts. I don't know how you missed it. Too busy being snarky I guess.

 

[Spatial Ed]

Jeff, is it ok to dangle dicks in front of boys in locker rooms?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Perhaps we should decide whether we want to discuss this in the context of a public bathroom or school locker room. The rights to privacy and/or expectations thereof, are quite likely different, given the custodial nature of the child in school, and the communal nature of school locker rooms.
Time to anchor those goalposts and get down to brass tacks.

Sol, from the very very beginning of this I clearly said this was about locker/shower rooms. Not bathrooms. Go back and read my early posts. I don't know how you missed it. Too busy being snarky I guess.

Not being snarky. I see the conversation moving around a bit. Courts have spoken to the expectation of privacy in school locker rooms, in the context of Fourth Amendment search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has noted that public school locker rooms "are not noted for the privacy they afford." Thank Justice Scalia for that. Vernonia School District v. Acton. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5294601874680736546&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

The locker rooms in Vernonia are typical: No individual dressing rooms are provided; shower heads are lined up along a wall, unseparated by any sort of partition or curtain; not even all the toilet stalls have doors. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has noted, there is "an element of `communal undress' inherent in athletic participation

And here is a case applying those standards to an ordinary public school locker room and the expectation of privacy (from video cameras) therein.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18386061580968802738&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Here's the key from that case:

The Fourth Amendment does not protect all expectations of privacy; only those that society recognizes as reasonable and legitimate. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 338. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that generally, students have a less robust expectation of privacy than is afforded the general population. Id. at 348 (Powell, J., concurring). Indeed, this expectation may be even less for student athletes in lockerrooms, which the Court has previously observed are places "not notable for theprivacy they afford." Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 657.

This does not mean, however, that a student's expectation of privacy in his or her school locker room is nonexistent. In fact, we have stated before that even inlocker rooms, students retain "a significant privacy interest in their unclothed bodies." Beard, 402 F.3d at 604. Unlike the situation in Vernonia, where the students and their parents were well aware that participation in school sports was conditioned on the students submitting to the drug testing policies, neither the students nor their parents in this case were aware of the video surveillance in the locker rooms, to say nothing of the videotaping. Further, while the Court in Vernonia pointed out the lower level of privacy typically associated with school locker rooms, we are satisfied that students using the LMS locker rooms could reasonably expect that no one, especially the school administrators, would videotape them, without their knowledge, in various states of undress while they changed their clothes for an athletic activity.

When you walk into a communal shower of the type that Justice Scalia describes above, you have an extremely limited expectation of privacy.

 

[Guest]

Here's the key from that case:

The Fourth Amendment does not protect all expectations of privacy; only those that society recognizes as reasonable and legitimate. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 338. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that generally, students have a less robust expectation of privacy than is afforded the general population. Id. at 348 (Powell, J., concurring). Indeed, this expectation may be even less for student athletes in lockerrooms, which the Court has previously observed are places "not notable for theprivacy they afford." Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 657.

This does not mean, however, that a student's expectation of privacy in his or her school locker room is nonexistent. In fact, we have stated before that even inlocker rooms, students retain "a significant privacy interest in their unclothed bodies." Beard, 402 F.3d at 604. Unlike the situation in Vernonia, where the students and their parents were well aware that participation in school sports was conditioned on the students submitting to the drug testing policies, neither the students nor their parents in this case were aware of the video surveillance in the locker rooms, to say nothing of the videotaping. Further, while the Court in Vernonia pointed out the lower level of privacy typically associated with school locker rooms, we are satisfied that students using the LMS locker rooms could reasonably expect that no one, especially the school administrators, would videotape them, without their knowledge, in various states of undress while they changed their clothes for an athletic activity.

When you walk into a communal shower of the type that Justice Scalia describes above, you have an extremely limited expectation of privacy.

Except that I would bet society would would recognize a school girl's expectation of privacy from being perved on by the boys in their own locker room as "reasonable and legitimate". Else we would have had communal gender neutral locker rooms a long time ago. Think about this.... there is an entire genre of movies such as Porky's and such that are dedicated to boys peeping into the girl's showers. If there was no expectation of privacy there, those movies would have no "shock value", would they?

Furthermore, I would turn your 4th Am cases above around on you and say that if there is no expectation of privacy in a locker room - then the accommodation of a transgender (biological) male being forced to use the men's locker room is fine - as they have no expectation to privacy of their unclothed bodies.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Here's the key from that case:

The Fourth Amendment does not protect all expectations of privacy; only those that society recognizes as reasonable and legitimate. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 338. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that generally, students have a less robust expectation of privacy than is afforded the general population. Id. at 348 (Powell, J., concurring). Indeed, this expectation may be even less for student athletes in lockerrooms, which the Court has previously observed are places "not notable for theprivacy they afford." Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 657.

This does not mean, however, that a student's expectation of privacy in his or her school locker room is nonexistent. In fact, we have stated before that even inlocker rooms, students retain "a significant privacy interest in their unclothed bodies." Beard, 402 F.3d at 604. Unlike the situation in Vernonia, where the students and their parents were well aware that participation in school sports was conditioned on the students submitting to the drug testing policies, neither the students nor their parents in this case were aware of the video surveillance in the locker rooms, to say nothing of the videotaping. Further, while the Court in Vernonia pointed out the lower level of privacy typically associated with school locker rooms, we are satisfied that students using the LMS locker rooms could reasonably expect that no one, especially the school administrators, would videotape them, without their knowledge, in various states of undress while they changed their clothes for an athletic activity.

When you walk into a communal shower of the type that Justice Scalia describes above, you have an extremely limited expectation of privacy.

Except that I would bet society would would recognize a school girl's expectation of privacy from being perved on by the boys in their own locker room as "reasonable and legitimate". Else we would have had communal gender neutral locker rooms a long time ago. Think about this.... there is an entire genre of movies such as Porky's and such that are dedicated to boys peeping into the girl's showers. If there was no expectation of privacy there, those movies would have no "shock value", would they?

Furthermore, I would turn your 4th Am cases above around on you and say that if there is no expectation of privacy in a locker room - then the accommodation of a transgender (biological) male being forced to use the men's locker room is fine - as they have no expectation to privacy of their unclothed bodies.

I thought we were talking about transgender folks, not school girls and boys. My bad. Lemme know when we anchor those goalposts down and we can get down to brass tacks.

 

[Gouvernail]

There remains the elephant in the room:

Many people believe all this transgender and homosexual stuff is just wrong. Their position:

Boys are boys, Girls are Girls. The penis goes into the vagina to make babies.

All that which is not normsl heterosexual behavior is some form of perversion and those who do it are crazy perverted messed up individuals.

So

No matter how anyone tries to write ruies for bathroom and shower, if those ruies recognize anything other than "normal" as in any way OK there will be a problem.

Summary:

My solutions won't be acceptable those who "don't believe in" the existence of normal trans people.

That is why I have pretty much dropped out of the discussion

 

[Raz'r]

There remains the elephant in the room:

Many people believe all this transgender and homosexual stuff is just wrong. Their position:

Boys are boys, Girls are Girls. The penis goes into the vagina to make babies.

All that which is not normsl heterosexual behavior is some form of perversion and those who do it are crazy perverted messed up individuals.

So

No matter how anyone tries to write ruies for bathroom and shower, if those ruies recognize anything other than "normal" as in any way OK there will be a problem.

Summary:

My solutions won't be acceptable those who "don't believe in" the existence of normal trans people.

That is why I have pretty much dropped out of the discussion

yep

 

[Guest]

Here's the key from that case:

The Fourth Amendment does not protect all expectations of privacy; only those that society recognizes as reasonable and legitimate. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 338. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that generally, students have a less robust expectation of privacy than is afforded the general population. Id. at 348 (Powell, J., concurring). Indeed, this expectation may be even less for student athletes in lockerrooms, which the Court has previously observed are places "not notable for theprivacy they afford." Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 657.

This does not mean, however, that a student's expectation of privacy in his or her school locker room is nonexistent. In fact, we have stated before that even inlocker rooms, students retain "a significant privacy interest in their unclothed bodies." Beard, 402 F.3d at 604. Unlike the situation in Vernonia, where the students and their parents were well aware that participation in school sports was conditioned on the students submitting to the drug testing policies, neither the students nor their parents in this case were aware of the video surveillance in the locker rooms, to say nothing of the videotaping. Further, while the Court in Vernonia pointed out the lower level of privacy typically associated with school locker rooms, we are satisfied that students using the LMS locker rooms could reasonably expect that no one, especially the school administrators, would videotape them, without their knowledge, in various states of undress while they changed their clothes for an athletic activity.

When you walk into a communal shower of the type that Justice Scalia describes above, you have an extremely limited expectation of privacy.

Except that I would bet society would would recognize a school girl's expectation of privacy from being perved on by the boys in their own locker room as "reasonable and legitimate". Else we would have had communal gender neutral locker rooms a long time ago. Think about this.... there is an entire genre of movies such as Porky's and such that are dedicated to boys peeping into the girl's showers. If there was no expectation of privacy there, those movies would have no "shock value", would they?

Furthermore, I would turn your 4th Am cases above around on you and say that if there is no expectation of privacy in a locker room - then the accommodation of a transgender (biological) male being forced to use the men's locker room is fine - as they have no expectation to privacy of their unclothed bodies.

I thought we were talking about transgender folks, not school girls and boys. My bad. Lemme know when we anchor those goalposts down and we can get down to brass tacks.

We are talking about all of the above. Can't have one without the other.

The goalposts have been firmly driven into the ground. Vaginas only in the girls locker/shower. Peni's in the boys. If anyone has an issue with that, then the accommodation for separate showers/lockers for those "odd men out" are reasonable and acceptable.

Society, for the last 1000 years or so, has recognized the above as "reasonable and legitimate". Any other questions?

 

[Gouvernail]

This thread should be retired:

Homophobic Guy Seeking Like Minded

Obviously the only reason any of you is so obcessed with who goes in the little girls room is you have lived your entire lives frustrated by your fear of coming out of the closet.

Go hit your local gat porn theater and do some more cock sucking

Don't forget to park way way in the back!!!

Note: after my thorough and complete ass kicking beat down by the the retarded fuckwits who populate PA in the thread calling for common decency I have decided to join the fun.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Here's the key from that case:

The Fourth Amendment does not protect all expectations of privacy; only those that society recognizes as reasonable and legitimate. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 338. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that generally, students have a less robust expectation of privacy than is afforded the general population. Id. at 348 (Powell, J., concurring). Indeed, this expectation may be even less for student athletes in lockerrooms, which the Court has previously observed are places "not notable for theprivacy they afford." Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 657.

This does not mean, however, that a student's expectation of privacy in his or her school locker room is nonexistent. In fact, we have stated before that even inlocker rooms, students retain "a significant privacy interest in their unclothed bodies." Beard, 402 F.3d at 604. Unlike the situation in Vernonia, where the students and their parents were well aware that participation in school sports was conditioned on the students submitting to the drug testing policies, neither the students nor their parents in this case were aware of the video surveillance in the locker rooms, to say nothing of the videotaping. Further, while the Court in Vernonia pointed out the lower level of privacy typically associated with school locker rooms, we are satisfied that students using the LMS locker rooms could reasonably expect that no one, especially the school administrators, would videotape them, without their knowledge, in various states of undress while they changed their clothes for an athletic activity.

When you walk into a communal shower of the type that Justice Scalia describes above, you have an extremely limited expectation of privacy.

Except that I would bet society would would recognize a school girl's expectation of privacy from being perved on by the boys in their own locker room as "reasonable and legitimate". Else we would have had communal gender neutral locker rooms a long time ago. Think about this.... there is an entire genre of movies such as Porky's and such that are dedicated to boys peeping into the girl's showers. If there was no expectation of privacy there, those movies would have no "shock value", would they?

Furthermore, I would turn your 4th Am cases above around on you and say that if there is no expectation of privacy in a locker room - then the accommodation of a transgender (biological) male being forced to use the men's locker room is fine - as they have no expectation to privacy of their unclothed bodies.

I thought we were talking about transgender folks, not school girls and boys. My bad. Lemme know when we anchor those goalposts down and we can get down to brass tacks.

We are talking about all of the above. Can't have one without the other.

The goalposts have been firmly driven into the ground. Vaginas only in the girls locker/shower. Peni's in the boys. If anyone has an issue with that, then the accommodation for separate showers/lockers for those "odd men out" are reasonable and acceptable.

Society, for the last 1000 years or so, has recognized the above as "reasonable and legitimate". Any other questions?

I acknowledge your opinion, and the Court will as well, when it skewers it, as it does with pretty much every instance of trying to justify discrimination since about the 50s or so. There's no justification for it, and whenever it gets to the merits of justifying it, the response from those seeking to justify it is to go full nannygoat, as you have done here. That's a pretty good sign that you are on the ignorant side of it.

It would undoubtedly be comforting if everyone was exactly the same, had the same sexual preference, same sets of gender identities and whatnot. It would certainly be comforting if people who were different just kept their mouths shut and sat in the back of the bus. In the interest of firing up a bunch of bigotry, we're now going to go from a system where someone with a penis, who gives all outward appearance of being a woman, could use the bathroom with the least amount of likelihood of causing a ruckus, to a system which forces them to use the one with the greatest likelihood of causing a ruckus. An ignorant, big government solution to a non-problem.

 

[Cement_Shoes]

We are talking about all of the above. Can't have one without the other.

I acknowledge your opinion, and the Court will as well, when it skewers it, as it does with pretty much every instance of trying to justify discrimination since about the 50s or so.

That there is inspired prose.*

*Damn activist gay black transgender handicapped women judges

 

[tuk tuk Joe]

Poor little gender freaks want into the little girls room and are being discriminated against! Oh Boo the fuck hoo. Nevermind what the girls want.

And the most popular topic on P.A.

You can't make this shit up folks...

 

[Spatial Ed]

We are talking about all of the above. Can't have one without the other.

The goalposts have been firmly driven into the ground. Vaginas only in the girls locker/shower. Peni's in the boys. If anyone has an issue with that, then the accommodation for separate showers/lockers for those "odd men out" are reasonable and acceptable.

Society, for the last 1000 years or so, has recognized the above as "reasonable and legitimate". Any other questions?

So dangling dicks in boy's faces is A-OK with you. Right?

 

[Guest]

We are talking about all of the above. Can't have one without the other.

The goalposts have been firmly driven into the ground. Vaginas only in the girls locker/shower. Peni's in the boys. If anyone has an issue with that, then the accommodation for separate showers/lockers for those "odd men out" are reasonable and acceptable.

Society, for the last 1000 years or so, has recognized the above as "reasonable and legitimate". Any other questions?

I acknowledge your opinion, and the Court will as well, when it skewers it, as it does with pretty much every instance of trying to justify discrimination since about the 50s or so. There's no justification for it, and whenever it gets to the merits of justifying it, the response from those seeking to justify it is to go full nannygoat, as you have done here. That's a pretty good sign that you are on the ignorant side of it.

It would undoubtedly be comforting if everyone was exactly the same, had the same sexual preference, same sets of gender identities and whatnot. It would certainly be comforting if people who were different just kept their mouths shut and sat in the back of the bus. In the interest of firing up a bunch of bigotry, we're now going to go from a system where someone with a penis, who gives all outward appearance of being a woman, could use the bathroom with the least amount of likelihood of causing a ruckus, to a system which forces them to use the one with the greatest likelihood of causing a ruckus. An ignorant, big government solution to a non-problem.

No sol, I am not going full nannygoat. And this is not about discrimination. Is is NOT the same as racial discrimination no matter how many times you say it. By taking that approach, you are trying to boil this incredibly complex issue down to a bumper sticker simplicity level. Its not.

The fact is that there are competing rights involved. In the 1960s civil rights cases, there were only one set of rights that were being discriminated against - negros. And that situation has rightfully been addressed. But in the case of trans bathroom and shower room facilities, its not so clear cut. No matter what, someone is going to be discriminated against. If you keep the trans boy out the girls shower - then the trans boy will feel discriminated against. If you let him in, then the girls in the shower will feel discriminated against. I've asked this before - whose rights have higher priority here? The 1 tranny or the 10 girls? Which group makes more sense to attempt to accommodate? Are the girls who object not also being discriminated against?

Now, if shower rooms were already gender-neutral and trannies were banned from using them, then you would have the negro discrimination analogy. But they are not, so again your analogy fails.

But lets say you are correct and the courts rule on your side..... and this is discrimination against the trans boy and they must let him shower with the girls. If so, then ALL cases of gender segregation are therefore discrimination and ANY man should be able to use any restroom or shower he pleases. If not, then I am being discriminated against. As I said, you cannot have one without the other. And that's why I think this will lose in the courts when (not if) it gets there. You DO see that right?

And for the record, I do not want every one to be the same and comport to perfect social norms. I have repeatedly said I have nothing whatsoever against trannies or other historically abnormal forms of the human condition. I am simply saying that we cannot expect for one group of people to sacrifice their rights to privacy just to accommodate another smaller group if a reasonable accommodation can be made. In the case of the school litigation I posted, the school bent over backwards to accommodate the tranny's needs to be a girl. They let him on the girls sports teams, let him wear girls uniforms, and gave him a suitable shower facility to use. But it wasn't good enough. He didn't have that one little thing..... and that was to shower naked with the girls. And the rest of the girls didn't want it. So there is an impasse. This is not a big gov't solution being rammed crammed jammed and slammed down the tranny's throat. It is the other way around. The LGBT community is ramjamcramslamming their shit down the rest of societies throats.

 

[Gouvernail]

Put down the bong!!

You really need to give this subject a rest. . Back away from your keyboard

You are making an ass of yourself

 

[Bent Sailor]

The fact is that there are competing rights involved.

No, it isn't. It's about competing expectations . No matter how many times you try to ignore it, the right to privacy is not gender specific. If you strip in a public amenity, you waive your "privacy right" as to third parties using that public amenity seeing you naked. You have as much right to them sharing your biological plumbing as you do their skin colour. Sol did a good job pointing out the legal precedents at issue. You just keep stomping your foot and having a tanty. Now, perhaps it's a cultural thing but most of us down here find the former more convincing.

Note, this doesn't mean I don't think there isn't a way to make things work out for all concerned. However, pissing and moaning about non-existent rights is exactly why no-one gives a shit when you piss & moan about real violations of them.

 

[GRUMPY]

Do you use the bathroom when your teenage daughter is in the shower? Do you respect her privacy?