CDZ Do we really need laws about what restroom transgender people use?

[WorldWatcher]

Why are you so obsessed with other people's genitalia? Was it from your time in the military? Did they make you.....do things?

This is the Clean Debate Zone and that kind of comment is totally uncalled for directed at anyone, let alone someone that served this country for so long.

You should be ashamed.


>>>>>

 

[320 Years of History]

I cannot recall ever being in a gym class or sports locker room where there wasn't at least a couple people who would not change clothes in front of other students or who would never shower.

Off Topic:
Now that would annoy me. Not because of their body or body parts, but because they would just reek! Yuck!

Thank God showering was mandatory after gym class at my school.

 

[GaryDog]

Why are you so obsessed with other people's genitalia? Was it from your time in the military? Did they make you.....do things?

This is the Clean Debate Zone and that kind of comment is totally uncalled for directed at anyone, let alone someone that served this country for so long.

You should be ashamed.


>>>>>

Maybe I should, according to you.

I won't, though. He's expressing a bigoted, hateful opinion. I'm allowed to express mine. Rape is out of control in the military. Suggesting that this "perversion" could run afoul of people's rights is consistent with the theme of this discussion. One discussion of imagined "perversion" calls for bringing up a real "perversion" to give people proper perspective.

 

[Dekster]

I cannot recall ever being in a gym class or sports locker room where there wasn't at least a couple people who would not change clothes in front of other students or who would never shower.

Off Topic:
Now that would annoy me. Not because of their body or body parts, but because they would just reek! Yuck!

Thank God showering was mandatory after gym class at my school.

It was not required, but I had gym first period in HS so it was kind if a necessity to at least run through the showers. How this relates is that I would reasonably expect to see an increase in the cases of bulimia and anorexia if girls were forced to share locker rooms with guys. You can't hide that extra weight behind a baggy sweater when you are dressing out in front of guys, and since those illnesses are very much about control, taking control over who gets to see their unclothed bodies away seems a recipe for disaster.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who is going to check whether one has or has not undergone gender reassignment surgery?

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

 

[320 Years of History]

you get to force me to put up with them in my public bathrooms.

Oh....

You do NOT get to force perversion on normal people simply to satisfy your ignorance. We have rights too.

The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort.
-- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

Nobody is forcing a perversion on anyone. Indeed, to the contrary, transsexuals are begging and pleading for the ability not to even make it known to you that they are in the process of switching their sex. Mid-process M-->F transsexuals who seem to look like women and they want to use the ladies room, which only has stalls. Mid-process F-->M transsexuals who seem to look like men, want to use the men's room, and if they haven't had their genitals changed, they will most assuredly use a stall.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! The people are doing all they can not to make others uncomfortable, and this law that forces those "men with tits" and "women with beards" to use the restroom on their birth certificate is going to make more folks uncomfortable than any other way to handle the matter will.

• When I wash my hands next to you in the public restroom, what do I force on you?
• If you wash your hands next to a transsexual, what are you forcing on them or they on you?
• If you are in a bathroom stall, what is anyone else in the restroom forcing on you?
• If you pass a transsexual in the hallway, what are they forcing on you?

It seems to me that the only thing that could possibly distinguish your restroom experience and that would make you feel as though something is being forced on you is (1) the fact that you know the "butt ugly" woman about to pass you in the hallway is a man, because unless you are into men yourself, you likely won't even notice the guy passing you in the hallway, or (2) the law that NC has now passed, which boost the odds you'll find out some individual is a mid-process transsexual.

Given the design of the law in NC, it is, in NC at least, more likely to find out someone is a transsexual in the making, assuming you actually are in the restroom with one of the 700K transsexuals in the U.S., not all of whom, thankfully for you, are in NC, which is highly unlikely to begin with unless you happen work/live in close proximity to one of them.

If something is there, you can only see it with your eyes open, but if it isn't there, you can see it just as well with your eyes closed. That's why imaginary things are often easier to see than real ones.
― Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

It's really as simple as this:

They think gays and transgenders are "icky."

That's it. There's no more validity to their argument apart from personal animus.

Red:
I suspect that's so. I'd accord someone the respect of saying, "well, if that's how you feel, it is" were they to own that that is all there is underpinning their position and say so. So far, I haven't seen folks simply assert that they find gays and transgender people to be "icky." What I've seen is folks attempting to give "rational" reasons why the NC law is a good idea or "rational" reasons why they support it.

I can live with/accept folks who will openly own their irrational biases and stances. What is there to say about one's having an irrational stance, knowing it and owning it? If nothing else there's courage and integrity in doing so; thus I have accord one that much if they express it. What I won't do is sit silently while folks present a bunch of sophistic and/or specious BS to bolster their claims about why they hold what really is just irrational prejudice. I won't because doing that tacitly indicates I concur with their BS, and that would make me as bad and as ignorant, stupid, or whatever, as they when I"m not. If I were "as bad as they," well, I would be and I'd own it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I cannot recall ever being in a gym class or sports locker room where there wasn't at least a couple people who would not change clothes in front of other students or who would never shower.

Off Topic:
Now that would annoy me. Not because of their body or body parts, but because they would just reek! Yuck!

Thank God showering was mandatory after gym class at my school.

It was not required, but I had gym first period in HS so it was kind if a necessity to at least run through the showers. How this relates is that I would reasonably expect to see an increase in the cases of bulimia and anorexia if girls were forced to share locker rooms with guys. You can't hide that extra weight behind a baggy sweater when you are dressing out in front of guys, and since those illnesses are very much about control, taking control over who gets to see their unclothed bodies away seems a recipe for disaster.

Red:
You'll get no argument to the contrary from me. LOL In my mind, it'd have been equally necessary were your gym class in the last period of the day.

 

[Ravi]

Who is going to check whether one has or has not undergone gender reassignment surgery?

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

Just think of all the jobs this will create. Each restroom in the state will need someone to peer down panties and check birth certificates.

 

[there4eyeM]

Do we really need laws? No. Do we need understanding on the part of everyone, including the tiny minority called 'transgender'? Yes.

 

[320 Years of History]

He's expressing a bigoted, hateful opinion. I'm allowed to express mine.

No, it didn't. If he jumped off a bridge, would you do so too? I'm sure you would not, but I could be wrong....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you get to force me to put up with them in my public bathrooms.

Oh....

You do NOT get to force perversion on normal people simply to satisfy your ignorance. We have rights too.

The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort.
-- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

Nobody is forcing a perversion on anyone. Indeed, to the contrary, transsexuals are begging and pleading for the ability not to even make it known to you that they are in the process of switching their sex. Mid-process M-->F transsexuals who seem to look like women and they want to use the ladies room, which only has stalls. Mid-process F-->M transsexuals who seem to look like men, want to use the men's room, and if they haven't had their genitals changed, they will most assuredly use a stall.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! The people are doing all they can not to make others uncomfortable, and this law that forces those "men with tits" and "women with beards" to use the restroom on their birth certificate is going to make more folks uncomfortable than any other way to handle the matter will.

• When I wash my hands next to you in the public restroom, what do I force on you?
• If you wash your hands next to a transsexual, what are you forcing on them or they on you?
• If you are in a bathroom stall, what is anyone else in the restroom forcing on you?
• If you pass a transsexual in the hallway, what are they forcing on you?

It seems to me that the only thing that could possibly distinguish your restroom experience and that would make you feel as though something is being forced on you is (1) the fact that you know the "butt ugly" woman about to pass you in the hallway is a man, because unless you are into men yourself, you likely won't even notice the guy passing you in the hallway, or (2) the law that NC has now passed, which boost the odds you'll find out some individual is a mid-process transsexual.

Given the design of the law in NC, it is, in NC at least, more likely to find out someone is a transsexual in the making, assuming you actually are in the restroom with one of the 700K transsexuals in the U.S., not all of whom, thankfully for you, are in NC, which is highly unlikely to begin with unless you happen work/live in close proximity to one of them.

If something is there, you can only see it with your eyes open, but if it isn't there, you can see it just as well with your eyes closed. That's why imaginary things are often easier to see than real ones.
― Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

Well except that the whole issue revolves around an ordnance that did not prevent ANY man from simply claiming he wanted to be a woman and using women's restrooms. I have rights so do straight women.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well except that the whole issue revolves around an ordnance that did not prevent ANY man from simply claiming he wanted to be a woman and using women's restrooms. I have rights so do straight women.

Well Gunny you have to admit, this is the kind of legislation you get when you call an emergency session, take no public input, do not release the bill to the pubic, do not think through a bill, hand it to the legislators that have to vote on it minutes before the session starts, pass it in less than a day and at night with the governor signing it at 22:00 that same night.


>>>>

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well except that the whole issue revolves around an ordnance that did not prevent ANY man from simply claiming he wanted to be a woman and using women's restrooms. I have rights so do straight women.

Well Gunny you have to admit, this is the kind of legislation you get when you call an emergency session, take no public input, do not release the bill to the pubic, do not think through a bill, hand it to the legislators that have to vote on it minutes before the session starts, pass it in less than a day and at night with the governor signing it at 22:00 that same night.


>>>>

There is nothing wrong with the law. Well except all the lying by the left.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is nothing wrong with the law. Well except all the lying by the left.

There is something wrong with a law that says that father can't assist his young daughter with the rest room.

There was more than one occasion when my kids were little that she just had to use the bathroom. I would check the men's room if it was clear and take her to a stall, when she was done I'd recheck it as clear and we'd leave.

That is now illegal.


>>>

 

[320 Years of History]

There was more than one occasion when my kids were little that she just had to use the bathroom. I would check the men's room if it was clear and take her to a stall, when she was done I'd recheck it as clear and we'd leave.

That's more checking than I did with my daughter, and when she was an infant, I didn't bother checking at all; I just went on in and changed her diaper or whatever. If there wasn't some dude standing in the middle of the floor waving his willy in the air, she was coming in and going to a stall because if we were at that "last resort" point where I had to escort her into the men's room, there was no longer time to waste as far as she was concerned. LOL

In fairness, the NC law only applies to government restrooms such as those in, schools, public agency buildings, and so on. There's yet no cause for concern in shopping malls, concert halls, etc. There may be an "issue" at airports, train stations, etc. because it may not be clear in all cases whether they are governmentally owned or privately (non-governmentally) owned.

 

[Dekster]

I cannot recall ever being in a gym class or sports locker room where there wasn't at least a couple people who would not change clothes in front of other students or who would never shower.

Off Topic:
Now that would annoy me. Not because of their body or body parts, but because they would just reek! Yuck!

Thank God showering was mandatory after gym class at my school.

It was not required, but I had gym first period in HS so it was kind if a necessity to at least run through the showers. How this relates is that I would reasonably expect to see an increase in the cases of bulimia and anorexia if girls were forced to share locker rooms with guys. You can't hide that extra weight behind a baggy sweater when you are dressing out in front of guys, and since those illnesses are very much about control, taking control over who gets to see their unclothed bodies away seems a recipe for disaster.

Red:
You'll get no argument to the contrary from me. LOL In my mind, it'd have been equally necessary were your gym class in the last period of the day.

I had football practice after the last period of the day so it would have been pointless to shower and then go to practice. Now that I think about it, I don't think they even had a gym class in last period. Must have had something to do with setting up for after school stuff. We only had to do gym through 10th grade.

 

[baileyn45]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

 

[320 Years of History]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

 

[baileyn45]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

 

[GaryDog]

He's expressing a bigoted, hateful opinion. I'm allowed to express mine.

No, it didn't. If he jumped off a bridge, would you do so too? I'm sure you would not, but I could be wrong....

This doesn't even make any sense. My post didn't mirror his. It wasn't hateful or bigoted. For your dumbass observation to be cogent, I'd have to say something along the lines of "I think Marines should have to use different bathrooms than the rest of us."