The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[Gouvernail]

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

How is this question relevant to the discussion?

What do you smoke before posting this nonsense??

 

[Guest]

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

That's a good question, assuming Bent is male. I'm not so sure.

The more important question is would it be illegal for a male to use a female shower / locker room at the school gym or in a gov't building in the US? Forget the whole trans nonsense for a moment..... I am talking pure straight male using a female locker room / shower facility with open bay shower and dressing areas. If so, what laws would they have broken? This question is primarily for Sol, as he is familiar with the law, but happy to hear other opinions as well.

 

[Gouvernail]

You really need to drop this subject. It is making you look incredibly stupid and harming your reputation.

Are you smoking the same stuff as Grumpy does before posting?

 

[Bent Sailor]

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

That's a good question, assuming Bent is male. I'm not so sure.

It is an irrelevant question. My bathroom/shower is not a public amenity. I also refrain from a wide variety of activities that are perfectly legal. What I do & do not do in my private bathroom has nothing to do with what is or isn't legal in a public amenity.

Before the usual rumour mill crap starts, I neither have a teenage daughter nor would watch them shower if I did. I do find it notable that GUMPY would be throwing around insinuations about how other men behave around teenage girls.

The more important question is would it be illegal for a male to use a female shower / locker room at the school gym or in a gov't building in the US? Forget the whole trans nonsense for a moment..... I am talking pure straight male using a female locker room / shower facility with open bay shower and dressing areas. If so, what laws would they have broken? This question is primarily for Sol, as he is familiar with the law, but happy to hear other opinions as well.

That is an important question. Another question would be whether those laws are in accordance to the US Constitution.

 

[Dog]

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.

[SIZE=11pt]If the right to privacy is not gender specific, at least with respect to bathrooms, why do we provide gender specific bathrooms? [/SIZE]

 

[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.

[SIZE=11pt]If the right to privacy is not gender specific, at least with respect to bathrooms, why do we provide gender specific bathrooms? [/SIZE]

I wasn't aware that you needed a "right" to something in order for it to be provided to the public by government & private organisations.

 

[GRUMPY]

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

That's a good question, assuming Bent is male. I'm not so sure.

It is an irrelevant question. My bathroom/shower is not a public amenity. I also refrain from a wide variety of activities that are perfectly legal. What I do & do not do in my private bathroom has nothing to do with what is or isn't legal in a public amenity.

Before the usual rumour mill crap starts, I neither have a teenage daughter nor would watch them shower if I did. I do find it notable that GUMPY would be throwing around insinuations about how other men behave around teenage girls.

Where did I suggest watching? Where did I suggest the bathroom was private?

I have teenage daughters. My day starts about 4 in the morning so I get a shower before they take over.

You've leapt into the gutter with things I've not said.

 

[Dog]

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.

[SIZE=11pt]If the right to privacy is not gender specific, at least with respect to bathrooms, why do we provide gender specific bathrooms? [/SIZE]

I wasn't aware that you needed a "right" to something in order for it to be provided to the public by government & private organisations.

I design buildings for a living and I can tell you there is no right to decline to provide gender specific bathrooms, the public has mandated that separate facilities be provided. Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

 

[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.

[SIZE=11pt]If the right to privacy is not gender specific, at least with respect to bathrooms, why do we provide gender specific bathrooms? [/SIZE]

I wasn't aware that you needed a "right" to something in order for it to be provided to the public by government & private organisations.

I design buildings for a living and I can tell you there is no right to decline to provide gender specific bathrooms, the public has mandated that separate facilities be provided. Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

None of which invalidates my point. What the public demands is not the basis for whether or not the "right to privacy" is gender specific. The right to privacy is a legal right granted by SCOTUS interpretation of the US Constitution. As recent decisions by that court has shown, expectations of special rights based on gender do not have the backing of the highest court in the land - the very court from which your "right to privacy" stems.

 

[GRUMPY]

You can try and walk into the ladies bathroom that my kids are using if you like BS. You're gonna be in more trouble than Ned Kelly though.

Do you have anything other than anecdotes about this Hunter St bus station transgender dunny?

 

[Guest]

The more important question is would it be illegal for a male to use a female shower / locker room at the school gym or in a gov't building in the US? Forget the whole trans nonsense for a moment..... I am talking pure straight male using a female locker room / shower facility with open bay shower and dressing areas. If so, what laws would they have broken? This question is primarily for Sol, as he is familiar with the law, but happy to hear other opinions as well.

That is an important question. Another question would be whether those laws are in accordance to the US Constitution.

I anxiously await Sol weighing in on my question.

In the meantime, since he's likely still asleep in FL - the answer to your question depends on which laws are being broken.

The first ones that come to mind is indecent exposure. The SCOTUS has ruled in this case that states can ban public nudity. So I can't waive my dick around in the park in front of little girls but I can do the same in a public shower??? I think Sol would have a very hard time convincing a court that a dude going into a women's shower or locker room in a public place would be acceptable or legal. If this trans thing takes hold, then any man (or woman) could claim to be whatever they felt like at any given moment and use whatever facility they choose and not a damned thing could be done to prevent it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they wouldn't even have to claim to be trans to win in court. If you let one dick in the women's shower, you have to let ALL dicks into the women's shower. It makes no difference if its attached to a feminine looking dude or a fat guy with a beard.

So, yes - they would absolutely be IAW our Constitution.

 

[Spatial Ed]

I too anxiously await Jeff to answer my question, one he does not want to answer because it destroys his argument.

 

[Guest]

I too anxiously await Jeff to answer my question, one he does not want to answer because it destroys his argument.

How so?

 

[GRUMPY]

The shoe guards are neat...

 

[Dog]

[SIZE=11pt]If the right to privacy is not gender specific, at least with respect to bathrooms, why do we provide gender specific bathrooms? [/SIZE]

I wasn't aware that you needed a "right" to something in order for it to be provided to the public by government & private organisations.

I design buildings for a living and I can tell you there is no right to decline to provide gender specific bathrooms, the public has mandated that separate facilities be provided. Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

None of which invalidates my point. What the public demands is not the basis for whether or not the "right to privacy" is gender specific. The right to privacy is a legal right granted by SCOTUS interpretation of the US Constitution. As recent decisions by that court has shown, expectations of special rights based on gender do not have the backing of the highest court in the land - the very court from which your "right to privacy" stems.

Tell it to the trans people.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

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.

When you refuse to acknowledge that transgender girls are girls, and transgender boys are boys, you are going full nannygoat. Stomping feet, gritting teeth and clenching fists did not succeed in keeping subhuman mongrel status attached to black folks, and it won't work here. All it does is demonstrate that you haven't educated yourself about the gender matters at the heart of this. That is going full nannygoat.

Competing rights? In retrospect it is easy to say there were no competing rights in the racial discrimination and gay marriage issues, but it overlooks quite a lot (which is also going full nannygoat). I assure you that both Homer Plessy AND Judge Ferguson were asserting their rights, when Mr. Plessy refused to vacate a seat in a RR car for the race to which 1/8 of him did not belong. What was the justification for the separate but equal standard? Hmmm. Lets see. Can you say "comfort"? No, the "those people make me uncomfortable" fallacy didn't start with this issue.

In determining the question of reasonableness it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order.

Think about it. Homer Plessy was 7/8 white, yet Louisiana forced him to use the "other" RR car. Sound familiar? But hey, the Court went along with it that time, and Separate but Equal was the law of the land, and the comfort of those who didn't want to be grouped with them others was protected, all the way up until Brown v Bd. of Education in 1954. But Plessy v. Ferguson is worth reading for reasons beyond the tragic ruling, and I urge you to do so, if only to read Justice Harlan's dissent on this Memorial Day, because it is perhaps the most concise and spot-on description of what I think our country is about. I'll put but a little clip of it here, but the entire dissent follows the majority decision. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16038751515555215717&q=163+U.S.+537&hl=en&as_sdt=40003&scilh=0

But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.

Brown v. Bd. of Education put Plessy v. Ferguson to rest with the following words which I will translate: "Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time ofPlessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority." That is perhaps the nicest way that you will ever see learned authors say "what the fuck were you stupid, backwards, cocksuckers thinking way back when?"

Yet folks still make the discomfort argument, when confronted by the prospect of mixing with groups of another cloth.

But comfort wasn't the only "right" asserted to discriminate against the black folks. No no, divine providence always plays a role. Our one and only Superior God demands that those not like "us" be identified, singled out, and marginalized, in the benevolent name of Jesus Christ. Bob Jones University claimed that not getting a tax exemption because of its racially discriminatory admissions policy violated their free exercise of religion. The Free Exercise clause is a popular justification for those trying to screw other groups out of their rights, a practice which necessitates the type of non-discrimination ordinances at issue in Charlotte.

The rights asserted to justify miscegenation laws were more varied, as documented in Loving v. Virginia.

State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

A nice mix of comfort and "Stite's Rats!" But the trial judge's ruling, convicting the Lovings, read "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

So "Loving" gives us the trifecta. Comfort, Stite's Rats!, and the Almighty.

The notion that past discriminatory laws only dealt with rights on one side of the equation doesn't hold water any better, when we look at the same sex marriage issue. Look at the religious liberty arguments over baking a fucking cake! The sanctity of our marriages is at stake!

The old expectation of locker room privacy argument doesn't hold up very well, since Justice Scalia shook his rhetorical dick in its face, as noted above.

Justification of the NC law requires deliberate ignorance of what transgender means, both technically and practically, and recitation of principles of law our country has resoundingly rejected for decades, all to solve a problem we did not have. Deliberate ignorance is the province of the full nannygoat. So instead of having local solutions provided, we will get a one-size-fits-all from the Supreme Court. Good luck with that, given the authority cited above.

 

[Saorsa]

Don't be fucking stupid.

Once the transformation is complete or you have progressed enough to legally change your sex in public records there is no problem.

It's the self diagnoses that smell.

 

[Spatial Ed]

I too anxiously await Jeff to answer my question, one he does not want to answer because it destroys his argument.

How so?

Is it OK to dangle your dick in a boys face in a locker room?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

Playing the perception over truth game might work with morons, but it won't help when it counts. The courts are not likely to play along with the Doggy Style on this one. They're pretty good at sniffing out bull malarkey like yours, and have a pretty good track record of it over the last 60 years or so.

 

[Dog]

Now we are being told that it is discriminatory not extend special bathroom privileges to a select group.

Playing the perception over truth game might work with morons, but it won't help when it counts. The courts are not likely to play along with the Doggy Style on this one. They're pretty good at sniffing out bull malarkey like yours, and have a pretty good track record of it over the last 60 years or so.

Oh please...By adopting a psychological criteria for the determination of one's sex you are the one advocating that perception is reality.