The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.
But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.
Their perception is their reality. The fact is you don't agree with them, so they must be discriminated against.
No, it's not. They have gender dysphoria, they are not what they perceive themselves to be. Just like the anorexic is not fat. They deserve to be treated with compassion but pretending their perception is reality and requiring everyone to play along is stupid and benefits no one.. Sorry to play the reality card on you.
We all live in our own perception of reality. Because someone doesn't align with your reality, doesn't make them lesser. The compassionate thing would be to allow them to maintain their own reality. That means going to the bathroom that they are comfortable in. That's compassionate.
Can they shit in your pool?

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.
No-one is saying you have to like or abide by social expectations you disagree with. Same applies to the transgender folks. The argument was, before some people did their research, whether or not LGBT people should be able to get "special rights" over & above the rest of the straight folk. Thing is, they didn't get special rights - despite building codes requiring separate bathrooms for the two genders since 1887 - there was no laws requiring someone of a given chromosomal makeup to use one or the other.

That's the thing that's screwing up the "leave my rights alone" argument people have been trying to wedge onto this. Prior to the Republicans legislating against the LGBT, everyone was allowed to use whichever public bathrooms & change rooms they liked. Everyone had the same rights. Now they don't because the nanny government Christian morality police decided to make a big issue of this and legislate against an action that wasn't a big deal... until they needed it to be.
I'm not Christian and I don't believe men ( in the US that means people with a penis - ask any 1st grader) should be able to use the Ladies Room. Are you saying I must be Christian? I don't feel Christian.

 

Gouvernail

Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
38,253
5,734
Austin Texas
The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.
No-one is saying you have to like or abide by social expectations you disagree with. Same applies to the transgender folks. The argument was, before some people did their research, whether or not LGBT people should be able to get "special rights" over & above the rest of the straight folk. Thing is, they didn't get special rights - despite building codes requiring separate bathrooms for the two genders since 1887 - there was no laws requiring someone of a given chromosomal makeup to use one or the other.

That's the thing that's screwing up the "leave my rights alone" argument people have been trying to wedge onto this. Prior to the Republicans legislating against the LGBT, everyone was allowed to use whichever public bathrooms & change rooms they liked. Everyone had the same rights. Now they don't because the nanny government Christian morality police decided to make a big issue of this and legislate against an action that wasn't a big deal... until they needed it to be.
I'm not Christian and I don't believe men ( in the US that means people with a penis - ask any 1st grader) should be able to use the Ladies Room. Are you saying I must be Christian? I don't feel Christian.
Don't worry. No one would confuse you with a follower of Jesus.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.
No-one is saying you have to like or abide by social expectations you disagree with. Same applies to the transgender folks. The argument was, before some people did their research, whether or not LGBT people should be able to get "special rights" over & above the rest of the straight folk. Thing is, they didn't get special rights - despite building codes requiring separate bathrooms for the two genders since 1887 - there was no laws requiring someone of a given chromosomal makeup to use one or the other.

That's the thing that's screwing up the "leave my rights alone" argument people have been trying to wedge onto this. Prior to the Republicans legislating against the LGBT, everyone was allowed to use whichever public bathrooms & change rooms they liked. Everyone had the same rights. Now they don't because the nanny government Christian morality police decided to make a big issue of this and legislate against an action that wasn't a big deal... until they needed it to be.
I'm not Christian and I don't believe men ( in the US that means people with a penis - ask any 1st grader) should be able to use the Ladies Room. Are you saying I must be Christian? I don't feel Christian.
Are you a "nanny government"? Did you "legislate against" the matter? If not, why do you think the line that explicitly calls out "the nanny government Christian morality police" who "legislate(d) against an action that wasn't a big deal" refers to you?

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
Truth is unless there is someone saying the government cannot require people to do something they've done for decades (meaning people agree with it) the Gov can REQUIRE it.
Bzzt. Wrong. Otherwise the bans on same sex marriage would have been "legal" right up until SCOTUS handed down their decision. That's not how it works. SCOTUS determined that the bans were illegal and were always illegal because they contravened the US Constitution. Same applied to segregation, miscegenation, etc. Same principle applies here.

If the government requires something, even for a hundred years, and it turns out to be unconstitutional - the government was never allowed to require it in the first place, they did so unconstitutionally.

I agree the only way around it will be either the government can't require minor to undress in the company of a member of the opposite sex or the government can't require a minor child to undress in front of anyone at all. Due to obvious financial, facility, and time constraints the 'provide private' changing areas for all' won't work for a lot of schools and will result in an end of girls PE.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think the government has the right at this very moment to require any minor to strip down in front of another minor, regardless of gender. That they are doing so is, I believe, an inarguable violation of the minor's privacy which even Scalia's opinion about diminished privacy in the locker room acknowledged (that students still have "a significant privacy interest in their unclothed bodies").

If your government is requiring children to get naked in front of one another - it is, in my opinion, breaking the law. I'm willing to bet good money, should this issue make it to SCOTUS, that the majority of the bench agrees with me.

The 'provide private changing facilities' solution is a great 'on paper' solution but is not reasonable in a lot of situations.
That must suck, but that is the problem of the government having required something they were not allowed to do in the first place. I have about as much sympathy for government breaking the law and then having to find money to fix their fuck-ups as they do us anyone that makes a mistake on their taxes and must pay to fix that fuck-up.

But see, that's where you fail. They weren't demanding "special"rights. They were demanding "equal"rights. Why doesn't a man have "equal" rights to shower with the wimin?
Did you not point out that in the majority of the country, that is indeed the case? That there is no law on the book preventing men from using the women's bathrooms & change rooms?
BZZT. Wrong! I never said 'legal'. I said ability to require. Matter of fact, it's happening right now.

I also find it interesting, in the case of the Illinois boy in the girls locker room, He is surrounded by a drop curtain. Wait til he or the next one decides they don't want the curtain.

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
Truth is unless there is someone saying the government cannot require people to do something they've done for decades (meaning people agree with it) the Gov can REQUIRE it.
Bzzt. Wrong. Otherwise the bans on same sex marriage would have been "legal" right up until SCOTUS handed down their decision. That's not how it works. SCOTUS determined that the bans were illegal and were always illegal because they contravened the US Constitution. Same applied to segregation, miscegenation, etc. Same principle applies here.

If the government requires something, even for a hundred years, and it turns out to be unconstitutional - the government was never allowed to require it in the first place, they did so unconstitutionally.

I agree the only way around it will be either the government can't require minor to undress in the company of a member of the opposite sex or the government can't require a minor child to undress in front of anyone at all. Due to obvious financial, facility, and time constraints the 'provide private' changing areas for all' won't work for a lot of schools and will result in an end of girls PE.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think the government has the right at this very moment to require any minor to strip down in front of another minor, regardless of gender. That they are doing so is, I believe, an inarguable violation of the minor's privacy which even Scalia's opinion about diminished privacy in the locker room acknowledged (that students still have "a significant privacy interest in their unclothed bodies").

If your government is requiring children to get naked in front of one another - it is, in my opinion, breaking the law. I'm willing to bet good money, should this issue make it to SCOTUS, that the majority of the bench agrees with me.

The 'provide private changing facilities' solution is a great 'on paper' solution but is not reasonable in a lot of situations.
That must suck, but that is the problem of the government having required something they were not allowed to do in the first place. I have about as much sympathy for government breaking the law and then having to find money to fix their fuck-ups as they do us anyone that makes a mistake on their taxes and must pay to fix that fuck-up.

But see, that's where you fail. They weren't demanding "special"rights. They were demanding "equal"rights. Why doesn't a man have "equal" rights to shower with the wimin?
Did you not point out that in the majority of the country, that is indeed the case? That there is no law on the book preventing men from using the women's bathrooms & change rooms?
And, some things don't require a written law because the 'law'. To prove why, go to a local popular sports bar and follow the biggest and meanest looking dudes wife into the ladies room.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
And, some things don't require a written law because the 'law'. To prove why, go to a local popular sports bar and follow the biggest and meanest looking dudes wife into the ladies room.
Well, if you want it to be illegal & punishable by the justice department, you do need it to be a law. If you only want it to be something society frowns upon, then feel free to leave it unwritten. It's not illegal to fuck another man's wife either, and I sure as hell don't condone it, but the government shouldn't (& doesn't) get involved when it happens.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
BZZT. Wrong! I never said 'legal'. I said ability to require. Matter of fact, it's happening right now.
If that's how you want it, it is indeed possible for a government to illegally require you to do something through using the legislature & police force in an unconstitutional manner. Once also has the "ability to require" someone to pay you protection money cos they have guns and are willing to shoot your family. I put both of those "abilities" in the same moral basket.

I also find it interesting, in the case of the Illinois boy in the girls locker room, He is surrounded by a drop curtain. Wait til he or the next one decides they don't want the curtain.
Then you will see the issue of government requiring a minor to strip in front of other minors head to SCOTUS. Want to put some money down on whether the government's ability to enforce minors stripping in front of one another is upheld as legal by the SCOTUS bench?

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,123
5,849
De Nile
The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.
No-one is saying you have to like or abide by social expectations you disagree with. Same applies to the transgender folks. The argument was, before some people did their research, whether or not LGBT people should be able to get "special rights" over & above the rest of the straight folk. Thing is, they didn't get special rights - despite building codes requiring separate bathrooms for the two genders since 1887 - there was no laws requiring someone of a given chromosomal makeup to use one or the other.

That's the thing that's screwing up the "leave my rights alone" argument people have been trying to wedge onto this. Prior to the Republicans legislating against the LGBT, everyone was allowed to use whichever public bathrooms & change rooms they liked. Everyone had the same rights. Now they don't because the nanny government Christian morality police decided to make a big issue of this and legislate against an action that wasn't a big deal... until they needed it to be.
I'm not Christian and I don't believe men ( in the US that means people with a penis - ask any 1st grader) should be able to use the Ladies Room. Are you saying I must be Christian? I don't feel Christian.
Rockdoggie probably didn't see this photo:

02ADA50-zoom.jpg


 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,123
5,849
De Nile
And, some things don't require a written law because the 'law'. To prove why, go to a local popular sports bar and follow the biggest and meanest looking dudes wife into the ladies room.
Well, if you want it to be illegal & punishable by the justice department, you do need it to be a law. If you only want it to be something society frowns upon, then feel free to leave it unwritten. It's not illegal to fuck another man's wife either, and I sure as hell don't condone it, but the government shouldn't (& doesn't) get involved when it happens.
Oddly enough, in some states adultery IS illegal. It's a strange country sometimes.

In most of those states, including New York, adultery is a misdemeanor. But in others — Massachusetts, Idaho, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — it is a felony, though rarely prosecuted. In the armed forces, it can be punished severely, although usually in combination with greater wrongdoing.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
And, some things don't require a written law because the 'law'. To prove why, go to a local popular sports bar and follow the biggest and meanest looking dudes wife into the ladies room.
Well, if you want it to be illegal & punishable by the justice department, you do need it to be a law. If you only want it to be something society frowns upon, then feel free to leave it unwritten. It's not illegal to fuck another man's wife either, and I sure as hell don't condone it, but the government shouldn't (& doesn't) get involved when it happens.
Oddly enough, in some states adultery IS illegal. It's a strange country sometimes.

In most of those states, including [/size]New York, adultery is a misdemeanor. But in others — [/size]Massachusetts, [/size]Idaho, [/size]Michigan, [/size]Oklahoma, and [/size]Wisconsin — it is a felony, though rarely prosecuted. In the armed forces, it can be punished severely, although usually in combination with greater wrongdoing.[/size]
Reckon you'd find, outside perhaps the military where blackmail & national security are intertwined, that if one were charged with said crimes and challenged it - they'd get knocked down by SCOTUS too.

After all, if the government isn't allowed to make it criminal HOW you bang your partner and it can't make criminal which SEX your partner is, I don't see the justification in criminalising WHO your partner is either. Then again, some people like nanny government morality police and others like small government. Kind of funny watching which posters proclaims belief in one only to complain they aren't getting the other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
YCMTSU

ACLU LEADER QUITS AFTER DAUGHTERS ENCOUNTER MEN IN THE WOMEN’S RESTROOM

private-a-minute-with-maya-dilla_810_500_55_s_c1.jpg



Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, has resigned over the ACLU’s position on who can use which public restrooms. The resignation occurred after her two daughters were traumatized by encountering men in the women’s restroom. Dillard Smith explained:

I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered. My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.



Dillard Smith complained that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights” and that the “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.” Further expressing her disillusionment, Dillard Smith stated:

I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences. I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent.

Unfortunately, as she has learned, Dillard Smith’s view of the ACLU bears little relation to reality. The ACLU’s goal — like that of the LGBT movement — is to shove a radical agenda down the throats of the American people, not to balance rights and find reasonable accommodations.

A transgender activist — a biological male who goes by the name Cheryl Courtney-Evans — responded to Dillard Smith’s resignation by calling her “lazy,” “ill-educated,” and a “b–ch” who needs to sit down and “STFU.” No one who has seen LGBT activists in action will be surprised by this charming response.

Actually, Dillard Smith is well educated. She earned a degree in economics from Berkeley and a master’s degree at Harvard.

She’s also a liberal Democrat. And until she resigned, she was one of the youngest ACLU directors in the nation and one of only three African-Americans employed by the ACLU in that role.

These days, one hears intelligent people assert that the “culture war” is over. It isn’t, and won’t be soon, because the left will keep looking for new cultural battlegrounds. Today, public restrooms; tomorrow, the world.

Good for her.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?
Why won't the nigras just sit in the back of the bus and shut up, Senator Thurmond, why must they demand special rights?
But see, that's where you fail. They weren't demanding "special"rights. They were demanding "equal"rights. Why doesn't a man have "equal" rights to shower with the wimin?
I think you quoted me by mistake. Dog was the one that suggested that they were enjoying special rights.

No, I quoted you exactly as I intended. The LGBT community is asking for special rights. The nigras were only asking for equal rights.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
No, I quoted you exactly as I intended. The LGBT community is asking for special rights. The nigras were only asking for equal rights.
Sorry, like the "dangling dick" question, you seem to like ignoring critical queries that undermine your position. Weren't you the one pointing out how there wasn't much in the way of laws about which bathroom people can use?

So the LGBT would simply be asking for a continuation of the right everyone already had . They didn't ask to block anyone from using the bathrooms they were already able to use. That was the Republicans.

It's pretty sad that you seek to blame the people who were simply looking to preserve their rights they've had for decades. Instead of, you know, putting the blame at the feet of those writing new laws to restrict people from doing what even you've found they were allowed to do all their lives until now. Nanny government is bad.... sometimes :rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
No, BS - what you're missing here is that while its true that there has been no law allowing or prohibiting the use of a bathroom to a specific gender up until recently - what WILL come before the courts sooner or later will be the right to privacy. Its just that no one has ever had to really test it before under this context. The right to privacy in bathrooms and lockers has been discussed, as Sol pointed out, but in the context of being surveilled. This is different. Its new territory. But it will be a fight in court and it will go on for years.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
No, BS - what you're missing here is that while its true that there has been no law allowing or prohibiting the use of a bathroom to a specific gender up until recently - what WILL come before the courts sooner or later will be the right to privacy. Its just that no one has ever had to really test it before under this context. The right to privacy in bathrooms and lockers has been discussed, as Sol pointed out, but in the context of being surveilled. This is different. Its new territory. But it will be a fight in court and it will go on for years.
I don't argue that. I argue your claim that the LGBT are asking for "special rights". They are not. They were not restricted from using the bathroom corresponding to the gender identity before. They simply want to maintain the same right everyone shared in the face of increasing pressure from those looking to get a win in the Puritan Police column. Remember, the NC Republicans had to change the law to be more restrictive in order to prevent LGBT people from using the bathroom matching their gender identity. It wasn't illegal before that or they wouldn't have had to write the law in the first place.

I don't disagree that the right-wingers will probably try the "right to privacy" angle when pushing for a SCOTUS decision. Like the failed attempt to use "states rights" to further discrimination when it comes to same sex marriage, it's the best legal cover for the right-wingers on the bench to give their side the win. However, as I stated from the beginning, the right to privacy, like your other rights, is not gender specific. Either you allow people in a public space/amenity to see you get changed or you do not.

That someone wants only to waive it for one gender does not give them the right to enforce that gender restriction in a public space/amenity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
I believe what LenP predicted will come true. ALL public facilities will become gender neutral and there will have to be private spaces for all to use for changing, showering, shitting, pissing, etc. Its the only way forward that is fair and equal for all.

However, the downside is that it will cost the taxpayers shitloads of money to change everything to accommodate the .03% of people that need accommodating. But oh well, fair is fair.

I also predict that this issue will likely cost most of the good will the LGBT community built up during their battle for gay marriage rights. In that case I think they were right and just to fight for that as them gaining those rights didn't cost anyone else their rights to marriage. Just as blacks gaining the right to ride at the front of the bus didn't cost whites their right to ride the bus. However, this issue is different. A long accepted tradition and social customs an expectation to privacy to shower and be naked only around your own gender (regardless if it was the law or not) is being taken away because a tiny majority of people want to push a social agenda on the rest of us and their reasonable accommodations were not seen to be good enough, even though schools bent over backwards to accommodate them.

And yes, sol - I know your retort is that the long accepted tradition and social custom of a white's expectation to not sit next to a nigra at the same lunch counter was taken away too. So boo fucking hoo. That you continue to say its the same thing doesn't make it so.

I'm thinking the LGB's are regretting adding the T's and Q's to the group about right now.......

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
Well, at least you got past the "special rights" bullshit. Thing to remember though is that, legally speaking, public facilities were gender neutral to start with. Until the Republicans started their recent nanny government drive, despite your expectations and as practiced by transgenders / transexuals for decades, people were (& in most places - still are) legally able to use the public facilities that suit them.

Soon you'll be able to concede that the people that actually blew this issue out of all proportion would be those that sought to take away people's rights through legislation. It'll take time but, then again, it did for those that blamed the "nigras" too. ;)

 




Top