The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
They were never gender neutral. There was a time when a biological male entering the women's room would have been charged with a number of things and would have been labeled a sex offender and had to register wherever they lived for the rest of their life. There was no need for a specific law for each location or facility,
Yes, they were gender neutral legally speaking. The man would not be charged with entering the facilities because he was a man and it was a woman's toilet. He'd be charged with other offences about his actions whilst in the facility. Actions that could be wind either gender in legal trouble. Which is why you and JBSF have come to similar conclusions after looking into the laws in question. Of course, you have to each give it your anti-LGBT skew, but the fact remains that legally speaking - the issue wasn't an issue until the Republicans wanted to remind the public they are the Panty Police and voters should remember who is and isn't against the queers.

it would have been treated with the existing laws. It is silliness to say that a guy could walk into a girls shower any time over the last hundred years and nothing would have been done about it. Perhaps that is true where you live, but it certainly never was here in the US.
Good thing I didn't say "nothing would be done about it". I said that there was nothing illegal about entering the facility corresponding to one's gender identity before recent Republican actions. RD is doing a great job of reminding us that society is more than willing to "do something about the queers" when they want to - legal or not.

Thing to remember is that voyeurism is a crime regardless of the genders of watcher and watchee. If a man can be charged for voyeurism simply by showing in the women's shower - so too can the lesbians. It isn't the use of the facility at issue - it's what they choose to do in there. Your issue is that folks don't want to get past the idea that a guy with a dick is just in their to shower, shit, and change. He must have gone in their to perve cos, you know, it's a dick :rolleyes:

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
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?
You are incorrect. If they aren't contested they stand.

As far as requiring minors to undress on front of others - it'll never have to go as far as SCOTUS. The States will take car of it and no one will contest it.

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
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:
If they had the right to use any bathroom they wished there wouldn't have been any need for Charlotte to do what they did and the kid in Illinois wouldn't have been in federal court.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
You are incorrect. If they aren't contested they stand.
I didn't say otherwise. Being uncontested doesn't make them legal. The Jim Crow laws and miscegenation laws weren't legal until they got bum0ed on the head by SCOTUS. They were *always* illegal. Same legal principle applies here.

As far as requiring minors to undress on front of others - it'll never have to go as far as SCOTUS. The States will take car of it and no one will contest it.
I hope so but given how often the states drag their heels when there are mirality votes to be milked, I don't share your confidence.

 

tuk tuk Joe

Super Anarchist
8,757
0
SEA
And then there's this from a “lazy,” “ill-educated,” a “b--ch” who needs to sit down and “STFU.” :ph34r:

State leader quits ACLU after daughters were ‘visibly frightened’ by men using women’s restroom.

The African-American woman who leads a state chapter of the ACLU has resigned, citing her own daughters' “frightened” reaction to biological males using the women's restroom.

The organization's increasing focus on legislating the transgender lobby's concerns pushed Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, to tender her resignation.

“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,” she wrote.

“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,” she continued.

In a statement, she said that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights.”

The “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore, she wrote, is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities." She did not elaborate on the group's funding.

Dillard Smith is no conservative. She earned a degree in economics from Berkeley and a masters degree at Harvard, while working for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court.

She is a 2003 graduate of the program Emerge America, which states its “goal is clear: to increase the number of Democratic women in public office.”

But this self-described “progressive” who called herself “unapologetically black” cannot go along with the ACLU's transgender legal agenda.

Georgia was one of first 11 states suing the Obama administration over itscontroversial federal guidance requiring public schools and universities to allow transgender students to use the restrooms, showers, and overnight accommodations of the opposite biological sex.

The ACLU's North Carolina chapter is suing Gov. Pat McCrory for signing H.B. 2, which requires individuals use the restroom of the biological sex noted on their birth certificates in the lawsuit Carcano v. McCrory.

The liberal legal group's opposition to the bill – which otherwise leaves restroom policies up to business owners – proved the ACLU holds a legal philosophy Dillard Smith says she can no longer support.

“I found myself principally and philosophically unaligned with the organization,” Dillard Smith said.

“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,” she said in a statement.

“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,” she said.

Numerous sexual assault survivors have shared how transgender restroom laws render women vulnerable and stir painful memories of abuse in a video released by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Dillard Smith has already started a new website, Finding Middle Ground, dedicated to creating a “safe space” to discuss the new, red-hot national issue.

“How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”

The website features a young black girl standing near a swing set, clasping its chain as she shares her own feelings. “I don't want him to be uncomfortable in the boy's bathroom, either,” she said. “I don't want them to be uncomfortable anywhere. But what about me, too?”

A transgender activist, a biological male who goes by the name Cheryl Courtney-Evans, responded to the resignation by calling Dillard Smith “lazy,” “ill-educated,” and a “b--ch” who needs to sit down and “STFU.”

"What am I doing in a men’s room looking as luscious as I am, putting myself in danger?" the transgender activist asked.

Dillard Smith's departure will leave the ACLU shorthanded in the state and even shorter on diversity nationwide.

As of last November, she was one of the youngest ACLU directors in the nation, and one of only three African-Americans employed in that role in the progressive organization.



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/state-leader-quits-aclu-after-children-were-visibly-frightened-by-transgend#pq=VvitsT
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
And then there's this from a “lazy,” “ill-educated,” a “b--ch” who needs to sit down and “STFU.” :ph34r:

State leader quits ACLU after daughters were ‘visibly frightened’ by men using women’s restroom.

The African-American woman who leads a state chapter of the ACLU has resigned, citing her own daughters' “frightened” reaction to biological males using the women's restroom.

The organization's increasing focus on legislating the transgender lobby's concerns pushed Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, to tender her resignation.

“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,” she wrote.

“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,” she continued.

In a statement, she said that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights.”

The “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore, she wrote, is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities." She did not elaborate on the group's funding.

Dillard Smith is no conservative. She earned a degree in economics from Berkeley and a masters degree at Harvard, while working for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court.

She is a 2003 graduate of the program Emerge America, which states its “goal is clear: to increase the number of Democratic women in public office.”

But this self-described “progressive” who called herself “unapologetically black” cannot go along with the ACLU's transgender legal agenda.

Georgia was one of first 11 states suing the Obama administration over itscontroversial federal guidance requiring public schools and universities to allow transgender students to use the restrooms, showers, and overnight accommodations of the opposite biological sex.

The ACLU's North Carolina chapter is suing Gov. Pat McCrory for signing H.B. 2, which requires individuals use the restroom of the biological sex noted on their birth certificates in the lawsuit Carcano v. McCrory.

The liberal legal group's opposition to the bill – which otherwise leaves restroom policies up to business owners – proved the ACLU holds a legal philosophy Dillard Smith says she can no longer support.

“I found myself principally and philosophically unaligned with the organization,” Dillard Smith said.

“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,” she said in a statement.

“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,” she said.

Numerous sexual assault survivors have shared how transgender restroom laws render women vulnerable and stir painful memories of abuse in a video released by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Dillard Smith has already started a new website, Finding Middle Ground, dedicated to creating a “safe space” to discuss the new, red-hot national issue.

“How can we ask these kinds of questions without being called a homophobe?” the video asks. “How do we prevent predators from preying on kids in bathrooms?”

The website features a young black girl standing near a swing set, clasping its chain as she shares her own feelings. “I don't want him to be uncomfortable in the boy's bathroom, either,” she said. “I don't want them to be uncomfortable anywhere. But what about me, too?”

A transgender activist, a biological male who goes by the name Cheryl Courtney-Evans, responded to the resignation by calling Dillard Smith “lazy,” “ill-educated,” and a “b--ch” who needs to sit down and “STFU.”

"What am I doing in a men’s room looking as luscious as I am, putting myself in danger?" the transgender activist asked.

Dillard Smith's departure will leave the ACLU shorthanded in the state and even shorter on diversity nationwide.

As of last November, she was one of the youngest ACLU directors in the nation, and one of only three African-Americans employed in that role in the progressive organization.



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/state-leader-quits-aclu-after-children-were-visibly-frightened-by-transgend#pq=VvitsT
Post #1051

Moron

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
They were never gender neutral. There was a time when a biological male entering the women's room would have been charged with a number of things and would have been labeled a sex offender and had to register wherever they lived for the rest of their life. There was no need for a specific law for each location or facility,
Yes, they were gender neutral legally speaking. The man would not be charged with entering the facilities because he was a man and it was a woman's toilet. He'd be charged with other offences about his actions whilst in the facility. Actions that could be wind either gender in legal trouble. Which is why you and JBSF have come to similar conclusions after looking into the laws in question. Of course, you have to each give it your anti-LGBT skew, but the fact remains that legally speaking - the issue wasn't an issue until the Republicans wanted to remind the public they are the Panty Police and voters should remember who is and isn't against the queers.

it would have been treated with the existing laws. It is silliness to say that a guy could walk into a girls shower any time over the last hundred years and nothing would have been done about it. Perhaps that is true where you live, but it certainly never was here in the US.
Good thing I didn't say "nothing would be done about it". I said that there was nothing illegal about entering the facility corresponding to one's gender identity before recent Republican actions. RD is doing a great job of reminding us that society is more than willing to "do something about the queers" when they want to - legal or not.

Thing to remember is that voyeurism is a crime regardless of the genders of watcher and watchee. If a man can be charged for voyeurism simply by showing in the women's shower - so too can the lesbians. It isn't the use of the facility at issue - it's what they choose to do in there. Your issue is that folks don't want to get past the idea that a guy with a dick is just in their to shower, shit, and change. He must have gone in their to perve cos, you know, it's a dick :rolleyes:
Oh good grief. When you claim that the facilities were gender neutral legally speaking it is not true, since men entering a woman's changing are would be arrested. You are really getting into what the definition of is is territory. Why is it so difficult for folks to just try and have an honest discussion where they actually try to understand what everyone else is saying rather than searching for some way to argue for arguments sake.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
Oh good grief. When you claim that the facilities were gender neutral legally speaking it is not true, since men entering a woman's changing are would be arrested.
They would not be charged for entering a woman's bathroom. There is no laws about that (at least until recent efforts by the nanny government police). The charges the police might level against the man require him to have done something more than enter an empty bathroom - which makes the facility gender neutral legally speaking.

You are really getting into what the definition of is is territory.
No, I'm talking about the law. You're talking about social expectations. These are very different concepts and, like it or not, one's social expectations are not legal rights. Just like one might have had, in the forties & fifties, the social expectation that blacks didn't use the white man's toilet - unless there is was an actual law stating the negroes had to keep out, the facility was racially neutral. Police would have to arrest the black man for some other pretext, even if they are doing so because they want to maintain their non-legally supported social expectations as opposed to just upholding the law. Same principle applies here.

Why is it so difficult for folks to just try and have an honest discussion where they actually try to understand what everyone else is saying rather than searching for some way to argue for arguments sake.
I keep thinking that exact thing when people try projecting what they want the law to say, even when they've been shown it doesn't by someone with their own moral expectations. I keep thinking that whenever some moron decides to blame the LGBT for the fact the Republicans took a local issue and made it international news. I keep thinking that whenever someone pretends that transgender folks haven't been using the bathroom applicable to their gender identity for decades. And so on.

But hey, you keep pretending the issue is only about how you don't see a difference between social expectations and legal reality. Because that's never been the downfall of those thinking SCOTUS would side with them on an issue of personal morality vs the US Constitution. Which is why they gays can't marry... oh shit, they can. :rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
@LenP - you see now why I stopped really bothering to seriously engage bent a while ago. He's kinda the "mike woofery-Lite".

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
You stopped "seriously" engaging with anyone on the issue about the time you decided to blame the LGBT for the Republicans making a national brouhaha out of a local city ordinance. Had they left that alone, I doubt the bathroom issue would have even risen it's head in these forums let alone made national headlines. :rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
You stopped "seriously" engaging with anyone on the issue about the time you decided to blame the LGBT for the Republicans making a national brouhaha out of a local city ordinance. Had they charlotte left that alone, I doubt the bathroom issue would have even risen it's head in these forums let alone made national headlines. :rolleyes:
minor edit :p

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
404
Lake Macquarie
You stopped "seriously" engaging with anyone on the issue about the time you decided to blame the LGBT for the Republicans making a national brouhaha out of a local city ordinance. Had they charlotte left that alone, I doubt the bathroom issue would have even risen it's head in these forums let alone made national headlines. :rolleyes:
minor edit :p
Of course. How dare the locals deal with their local issues! Keep that up and soon the big government Republicans will have nothing left to get their voters out to the polls and elect them for yet more nanny government legislation. :rolleyes:

Nothing changes the fact the issue was a complete nothing burger before the Republicans in the state legislature started threatening (& then legislating) their panty police policies. Yet you want people to take you seriously when you blame the LGBT. *shakes head*

 




Top