Lance Berkman campaigns against allowing boys into girls' bathrooms

I'm disappointed in Houston voters, but I fully expected the ordinance to be defeated. This is the red light camera thing all over again. It's disappointing, but I don't think it's the apocalypse or anything. People's civil rights are still intact. We had an opportunity to increase access to justice and took a pass. But, it's not the extent of our rights that took the hit, only our options for enforcing them. There's still the Texas Workforce Commission, the Feds, and the court system to turn to in cases of discrimination.

I disagree. I mean eventually another one may come a decade from now. But, in the near term, I think this whole thing has poisoned the well for quite some time to come.

I like Parker and agree with many of the things she tried to do for the city. But, I do have to admit she's screwed the pooch on a number of initiatives and managed to get outflanked by political opponents repeatedly. In this case, I think she wasn't the right messenger for HERO, it was too personal to her, and so she got outmaneuvered on an effort some other mayor may have been able to push through.

I suspect the ordinance got support from minority otherwise democrat-leaning voters because minority voters are often more conservative than whites on things like gay rights. Which is a shame because this ordinance likely would have found a lot more use in race discrimination cases than sexual identity or orientation cases.

I also wonder though if Houston is becoming more conservative as inner-city neighborhoods like Midtown become gentrified. In city-wide elections, white conservatives are outnumbered by minorities but they have the money and organizational strength to mobilize for special interest causes, like we saw here and on the red-light camera prop.

I voted for the prop, but I was somewhat concerned about increased legal exposure as a small business owner. If this ordinance makes it easier for people to bring discrimination complaints for employment and public accommodation, unwise decisions by my employees could result in my company paying fines. This is true anyway, since employees or customers can complain to the TWC or bring lawsuits, but as the law makes complaints easier, they will also become more numerous. But, I voted for the proposition anyway because we train the staff to not discriminate, we ourselves don't discriminate in hiring, and I think the ordinance is the right thing to do even if I face more risk as a result.

 

All they'd have to do is strip the one objectionable portion of the ordinance and there would be no opposition whatsoever. Do they really want local protection, or was this whole thing about the one objectionable part of the ordinance like many have said? I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

 

They took out the bathroom language a long time ago, so I assume you mean they should strip out the part in the definitions that says a person's gender is self-identified. They could leave that undefined or they could define it some other way. Either option invites a lawsuit against the city accusing the anti-discrimination ordinance of being itself discriminatory because it excludes a population from legal protections that is being afforded to others. I think we might be better off without an ordinance than to have one that gets the city sued. Or maybe we should do it, get forced into providing equal protection to the transgendered by the courts, and consider the punitive damages awarded to be the cost of doing business.

 

essentially my thought process. well stated.

 

This is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, its a nice pictorial for the psychology of gender identity.

However, we segregate men and women. We do it in a "binary" nature. We do it with nearly everything in nature. Its ridiculous to make a binary issue into a muddled confusion. We identify it by their reproductive makeup. And yes, we all understand there are mutations that results into either no sexual organs or both.

Its completely ridiculous that we are trying to redefine human gender identity from a physical standpoint to an emotional one just for the sake of a few individuals in fear we will hurt their fragile feelings. Since TG's do not "choose" their gender and are born this way, should we reconsider how we label other animals gender? Perhaps they disagree with whats between their legs.

 

Being naked in a locker room is not public indecency. What happened in Washington was perfectly legal, and the same thing would be perfectly legal here in Houston if that ordinance passed.

 

The problem is that it isn't "equal protection" that they were seeking with this ordinance. In fact, every other part of the ordinance was covering things already against federal discrimination laws. If Houston passed an ordinance with the transgender language removed, they'd just be passing something in line with federal laws. There might be a suit, but it would be frivolous in nature and go nowhere.

Saying that men can't use facilities that are supposed to be for women simply isn't discrimination....even if that's what they are trying to sell you.

 

I'm sure there are more. That was just from a quick google search and I didn't look for any other stories.

But that is beside the point. The point is that it would be legal for a 45 year old man to be naked around teenage girls, children, etc.

Whether it's an "epidemic" or not is beside the point.

 

I really don't think this was every really about the 'bathroom' law. Its just the issue that got people to the ballot box and made it easy to market against. This failed from the start when Parker tried to get the pastors to send in their sermons for 'review'. This had more to do with the city government over reaching into private businesses and having a say so into how they run them.

That being said, I think people are still uncomfortable with the 'T' in the LGBT movement. Like it or not, transvestites are the anchor to the LGBT movement and I don't see that changing any time soon. I would think that most society has accepted sexual preference as a part of life. The almost separate issue of gender identification is the thing people have a hard time with.

 

If its really that much of a BFD, maybe we shouldn't discriminate between the two sexes period. Take the money that would be awarded to these alleged lawsuits and convert facilities into private stalls with common wash areas.

But finding solutions is not what this is about. Next they will be complaining there are no urinals in the womens restroom.

PC America is getting too ridiculous.

 

Ah, see, this makes total sense. If this were the narrative and main reason why it was defeated, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.

Instead, it was defeated because of bathrooms.....

 

Actually we don't. If you want to actually look at nature when it comes to sex/gender and compare it to humans than you are just going to further confuse yourself.

 

Well it all depends on the state and what they define as indecent exposure and what not but is your point that now that it's legal it will run rampant or something?

If so, that hasn't happened. Also the fact that they handled the situation by putting up curtains.

 

Everyone's rules are society norm. Society norm is what society teaches you and not what's inherit.

Based on society norm and personal views and up-bringing, you may not like or accept the notion that some people are born into a physical attribute that does not match your own view, and based on that view, you do not accept that not allowing a transgender into a woman bathroom is discrimination.

In 50 years from now, the new society norm can be, unisex public bathroom. At that point, it's quite clear that not allowing transgender folks in unisex public bathroom is discrimination.

Or said 50 years from now, the new society norm is a low IQ person cannot use a public park but only a park designated for lower IQ folks (maybe because there is fear that the low IQ person acts in way that is not comfortable to kids or other adults, or that low IQ person can act in way that cause safety issue, or that there is a notion that low IQ people are not a nature's given attribute, but is due to parental's or self's choice in food intake, discipline, or laziness and so it's not worthwhile to support them). Under that society norm, not allowing low IQ person to use a public park maybe be an accepted popular norm, but is a form of discrimination.

Today, society norm, in the USA, is a separate man and woman bathroom. A common view, especially among the religious right, is that God or nature provide sex organs and that gender is tied to those organs. Another common view, in the USA, is that kids should not see naked skin. With those society norms, folks are not comfortable with transgender using a public women's bathroom/locker room. These views and norm and exercise of them to exclude transgender to use women's bathroom maybe an accepted popular norm, but is a form of discrimination.

 

Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it should be legal.

There are many things that happen relatively infrequently that are illegal.

That's a terrible argument on your part.

 

No one cares about gender, they care about biological sex. You really need to find a way to understand that. The sign on the bathroom or locker room door is not talking about gender, it's talking about sex. When you have a "women's shelter" they aren't talking about a gender either.

Now if you want to completely abolish facilities targeting one sex, fair enough, but so long as facilities that target one sex is legal, people will be expected to use the one that relates to their sex....even if they have gender dysphoria or suffer from transsexualism.

Sure that makes a tiny percentage of the population have to do something that conflicts with their delusions, but the alternative is to go full on unisex restrooms which would piss off the feminists who push the "rape culture" angle. You're going to piss someone off no matter what and I think it's best to piss off a tiny group of transsexuals by making them use the facilities intended to be used by members of their sex even if it conflicts with their idea of what gender they are.

 

Except I didn't say it should be legal?

This case, this one case you have brought up was handled and dealt with. Any other case that pops up (which they are very very very rare) will be handled.

So what is your explanation for the major cities that have passed this? Why does this work for other major cities and not Houston?

 

I think your whole argument rests its weight on your belief that a person's gender is defined by their equipment at birth. If you assume that, then of course a lawsuit would look frivolous. However, the professional consensus doesn't see it that way. So when the expert witnesses march into court and respected organizations like the American Psychological Association say otherwise, the courts may go that way and find the suit has merit (I think the Federal structures also carry this risk). So, if you're the one to make the call on bringing an altered version back, do you take the risk when you know the new ordinance's view on gender identity is out of step with the professionals'?

Just like the 5 stages of grief, I think there must be stages of dealing with political change. Stage 1 is still denial. "I'll just take my ball and go home" is stage 2. Here we see it as "well, we'll just all have private bathrooms then." In the gay marriage debate it was "Government should get out of marriage altogether" (which I had been for, for a time). In Civil Rights, it was "separate but equal." In gays in the military it was don't ask, don't tell. In slavery, it was the confederacy. It's an urge to just concede enough for people to leave you alone by letting them have their way in their space and preserving your own space for yourself. Sometimes that means blowing up your own institutions.

I'd be happy with private bathrooms. I don't like sharing bathrooms even with gender-conforming heterosexual males. But that seems like a hugely expensive solution to a very small problem, and a totally irrational thing to do. As a society, we've managed to live this long with communal bathrooms and lockerrooms, even with transgenders. I don't see how we can't continue to do so to save ourselves a gazillion dollars in retrofit costs.

 

All of you who are in favor of this ordinance are in the small minority.

Houston is liberal. And for only 35% to support this ordinance, that means a big chunk of Democrat voters voted against the ordinance.

If you added in the rest of Harris County (who spend a lot of time in the city of Houston itself for work and leisure) and are much more conservative, those who support the ordinance in the Houston area would be completely dwarfed.

Probably something like 80% against and 20% for.



You're acting like we're the weirdo's for not supporting an ordinance that would allow men in women's bathrooms and locker rooms. But it's just the opposite.

 

No....I don't care what "gender" someone is, what matters is their sex. If the "men" or "women" signs on facilities were talking about gender, they'd have no real meaning since gender is nothing more than a social construct. They are talking about a person's sex, which is a biological fact.