'Transgender' is NOT an actual gender, so the N.C. bill isn't discrimination based on gender

[Tresha91203]

"it allows any man who says he feels like a woman to do so, including non transgendered there for nefarious purposes."



the real problem is when a hetero poser walks into the ladies room because they feel like being nefarious.

the law does not "allow" nefarious behavior in public restrooms, it just looks beyond dress to behavior.

when someone gets harassed or treated like a criminal just because they LOOK different, that's hysteria...


the city of charlotte passed a simple local ordinance to protect trans citizens from that treatment ^

the response was all sorts of fantasy how hetero men can now suddenly pretend to be women too.

fact is, nefarious men will be nefarious one way or another without much regard for any laws.

nothing was ever stopping those with a penchant to be nefarious posers from being nefarious posers.


there is no legitimate justification to block anti-discrimination statutes in order to stop posers.

the way to tell the difference between nefarious posers and legit trans is their actual behavior.

when hetero men commit crimes in the bathroom they get held accountable just the same as ever.

including men who would harass young boys in the men's room...

The city of charlotte was having no problems with the status quo. It was a nonproblem.

The wording of the law was broad and vague and would allow men into the ladies' room on an honor system. Women would have no recourse when a nontransgendered male is in the ladies' room. Since there was not a problem with the status quo (trans were not being harrassed or assaulted in the ladies' room), there was no compelling interest.

It was a feel good law. Somehow, we don't care if a state clearly doesn't feel good about the law. Chaz Bono was not being run out of the men's room and Rue Paul was not being run out of the ladies' room.


We know a drag queen or transgendered when we see them, but there was no uproar. It was not an issue. We would object to a nontransgendered though, but you'd take that away from us. Why?

We were policing just fine before the law and transgendereds used the potty of their choice without issue.

It comes across like an FU to people who were showing no disrespect.

It also removes the defense of calling cops when a nontransgendered is creeping people out in the toilet.

Now, we can't question him without being demonized and perhaps sued.

So, yes, normal people are going to resist, not just "phobics" and bigots.

i understand your points but i disagree with some of your assumptions... namely, that there was never any problem for trans people... just because you personally never encountered a problem, you assume none ever existed. also, you claim victims would have no recourse when there would actually be recourse if there was an offense in behavior, beyond being only an "objection" based on the way someone looks or makes you feel when you see them. reality is, the honor system and policing remain unchanged by a simple anti discrimination statute. so why should so-called 'normal people' object to a default status quo that respects the public accommodation of all citizens...?

If there were issues, we would have heard them. They would be front and center right now. Do you disagree? Status quo is that you go get a cop when a man is creeping you out in the ladies' room. That is the protection. It was not abused to kick TG's out of their preferred potty. The new law says that man has a right to be there as long as he says he feels like a woman. He does not have to present as a woman, be on hormones or be under a doctor's care. In this climate, we all know a woman complaining about a man in her restroom will be labeled intolerant, phobic and bigotted. She may well even be sued. Do you disagree?

If we were all live and let live, which we were, why the needless law with no qualifications that can be challenged? TG's have been perfectly safe in the ladies' room. Why would you jeapordize their safety just to say FU to women who have been very tolerant and accommodating?

Predatory men, like the ones who target TG's in the men's room, will be able to enter the ladies' room without being challenged. Where is the logic in that? TG's will be at risk, too. Most of us know TG's are safer in the ladies' room. We make no fuss when we encounter them or drag Queens (popular in my region) because, ideology aside, we don't want them targeted or hurt.

P.S. 'Normal' referred to non phobics and non biggots, and 'normal' included TG's and drag Queens. I thought that was clear in my sentence structure. Apologies if it wasn't.

 

[rcfieldz]

 

[rcfieldz]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Three decades ago, a female employee of a large accounting firm, Ann Hopkins, successfully sued her company for discrimination. Today, her precedent-setting case is being used in a way that Hopkins may never have imagined: to make the argument that discrimination against transgender people is prohibited under federal laws that bar sex discrimination.


That argument — that disparate treatment against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination — is not new. In recent years, state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Obama administration have adopted that position, despite the fact that federal law does not explicitly protect people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


But the argument this week has taken center stage in an escalating dispute between the Obama administration and North Carolina, which earlier this year became the first state to require students, state employees and visitors to government buildings to use public restrooms that match their biological sex at birth.


On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department issued a letter to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), warning that the bathroom restriction violated federal law — and put at risk millions of dollars in federal funding the state receives every year.



“The state is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees,” wrote Vanita Gupta, the head of the civil rights division.


The Hopkins case, which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, figured prominently in Gupta’s letter. The justices found that discrimination on the basis of sex could include sex stereotyping — the belief that women ought to look and act stereotypically feminine — as well as other “sex-based considerations.”

Gay and transgender plaintiffs have, in recent years, successfully used that conclusion to win discrimination lawsuits against their employers.


Is discrimination against transgender people a form of sex discrimination?

Yes. That's correct. You can't FORCE a woman to look, dress, act like a stereotypical woman. You cannot mandate that a man talk like a man or dress like a man.

But....can you mandate that a man is, well, a man? Or a woman is a woman?

When a scared 18 year old boy gets on the bus to go to USMC boot camp....and he gets last minute cold feet about the hard standards for PT.....can he just trans himself into a female...and then be put into the women's training and be held to the lower women's standards???

Wrong.

That the state seeks to subject transgender persons to punitive measures based solely on who they are manifests as gender discrimination, it’s both illegal and un-Constitutional.

 

[elektra]

Transgender, is certainly a defect. Nothing more, nothing less. They should use a handicapped bathroom, or move to San Francisco or Hollywood.

Freaks to the left, normal folk to the right.

Harsh, yes, but I have more of a right to raise my child in a city without having to explain to him why the guy with hairy legs and a beard is going to the bathroom where mommy is.

So many varying degrees of Transgender, Transvestite, Cross-dresser, 3 simple categories, times 2, female and male, that is 6 categories, now if we add the types of people they are attracted to, which defines who they are and how they behave we get 24 categories.

Either way, to state we are violating trans-gendered rights is simply sour grapes, the Democrats hate that they were the KKK and on the side of Slavery, they are pointing fingers, trying to change history, and doing a pretty good job at it.

Democrats, the bigots, the KKK, the murderers, are trying to paint another story.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Three decades ago, a female employee of a large accounting firm, Ann Hopkins, successfully sued her company for discrimination. Today, her precedent-setting case is being used in a way that Hopkins may never have imagined: to make the argument that discrimination against transgender people is prohibited under federal laws that bar sex discrimination.


That argument — that disparate treatment against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination — is not new. In recent years, state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Obama administration have adopted that position, despite the fact that federal law does not explicitly protect people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


But the argument this week has taken center stage in an escalating dispute between the Obama administration and North Carolina, which earlier this year became the first state to require students, state employees and visitors to government buildings to use public restrooms that match their biological sex at birth.


On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department issued a letter to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), warning that the bathroom restriction violated federal law — and put at risk millions of dollars in federal funding the state receives every year.



“The state is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees,” wrote Vanita Gupta, the head of the civil rights division.


The Hopkins case, which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, figured prominently in Gupta’s letter. The justices found that discrimination on the basis of sex could include sex stereotyping — the belief that women ought to look and act stereotypically feminine — as well as other “sex-based considerations.”

Gay and transgender plaintiffs have, in recent years, successfully used that conclusion to win discrimination lawsuits against their employers.


Is discrimination against transgender people a form of sex discrimination?

Risk Federal funding? Do as I say or we won't give the money to you that we should have never taken from you in the first place?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

so what if people are confused or conflicted or crazy? so what?

shall we rather banish them to some rethuglican dungeon??

No. We politely point them in the direction of the designated facilities.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

And BTW - this is a FINE example of why progressives so desperately want to stack the deck on the Supreme Court...they want the court to start basing decisions on fairy tale ideals on what they want...rather than rule of law or factual basis.

And deny Federal funding if they don't comply.

Food Stamps
Section 8 housing
School lunch programs
Child insurance programs
WIC
Foster care
Mandatory Child care


I'd call their bluff and let these programs lapse and throw it right back into the Feds face.

Our tax dollars should not be used for EXTORTION!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Its not discrimination at all. How can a law requiring ALL people to use their proper sex designated bathroom be discriminatory?
That is equality. Period.

Indeed. But leftist fanatics just can't seem to understand reality.

It's because they suffer from Confirmation Bias. It is a mental disorder. No amount of rational discussion with facts will change their mind that they are right and you are wrong. How can anybody believe they can change their sex? Yet these people believe it even though it goes against biology. Thinking you're a women when you're obviously not is a mental illness. Enablers who agree with them are just as mentally ill.

 

[FJO]

The only sign on a bath room door should be BATHROOM. Or for the illiterate an image of a toilet bowl.

No need for figures of male or female.

Inside, there should be no cubicles. Just a wide open place where one can sit and do business. And since urinals discriminate against women and Caitlin Jenner, and can be used predominantly by males (with the exception of shemales) they should be banned.

We seem to be heading in that direction. Next step in this evolution will be doing the elimination of bath rooms altogether.

Just read an article by EU traveler and that seems to be what is happening over there......almost embarrassed herself couple times because there were no facilities for the public....if she hadnt been with a local she would have been in trouble

My wife and I are going to an Amsterdam to Istanbul river cruise in September.

We hope that Europe has not progressed back to the stone age before we get there.

 

[Pop23]

"it allows any man who says he feels like a woman to do so, including non transgendered there for nefarious purposes."



the real problem is when a hetero poser walks into the ladies room because they feel like being nefarious.

the law does not "allow" nefarious behavior in public restrooms, it just looks beyond dress to behavior.

when someone gets harassed or treated like a criminal just because they LOOK different, that's hysteria...


the city of charlotte passed a simple local ordinance to protect trans citizens from that treatment ^

the response was all sorts of fantasy how hetero men can now suddenly pretend to be women too.

fact is, nefarious men will be nefarious one way or another without much regard for any laws.

nothing was ever stopping those with a penchant to be nefarious posers from being nefarious posers.


there is no legitimate justification to block anti-discrimination statutes in order to stop posers.

the way to tell the difference between nefarious posers and legit trans is their actual behavior.

when hetero men commit crimes in the bathroom they get held accountable just the same as ever.

including men who would harass young boys in the men's room...

The city of charlotte was having no problems with the status quo. It was a nonproblem. The wording of the law was broad and vague and would allow men into the ladies' room on an honor system. Women would have no recourse when a nontransgendered male is in the ladies' room. Since there was not a problem with the status quo (trans were not being harrassed or assaulted in the ladies' room), there was no compelling interest.

It was a feel good law. Somehow, we don't care if a state clearly doesn't feel good about the law. Chaz Bono was not being run out of the men's room and Rue Paul was not being run out of the ladies' room. We know a drag queen or transgendered when we see them, but there was no uproar. It was not an issue. We would object to a nontransgendered though, but you'd take that away from us. Why?

We were policing just fine before the law and transgendereds used the potty of their choice without issue. It comes across like an FU to people who were showing no disrespect. It also removes the defense of calling cops when a nontransgendered is creeping people out in the toilet. Now, we can't question him without being demonized and perhaps sued. So, yes, normal people are going to resist, not just "phobics" and bigots.

Your comment on the Charlotte ordanance being a feel good law is absolutely correct.

Pity makes poor public policy.

A tran individual attempts to, through cosmetic surgery, fool the public that they are of the opposite sex, but in reality they remain incredibly more simalar to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

A trans male may dress like a female, apply makeup like a female, but it is simply a cosmetic disquise meant to deceive the public as well as themselves. They remain vastly more Male then female.

Taken to the extreme they will even have cosmetic surgery on their genitals and their chests, but even then, a male trans breasts will not function as a females, unable to fulfill the basic reason breasts exist to begin with. Simply cosmetic and vastly more closely related to a male then a female.

The male tran can have his penis surgically altered to resemble a vagina, but it will not function like one. A Woman has a vagina, but it is simply a small part of the entire female reproductive system that the male tran will never have. Again, the male tran is still vastly more closely related to the Male, and it remains debateable how exactly they are related to the female at all.

The government had no duty to recognize a cosmetically altered individual, when that individual does so voluntarily.

We have recognized that some will take advantage of the trans and passed law (Hate Crime), to address this. By doing this, the government has fulfilled its obligation to these people.

 

[Pop23]

Three decades ago, a female employee of a large accounting firm, Ann Hopkins, successfully sued her company for discrimination. Today, her precedent-setting case is being used in a way that Hopkins may never have imagined: to make the argument that discrimination against transgender people is prohibited under federal laws that bar sex discrimination.


That argument — that disparate treatment against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination — is not new. In recent years, state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Obama administration have adopted that position, despite the fact that federal law does not explicitly protect people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


But the argument this week has taken center stage in an escalating dispute between the Obama administration and North Carolina, which earlier this year became the first state to require students, state employees and visitors to government buildings to use public restrooms that match their biological sex at birth.


On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department issued a letter to North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), warning that the bathroom restriction violated federal law — and put at risk millions of dollars in federal funding the state receives every year.



“The state is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees,” wrote Vanita Gupta, the head of the civil rights division.


The Hopkins case, which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, figured prominently in Gupta’s letter. The justices found that discrimination on the basis of sex could include sex stereotyping — the belief that women ought to look and act stereotypically feminine — as well as other “sex-based considerations.”

Gay and transgender plaintiffs have, in recent years, successfully used that conclusion to win discrimination lawsuits against their employers.


Is discrimination against transgender people a form of sex discrimination?

Yes. That's correct. You can't FORCE a woman to look, dress, act like a stereotypical woman. You cannot mandate that a man talk like a man or dress like a man.

But....can you mandate that a man is, well, a man? Or a woman is a woman?

When a scared 18 year old boy gets on the bus to go to USMC boot camp....and he gets last minute cold feet about the hard standards for PT.....can he just trans himself into a female...and then be put into the women's training and be held to the lower women's standards???

Wrong.

That the state seeks to subject transgender persons to punitive measures based solely on who they are manifests as gender discrimination, it’s both illegal and un-Constitutional.

The Government has no duty to pass laws to benefit those who go through voluntary cosmetic surgery

 

[elektra]

At the least, the government should protect the children, children should be able to grow up believing in Santa Claus

 

[koshergrl]

I was in a meeting yesterday going over newsletter submissions. One of the articles was JUNE is LGBTIQ Pride Month.

Lesbian. Gay. Bi. Trans. Intersex (wtf) and QUEER.

They're all queer, and why do we have to label them according to whatever they're doing with their genitals that day?

"Historically, LGBTIQ rights have been restricted." That was her lead. I made her move it to the second paragraph, nobody even knew what the I and the Q were anyway, we had to ask her. And in fact, she's LYING because it's not LGBTIQ month. It's just LGBT month. She's adding on two more classes of freaks and trying to hitch on to the dubious relevance of LGBT.

She also was adamant that we give her a by-line.
And I know why..because she can show it to the kooks who make up the LGBTIQ community, and they are so drugged and stupid they'll oooo and aaaaaa over it. She'll gain prestige among lunatics.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll tell you, the tide is turning on this carnival side-show. The other day a friend of mine had a final exam with a very liberal woman college professor. And the class knew there was a gay guy in the class. It was obvious. As they always do, he flaunted it constantly and brought it up in all his papers and assignments and wove it into every conversation. I think it's a form of narcissism actually..

Anyway, the very liberal left professor stood up at one point and said "I guess we have to acknowledge the LGBT minority too. But I'm not sure what to call them anymore. Now they've added "I" and "Q" and who knows what else?" After that she giggled, got the rest of the class to giggle and the gay guy just sat there looking peeved and annoyed. The message was "yeah, this LGBT etc. etc. bullshit is getting old and its being pushed too far". Remember: again, this was a liberal woman college professor poking fun at all the different name changes and shifting identities....

 

[koshergrl]

I'll tell you, the tide is turning on this carnival side-show. The other day a friend of mine had a final exam with a very liberal woman college professor. And the class knew there was a gay guy in the class. It was obvious. As they always do, he flaunted it constantly and brought it up in all his papers and assignments and wove it into every conversation. I think it's a form of narcissism actually..

Anyway, the very liberal left professor stood up at one point and said "I guess we have to acknowledge the LGBT minority too. But I'm not sure what to call them anymore. Now they've added "I" and "Q" and who knows what else?" After that she giggled, got the rest of the class to giggle and the gay guy just sat there looking peeved and annoyed. The message was "yeah, this LGBT etc. etc. bullshit is getting old and its being pushed too far". Remember: again, this was a liberal woman college professor poking fun at all the different name changes and shifting identities....

Liberals are the worst bigots the world has ever seen. They USE minorities to push totalitarianism.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Its not discrimination at all. How can a law requiring ALL people to use their proper sex designated bathroom be discriminatory?
That is equality. Period.

Didn't you get the memo? It's the wrong equality.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Simple...

I always like this one:

 

[AmericanFirst1]

There are only two genders, male and female. So how can the feds say the bathroom law is discriminating based on gender? Doesn't matter if you're a dude wearing a dress and acting feminine, you are still MALE. Doesn't matter if you're a butch bull dyke with a short haircut and sporting clothing meant for men, you are still a female.

Thems the breaks, trannies.

Exactly