NC law: Not Just about Bathrooms

The problem here is that you are being incredibly short sighted. How exactly are you going to prove who is trans and who isn't. You can't and that's why the legislation you are trying to champion is moronic. It's why you couldn't answer, and still haven't answered the questions I asked. Every time you just tried to steer the conversation in a different direction. It's obvious that you simply have no answers to those questions.

In your quoted story, how do you prove that man is feeling like being a man at that moment? How do you know that's not just a tragic act of discrimination? A civil rights violation. That's the problem with simple minded people who are just going on talking points, you didn't really think it out, did you? You were just informed this is the next cause and you went at it.

 

I don't know, why are right wingers passing legislation on this topic?

That's right, because of their bigotry.

 

You don't even understand what this debate is about lmao. Anti-discrimination laws aren't just about measuring who gets to go in what bathroom.

But let me rebut your stupid limited argument.

First of all, it doesn't matter who you are, if you commit a crime in the bathroom, you are a criminal. If the man or transgender person or whatever had committed a crime, then there's a legitimate reason to kick them out, which texxx's stories showed.

Secondly, if anybody is making you feel "uncomfortable" by "not belonging" (ohhh gender binaries), you can ask them to leave and they will have no recourse. If they're a protected class (which transsexuals aren't right now even) the Human Rights Commission has no power to put you in jail or fine you. If you get sent a civil action, the legal system doesn't look lightly on cases that take tens of thousands of dollars to advance over a misunderstanding and you're probably damn sure going to know you're talking with somebody who went through the legal hoops to get their gender identity recognized. The threat of a "peaceful resolution" sure sounds like a big one in case you're wrong on your trans test. Maybe the real answer is not to have stupid prejudices against people who aren't committing any wrongs, but in the meanwhile...

Thirdly, this whole notion of the law increasing more criminality or sexual assault so as those fears might be justified has been refuted by 250+ organizations that give a s**t about sexual assault on a pretty deep level and the zero credible instances once again displayed in this thread.

Fourth, I don't know what vapid hypotheticals you're talking about, in this case, I'm talking about a trial case where a transexual child who was WIDELY and PUBLICLY known to be transitioning suffered significant harms by being forced to go into a special bathroom tailor-built for them while being called an "animal", a case with significant psychological harms. Those are the cases people are "legislating over", not "trans test" bulls**t. Those are the "forseen" harms of not having consistent group protections for LGBT, what are the "unforeseen" garbage you see?

You're living in some vapid future you're constructing. Insofar as it's an original thought, I think you're better off with talking points of any kind.

 

It's not shocking that you still can't answer those questions clarifying your position. Hopefully you can send them off and whoever gives you your opinions will give you answers to them eventually.

 

In response to bad legislation some propose other bad legislation. Just because some responded that way doesn't make the initial bad legislation acceptable. Honestly the original bad legislation was proposed in order to generate exactly this response, the goal was to start a fight with awful legislation in order to drive donations to LGBT groups as if they had another legitimate civil rights cause since they won their last one and it wasn't generating donations anymore.

You wouldn't care about this topic at all if it wasn't for some special interest group pushing the topic as a fund raising scheme.

 

LOL

here, let me answer your stupid f**king question, then you can answer one of mine:

It doesn't matter--you can kick anybody out of the bathroom and they will have no legal recourse. You can decide "hey, you're a man, get the f**k out". Why you would want to is stupid and vapid if they're not committing a crime, but they will have no legal recourse as I've indicated several times. If you want to commit potential civil rights violations, you're free to go ahead based on your level of irrational discomfort. Go right to it!

And in case you're wrong? In case the person in question HAS jumped the legal hoops of matching their gender identity with their sex as REQUIRED FOR THEM UNDER SEVERAL STATE LAWS, but they just don't want to show their mangina to you?

You'll have the Human Rights Commission try to "come to a peaceful resolution with you" as a "mediator" looking to be "educational" with no threat of force in terms of fines or prisons. Because, assumably, you're so f**king bad at dealing with trans people you manage to get them to file a lawsuit against you.

Wow Bobby. This sounds REALLY LIKE A DYSTOPIA TO BE AVOIDED. the kind of thing that should really have transsexuals fired without cause, and confined to unique bathrooms like the "animals" they are.

Here's my question for you now (fair game):

Have you ever in your life read the DSM or a legal ruling?

 

Oh they finally got back to you telling you your opinion on it? This should be good.

SMH....yes, it really does. If you don't realize that, you undercut your entire position.....well not YOUR position, the one that others gave you on this issue.

Not true, not if the legislation you are backing passes, it would make it a civil rights violation. If you don't know that, it undercuts your entire position.....well not YOUR position, the one that others gave you on this issue.

Yes, why would women want to kick men out of a women's locker room? Sounds stupid and vapid to me. Of course you keep parroting that there would be no legal recourse.....but then you go on to say

and there is legal recourse for civil rights violations so.....maybe you should ask those who gave you your opinion to clarify how there wouldn't be any legal recourse becuase.....well there would be.

That goes back to my initial question that you dodged and then said "who cares?" to, I know you don't know this but the legislation you are defending would state that gender is fluid which means that a tranny is a tranny even if they don't have their genitals mutilated and they are still a tranny even if they aren't wearing the type of clothes typical to the gender they have decided they are that day. What you fail to understand is this isn't just about post op trannies, maybe read some of the legislation you are defending to get an idea of what you are actually defending.

This is also entirely false, almost every bit of legislation proposes fines for violations....then again, why would I assume you knew what you were talking about?

Well you did a terrible job answering my questions but I guess you tried, it's not your fault you are so incredibly ignorant after all. Since you did your best, I'll answer yours, and I'll actually answer it.

ABsolutely, I've read multiple editions of the DSM multiple times and I've read literally thousands of legal rulings.

See, that's how you directly answer a question. Try to learn something from me.

 

Bobby, name one legal ruling you've ever read and the conclusion of the court. Just one.

 

And this is more of you trying to dodge the topic at hand and steer the conversation off course because you know you are defeated. It's okay. I accept your shortcomings.

 

Your stupid is in so many layers I cannot even tell you how many to disentangle Bobby, but a few facts:

1) Charlotte ordinance had no system of fees attached to it for individuals snitching on each other, which seems to be your only bone. It didn't even really have them for businesses technically, as I addressed with giddyup. Same thing for many anti-discrimination provisions. The Human Rights Commission makes that entirely clear, I cannot be clearer than posting this AGAIN.

As an individual, there will still be no recourse. Only if a business intervenes can it be reasonably construed to have some level of risk to a "peaceful mediation".

2) The issue of how states define gender identity is separate to elevating transsexuals to quasi-protected status. Yes, that will probably be rendered more consistently, and I'd like to see there be less hoops, but there will always be hoops of some kind--the problem is, again, you don't seem interested in arguing the specifics of this nuanced debate with anything more than "FEAR THE POWER TO NOT REPORT "TRANNIES"". You don't even probably know what state-to-state variations on gender identity requirements are, so I'm not surprised you're incapable of having this debate.

 

Respond to my points, then tell me.

"Thousands of legal rulings."

 

House erupts in chaos after LGBT vote
GOP leaders barely muscled up the votes to reject an amendment that would have barred federal contractors from getting government work if they discriminate against the LGBT community.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/house-lgbt-amendment-discrimination-fight-223366#ixzz4983ApI4u

 

LOL, well I gave it my best try but it is simply pointless to try and hold an intelligent conversation with a simpleton like NS. His shortcomings simply cannot be overcome.

 

Sure, convince yourself you have no bias and this topic is irrelevant when you attack "trannies".

Like I always say: have a good day Bobby

 

LOL you crazy kid, at no point did I ever attack trannies but of course given your proven inability to follow along in conversation I guess it's not that surprising that you might think I did.

So yeah, have a good day kiddo.

 

dude, you breathe ignorance lmao.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/30/trans-language-transgender

have a good day XD

 

:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin:

http://dailysnark.com/report-tony-romo-arrested-north-carolina-using-mens-bathroom/

 

LOL what a whiner, you can tell your PC bros that you did your duty but no one is going to take you seriously kid.

 

"I never insulted those wetbacks!"

LOL

 

I'm sure a simpleton like yourself would equate the terms because you don't know any better. You are really doing a disservice to intelligent people who support that side of the debate, you should probably stop.....but you won't, you'll keep digging the hole deeper.