Lance Berkman campaigns against allowing boys into girls' bathrooms

Possibly. It can be seen as disorderly conduct which is a class B misdemeanor....but most likely if someone was using the wrong restroom the person would simply be kicked out and issued a criminal trespass warning to prevent them from returning. It's also probably not something that a transgender person would have to worry about because it's a restroom with stalls. Now if it's a locker room on the other hand, and we're talking pre-op, there's a much better chance of a disorderly conduct charge. If you're rocking out with your **** out in an area intended for the female sex, then you are potentially breaking the law......even if you've decided your gender is female.

Really it all depends on if anyone cares or not. If none of the people in the locker room/bathroom and none of the people who run the place are offended by it or feel like you are in there for a lewd or unlawful purpose then you are good to go.

 

Actually, now you will have a lot more people uncomfortable - since you will have a transgender man walk into a woman's bathroom and freak the women out who will then be uncomfortable wondering if it's a real man in the bathroom or actually a woman who has trans into a man.

Voting against this legislation adds no security whatsoever as a transgender woman looks like a woman and having them go into a men's bathroom is more disruptive. A criminal who wants to pretend to be a woman can still do that - nothing is stopping that today which is why voting against this for the fear-mongering reasons people are using is just stupid.

 

I don't agree with him, but his response struck me as the most simple as honest.

 

"Eight credits short of an associates degree from ITT Tech..... class of 91'..... saw those lasers in those ITT commercials while watching Whats Happening Now!, and knew that was the future.... the math was hard so I moved on to hanging drywall.... threw out my back... back to watching lots of tv... stupid Obama still keeping my tax return to pay back student loans... he needs to go back to Africa!"

 

I agree as long as your discussing a place to defecate but if that is all this legislation is about then I don't understand the need for it.

 

No, I don't have anything further to say.

 

The need is so that a transgender person can use the right bathroom without getting arrested or thrown out for using the wrong bathroom.

That's it. You don't want a transgender woman using a man's bathroom if they look like a woman but with a dick and you don't want a transgender man using a woman's bathroom is they look like man even though they don't have a dick.

Not having this legislation makes the choice difficult. "Do I follow the law or risk causing a scene and making everyone uncomfortable including myself"

Do you think a transgender woman wants to use the guys bathroom? How would you feel if a woman walked into the bathroom while you were pissing. Turned on? Freaked out? Does it matter that the woman has a dick but you don't know that do you?

That's what is so ridiculous about this whole thing. The ordinance is about making EVERYONE more comfortable and for creating common sense sanity. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with crazy conservative groups playing on people's fears.

 

You're an idiot if you think this is making everyone more comfortable. I get there is an ambiguity in regards to bathroom rights.

What you FAIL to understand is this ordinance would allow ANY man to go into a womans facility (and by facility, I am more referring to locker rooms and womens shelters). Whether this fear is irrational or not is not the issue. What is the issue is women and men feel threatened about the lack of protocols to prevent men from casually walking through womens facilities (again, moe past the bathroom issue) and claim they are TG.

This poorly written garbage (which was probably vaguely written to allow it to be subjective) is holding up any real issues this ordinance can help.

 

I'm sure others here can explain better than me, but....

Say you get fired from your job because of your ethnicity. Or you're a pregnant woman. Or a military veteran. Had the ordinance passed, you could have filed suit locally. But since it didn't pass, you can't do that. You have to file a federal lawsuit instead, which would obviously much more cumbersome.

I honestly have no idea how this completely morphed into an issue about child molesters dressing up as women and raping children in public bathrooms....

 

Though not the intent, due to how the politics of this bill played out I think pretty clearly the citizens of Houston have responded that they don't care how you're dressed or identify. If you have a penis restrooms traditionally marked as the men's room are made available to you. If you want to wear a dress in there, that's up to you.

 

I have a theory.

 

The city had an openly GAY mayor elected for 3 terms...How about acknowledging that the trash put together by the city officials was identified as such by the MAJORITY of Houstonians...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear

 

a washed up baseball player

 

The ordinance looks like a shining beacon of human intellectual craftwork compared to s*** like this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WYpko86x6GU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Majority meaning 6%, since only 10% of Houstonians actually bothered to go out and vote on it either way....



Which part of the wording did you have a problem with? Honest question.

Seems like a lot of people on both sides completely dug into their positions with guns firing, yet never actually read the ordinance (or bothered to vote).

 

Tom Ley and Deadspin can go f*** themselves.

 

comparing diarrhea to solid fecal mass...still is s***...

Also love how liberals basically have threatened "economic collapse" for the city as their scare tactic...Who the hell cares that College football doesnt come to Houston, or the Superbowl...the last time I checked, most of Houston are "bandwagoners" and really dont give a crap about pro sports unless they are doing well. This is the fourth largest city, and it will find a way to sustain itself...especially if it was able to weather the 2008 financial recessions without a mass efflux of her citizens.. The fact is that many major business in our city had issues with this useless ordinance, and overreaching fines. The ordinance was poorly framed, vague and its time to accept it as such.

 

Doesn't sound like you are a major hypocrite. It is vague because folks like you threw up a fuss around the original language:

So first you get rid of that, and then you complain it is vague and allows ANY man to use the bathroom?

What do you want? you can't have it both ways. This exposes the truth that this isn't about "any man" or being "vague" it's just about opposing the measure at all causes and making anything up to defeat it.

 

I suspect there was a lot of distrust with the original bathroom wording (since removed), subpoenaing pastors speeches and antics around the whole thing. The pervs in the bathroom worked as a rallying point. Ugly. Dishonest. And effective. Politics. When there's distrust voters often just throw the idea/thing/person out.

As I understand it, Houston's legislation would have been much stronger than most -- extending to private employment -- something even New York's does not. But the dumb ol' Texas meme plays well in New York and the national press. Buncha rednecks -- who just happened to have a three time Democratic gay mayor. I don't think this defeat is as big a deal as is being made out. Never that simple. A new proposition will come soon. Less politically charged. Different context. And it will pass as similar ones have throughout the country.