Lance Berkman campaigns against allowing boys into girls' bathrooms

The law in Washington state is similar to this ordinance. They cannot discriminate against people who "self-identify" as whatever gender they want.

Here is an example of the can of worms that you open up if this ordinance is passed:

I'm sorry, but I'm not in favor of a law that would make it 100% legal for a 45 man to go into the girls locker room and walk around naked with his penis in full view of everyone... a locker room that is used by 6 year old girls.

I'm pretty sure women do not want that in their locker room, and I'm sure fathers with daughters would not like it very much either.

I would bet that girls would not like changing in front of a man in their locker room either.

 

I'm happy when people manage good, logically sound arguments that run counter to my position. Like you were saying it weeds out weak arguments in favor of stronger arguments. What I don't like, is when people can't make sound logical arguments and it turns into whining and fallacious arguments.
This place is at it's best when posters stick to the topic and make their best efforts at arguing their position.

I have the same problems with the ordinance. I think it's simply a bad idea given the potential for abuse and unintended consequence.

 

It's not a bad idea to embrace diversity and remove artificial constraints for people with legitimate human qualities. This ordinance is a symbolic acceptance of that really. It's libertarian to not have government enforcing arbitrary standards as law.

 

I'm against the HERO ordinance for reasons completely unrelated to the whole 'rapist in teh bathroom!!!11" derpitude.

 

A person's sex is not arbitrary.

I don't feel comfortable with a law that would make it legal for a 45 year old man to get naked next to my daughter in the women's locker room.

I don't know what the solution is... but this ordinance isn't it. I'm not against helping transgender people. I just don't like this particular ordinance. Any law that takes into account the feelings of the few while disregarding the feelings of the many is a bad law.

You are going to appease the very few transgender people in this city by allowing all men to use the women's facilities (and vice versa). It's just not a good law.

 

Besides four separate bathrooms/lockers for every group, what solution is there?

 

I don't know what the solution is. I just know this ordinance is not it.

 

The ordinance is not about bathrooms, the regressive bigots have framed a red herring issue in typical FAUX fashion, find a hot button hypothetical and repeat it till it rings of validity.

time to grow up voters, the people that strive to gain the moral high ground with discrimination are lying to you, pretty much as they have been throughout history. Your race is not superior, your religion is not the one true religion, a sexual preference is criminal, tobacco and alcohol are fine, but other drugs are against the law etc. etc. etc.

 

So, I can understand your discomfort. But, I'm interested to know what you think the better solution is. Should this transgendered person use the mens' lockerroom? Aren't the 6 year old boys going to be likewise shocked by a transgendered person there? What if this transgendered with a penis also has breasts? Aren't the fathers of the boys going to be concerned about them disrobing in front of this transgendered person who's sexual orientation, after all, is an open question. (For that matter, are the fathers going to be concerned about the undetectable homosexual men in the locker room, who might be staring at and fantasizing about their young boys (or them, for that matter)?) So, given that you have a transgendered person who has a right to use one locker room or the other, is picking a room by statute really going to get you a better outcome?

My feeling is that it's probably a messy situation every time a transgendered person goes into any lockerroom. And probably more trouble for the transgendered person than it is for everyone else. So, I expect that 80% of the time, the transgendered will avoid the situation altogether, and 19% of the time, they'll try to manage the situation to cause as little fracas as they can and minimize their exposure to potential retaliation. Leering at little girls and popping boners is probably the best way they can find trouble, so most people will avoid that as much as possible. There will be a few cases of people looking for trouble. A couple of troublemakers don't invalidate a system though.

 

Was there every anything more to that story btw? I remember hearing about it but nothing after that? I guess once they put up private curtains there was not much else to do...

Any ways, if you are not against helping transgender people then realize they are the ones that are more often the victims. They are the ones that are harassed and sometimes physically assaulted.

Lets also remember that there are transgender children that will be forced into using restrooms they don't want to use as well.

 

Don't most people poop with the door closed?

 

I would rather the small minority of transgender people being uncomfortable than the large majority of non-transgendered people being uncomfortable.

If they can figure something out that is good for all sides, then I'm all for it.

 

Exactly. This is a common sense issue. Sometimes the "Social Justice Warriors" get too carried away. This is one of those cases.

 

It's not just about being uncomfortable...
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...d-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf

Realize that most of it is verbal harrasment, some of it is other stuff (being followed after leaving restrooms) and 9% of it is actual physical assault. It's not just being 'uncomfortable'.

If every time you had to use the restroom you faced even the small possibility that someone would bully or assault you in any way, imagine how ______ that is. Now also understand that not only is this happening to transgender adults, but children.

On the other hand, this isn't even a issue for the states that have moved forward into 2015.

Spoiler

 

Whenever I see someone claim common sense or say something is really simple, alarm bells go off like crazy for me.

 

Very nice posts.

If you were the member of a "small minority" in this country, bmd, you might feel a bit differently. We are talking about human beings here. I think the term "human being" applies to you and I, along with the rest of the folks riding in this D&D bus. So how would you feel, bmd, about riding in the back of the bus because you are different. That's essentially where you want to put these human beings. You're an intelligent guy. Surely there is a way to accommodate a minority who's only "sin" is that their "outer skin" doesn't conform to their sexual orientation. My suggestion would be to have unisex bathrooms. I visited one of my kids last week in Dallas, where he's going to school, and the upscale place where we had lunch had two restrooms, both of the unisex variety. Both were acceptable for the handicapped (yes, I saw both. Had a lot of ice tea refills!). While that might not be easily done in some venues, I think that a law gradually requiring unisex bathrooms over a period of a few years, perhaps 5, would be a step the transgender community would be pleased to see. Food for thought.

 

That doesn't work so well for locker rooms or communal showers. But then, I always thought locker rooms to be weird, awkward, uncomfortable places anyway. It has a turkish bath kinda feel. I don't want men wagging their genitals in front of me anymore than little girls do. But, somehow they persist (the locker rooms, that is).

 

Can we just require facilities to accommodate transgenders by building a third restroom?

 

Like "common sense gun control"? Barry Obama loves that one

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance#/criticism

The fact that something makes you uncomfortable is not prima facie proof that it is morally suspect unless you are in preeschool.