It's not up to you or what a "prudent" person thinks. It's up to him/her. It's how he/she identifies himself or herself. Right?
If I read it right, the part of the bill I don't care for is telling private businesses they have to cater to identities. Government and public facilities, sure. But if joe ******* pays the rent, taxes and employees at his hamburger shack, joe ******* gets to say what happens at the hamburger shack. I hope it ruins his business but it's his call. Not my morals. I would hope people realize this isn't a big issue, certainly not as big as the attention it's getting. I truly hope if a woman wants to come hold her breath and tiptoe around the peepee like I have to, that she do just that. If we're going to law anything into existence regarding bathrooms, I'd vote for better aim, more curteousy flushes and washing your damn hands before you leave.
yes. still have no clue where you are going with your claims of liberal hypocrisy though. and you did not answer my question...how exactly do you want to enforce this bathroom bill? ive asked this multiple times on here and in real life and nobody has ever been able to give me an answer.
As you and I and others have said here repeatedly, most of the bigots, or those uneducated and/or confused about the issue, have shared facilities with transgender Americans and not even realized it. Somehow, those unaware people survived. Yes, that's sarcasm.
Precisely the point. Transgendered folk already are using the bathroom of their choice without this bill being even necessary. This bill allows the neerdowells to go into bathrooms without having to worry about outrage. It's already happened.
We said HERO wasn't about bathrooms because it was a broad civil rights protection bill that allowed people who felt they're rights were violated seek redress from the city instead of going to Texas or the federal government. It'd have been more impactful for employment discrimination, night club entry discrimination, etc than it would on the bathroom thing. Anyway, I don't like SB6, but I don't think the nature of it is well understood. I got an earful from a guy who really understands the bill. My understanding is (feel free to correct me where I'm wrong): * Unlike the NC bill, this bill only dictates the birth certificate requirement for government buildings (including schools). Private businesses are not told what to do. * When you have a sex change, trans generally have their birth certificate changed to reflect their new sex. If they've done so, trans people can actually use the bathroom they prefer. * Schools and other government establishments can make special provisions for people with a need. The provision cannot be allowing them into the opposite-sex bathroom. * Political subdivisions (like cities) cannot dictate what the special provision should be. * A process is established for citizens to complain to the AG about administrators who are not compliant. * Penalties for a number of violent and sex-related crimes are increased if they happen in a bathroom (regardless of sex). Now, I don't like it for these reasons: * It's only really enforceable in public schools. A courthouse or whatever can't authenticate bathroom use. But, public schools have their kids' records. * Unlike adults who have undergone a sex change, transgender kids will have a disconnect between gender and sex. So they will be forced into special accommodation that cannot allow them into their target-sex's bathroom. (I suppose if it did pass, we could see a migration of trans kids to non-religious private schools.) * Relying on people making birth certificate changes to get proper access to a bathroom sounds overly burdensome. * Increasing punishments for crimes just because they occur in a bathroom sounds capricious. And wouldn't have any additional deterrent effect. Nor is it as if a sexual predator is more depraved or more dangerous because he assaulted your daughter in a bathroom instead of a classroom. * In general, it looks like they have built the bill in a way to aim it at the whole sex-offender-masquerading-as-a-transgender-to-get-access-to-the-ladies-room problem. Which still isn't a material problem so far as I know. So, whether they know it or not, I still have to conclude that this bill is at its root a culture-war bill. They miss the days when trans and gays kept things on the down-low. The sex offenders in this bill are the window dressing, and the people who are allegedly just collateral damage here -- trans -- are the actual target.
In the state of Texas you are required to get a court order to change your gender (in Texas, they refer to it as a change in sex). This requires you to get a letter from your doctor, fill out paperwork, and petition the court for a court appearance. So you are correct, the process is pretty burdensome, especially for a school-aged child who must have already gone through significant burdens leading up to, during, and after the gender change. Other state requirements are different... seems one reason why Trump now punting this to states is not acceptable... its a civil rights question and not one that states should be responsible for.
I'll say the same thing now that I said then, there should be no legislation one way or the other on this. No legislation forcing companies or organizations to allow just whoever the hell wants to use whatever facility they feel like and no legislation preventing trannies from using certain facilities if the company or organization doesn't care.
far as I know the state legislation only applies to government facilities, and was only in response to the feds trying to force everyone to have co-ed bathrooms
For companies, I agree. Let them decided for themselves. I think we do need legislation to keep cities from creating stupid laws like the HERO ordinance. Let each individual company decide. Having the state tell every company they have to keep restrooms separate is no different than a city telling companies they have to allow anyone to use the restroom they choose. A tax paying business should be free to operate as they choose.
I see the logic in what you're saying. I don't think there is a perfect solution to this you can rigidly codify as law where everybody is comfortable. Up to now, who uses what bathroom has sort of been left to common sense, and that's how it should be. A transgendered women -- acts like a women, thinks like a women, dresses herself to appear like a women to others, feels she is a women trapped inside a male body -- should be able to use a women's restroom. There shouldn't be a law where she is treated as a criminal if she does this, IMO. There was a recent Pew poll that showed 45% of men support transgendered people using the bathroom that matches their gender rather than their sex they were born as. 55% of women supported this. I find that gap interesting, considering that the main argument used against this is to protect the privacy of women, you'd think women would be much more concerned about this compared to men: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...blic-bathrooms-transgender-people-should-use/
I have no problem with any law passed that encompasses schools, just not businesses. Until we have full school choice, there is no way any boy should be allowed to go into a girls restroom/locker-room. Once we have school choice, the leftist can have a school to perform all the social experiments they want but I can choose to keep my kids away from it.
point is 1. ordinances should only apply to government facilities, private companies should be able to have any bathroom policy they like 2. any government policy should be as localized as possible I'm continuosly amazed at the amount of oxygen spent catering to these delusional people. If someone thinks they are a cat, or a child, or a different race, we don't accommodate that delusion. Yet for gender, we are told to play along. today, this would be considered offensive
last time i asked you disappeared so ill ask again...how exactly do you want to enforce this bathroom bill? yup. this is all unnecessary. if its really about keeping women and children safe in restrooms than we need a bill against republican politicians using the restroom b/c they are much more likely to engage in bathroom shenanigans than transgendered people are. again, i find it ironic that trump supporters want to ban transgendered people from using the restroom because they think they will assault women and children...while trump himself actually bragged about sexually assaulting women, constantly talks about how hot his daughter is and that if he was not her father he would be dating her, bragged about how since he owned the miss america pageant he could just walk in while the women were undressing and check them out (several miss teen america contestants said he walked in on them as well). trump also once joked to a group of 14 year old girls that he would be dating them in a few years. people like donald trump are the ones you need to keep away from women and children.
Again, I have to ask. Can't this argument also be applied to race? Do you feel local governments should be permitted to require racial segregation of public facilities? If the answer is no, then your second rule doesn't hold in general. Maybe to some, but I'm not offended. Believing you can have a baby when physically you are incapable of it is a delusion. Thinking you are a different species then human is a delusion. Thinking you are a different race -- well, this becomes more of a gray area because races aren't perfectly discrete. It is not necessarily a delusion to think you are "female" even if you were born with male sex organs. It comes down to what we understand "female" to mean. Is the only reason you think of yourself as male because of your anatomy? Suppose, for the sake of argument, you woke up one day in a female body. Would you now see yourself as female, or as a man trapped in a female body? You may think the question is ridiculous because that would be impossible. Its not ridiculous to transgendered people who report time and time again that this is how they see themselves. And who's to say there isn't some physical process we don't quite understand deep in the brain that creates a sense of gender identity, and in very rare instances that process doesn't match with a person's sex organs? That seems very plausible to me. And if that's the case, there's no objective reason to define one's gender as one versus the other. Both would be valid.
Because that's a completely different issue. There aren't facilities for one race and different facilities for another. Separating bathrooms and locker rooms by sex is a well established thing that no one really objects to. It's not discrimination to suggest that a person use the facilities intended for their sex instead of just allowing them to pick whatever facilities they are in the mood for at the time. At the same time though, if that's how a company or organization wants to run things, I think they should be allowed to. Now if you want to make an argument that segregation of the sexes is wrong just as segregation of the races is.....well go for it, but I don't think that idea will have a lot of support.
I'm not convinced by this that its a completely different issue. 1. Facilities used to be racially segregated, and that was "well established". 2. People are objecting to laws that disallow transgendered people to use the bathroom that matches their gender. On the other hand, virtually no one objects to disallowing a "cisgendered" male from using a female restroom. Just because a transgendered person's gender isn't outwardly expressed, that doesn't mean there isn't a physical basis for it and its mere "delusion". There's a lot of things about the brain we can't see.
