Thursday, April 7, 2016

Dayton Bans Travel

BMTN Dayton Bans Travel
The Uptake Travel Ban
Gov NC Letter
Gov Site


Now I have no problem with Dayton having an opinion on what is occurring in another State, but saying that it violates the Constitutional Rights of LGBT folks in those States seems like a stretch since the courts have not weighed in on this discussion. I mean LGBT marriage barely was approved by SCOTUS and that is a transaction between civilians and a "non-religious" government.  When SCOTUS has to balance Religious vs LGBT freedoms, I think all bets will be off. Remember the Hobby Lobby ruling...
"This act of discrimination is discriminatory against many Mississippi residents, and violates their constitutional rights," Dayton said. "We cannot allow this injustice to go unanswered. When the rights of some Americans are threatened, it is the responsibility of all Americans to stand in opposition to those discriminatory acts."
Thoughts?

112 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

So, we're defending the constitutional rights of the two transgenders in Mississippi against the constitutional rights of the other two million to be "secure in their persons"?

jerrye92002 said...

Maybe Mississippi should say "we're not going to allow any Minnesota grain barges to move past Vicksburg until that offensive policy is changed."

Anonymous said...

"...the constitutional rights of the other two million to be "secure in their persons"?"

Mississippi's law will have the opposite effect, of course, now requiring transmen to use a women's restroom.

These laws are, in effect, changing what has been the norm for a very long time, that people use the restroom that matches their gender appearance.

I applaud Governor Dayton for his stance. But...what is non-essential travel?

Joel

Anonymous said...

The notion that it's ok to discriminate as long as you stick a religion label simply has worn out it's welcome at least where gay people are concerned. In one of the rare instances in which I would quote Justice Scalia, "it's time to get over it."

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

It is not OK to discriminate based on status, that is, whether you are black or female or gay. It should be absolutely OK to discriminate based on behavior, say if you are trying to force a religious baker to make you a cake, or molest a young girl in the ladies room.

John said...

Joel,
I think non-essential would be training seminars, etc. (ie where other options are available) Hopefully it is very small dollars and Dayton is just grand standing for his voters.

Also, if the person truly looks like the sex who should be using that restroom, no one will notice or care in most situations. I still remember checking into a hotel near San Francisco many years back and being greeted by a scruffy ~60 old man in a dress, make up and heels... She/he was a very interesting site...

Hiram,
I don't think a 5-4 SCOTUS decision did much to win hearts and minds. And it sure did not resolve the LGBT Freedoms vs Religious Freedoms issue. As we have discussed many times.

jerrye92002 said...

Again, appearance doesn't matter, but rather purpose. Somebody pointed out that there are probably 15,000 male perverts wanting to use the ladies room for every transgendered male who looks female. And restrooms are only part of the problem. Dayton thinks we should have high school locker rooms be co-ed, too. I doubt the boys would mind, but...

Anonymous said...

It is not OK to discriminate based on status, that is, whether you are black or female or gay

So it's not ok to discriminate against a Jew because he is Jewish, but it is ok to discriminate against him if he goes to shul?

Learn something every day.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I don't think a 5-4 SCOTUS decision did much to win hearts and minds

I don't know if it is the function or the goal of the Supreme Court to win hearts and minds. The vote in Brown v. Board of Education was 9 nothing, and still lots of hearts and minds remained unwon afterwards. Bush won in the Supreme Court 5 to 4, but did that mean he was only barely a president? Did he work on only half wages for his first four years in office?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"So it's not ok to discriminate against a Jew because he is Jewish, but it is ok to discriminate against him if he goes to shul?"

Correct. He should be Jewish (or an invited guest) to participate in Jewish services. Skinheads should be barred from participation.

Anonymous said...

"Somebody pointed out that there are probably 15,000 male perverts wanting to use the ladies room for every transgendered male who looks female."

And now they can go into the women's restroom with relative impunity because they can say they were born female.

Well...if that's what you want, who am I to argue.

Joel

John said...

Hiram,
Religion is protected by the first amendment. As noted before: LGBT as a state of being like being Black, White, Male, Female, Health, Handicapped, etc is still up in the air... Unless you have some new science sources for us to review.

From that link...

The reality is that science has not conclusively weighed in on this topic, so "small minds" is not the issue.

We have Group 1 of people telling the world that LGBT is a physiological condition (ie like male/female), with almost no science to back it up.

We have Group 2 of people telling the world that LGBT is a behavioral choice (ie like choosing to own a pet), with almost no science to back it up.

Now allowing LGBT folks to marry and live their lives really does not directly impact the people in Group 2. Just as Hunters really don't directly impact PETA folks.

Now the bathroom / locker room and business association issues are kind of like if someone forced a PETA member to allow a Hunter on to their land. It definitely is a higher level of personal freedom impact, thus worthy of more discussion.

As for closed hearts. I think people in both Groups seem to have "closed hearts".

The Group 1 folks certainly don't to seem to care that they want to force others into an uncomfortable place that will cause them great anxiety. I mean some of the Group 2 people truly believe their souls are at risk for supporting and/or being exposed to a "sinful behavioral choice", and Group 1 folks just don't care.

The Group 2 folks certainly don't to seem to care that they want to force others into an uncomfortable place that will cause them great anxiety. I mean some of the Group 1 people have been tormented over the centuries, and Group 1 folks just don't care.

As I keep saying, hopefully science clarifies this soon...

John said...

Brown v. Board of Education and 9 votes pretty much made it clear that it was clear cut and there was no going back. Even to this day many people think Gore should have been the President...

Ironically the 5/4 LGBT marriage ruling probably pretty well represents public opinion... So until science clarifies this... Be ready for more disagreements.

Laurie said...

dumb example:


"Now the bathroom / locker room and business association issues are kind of like if someone forced a PETA member to allow a Hunter on to their land. It definitely is a higher level of personal freedom impact, thus worthy of more discussion."


why would anyone be forced to let someone on their private property?

better question:

why should it be legal to fire a person based on what they do in their private life?

Laurie said...

comic

John said...

What if it was business property... Work with me here.

How about "if someone forced a PETA member professional photographer to take photos of someone killing and processing mink for their scrap book". It definitely is a higher level of personal freedom impact, thus worthy of more discussion.

By the way, funny comic...

Laurie said...

your new example is better. I am a tiny bit more sympathetic to the homophobic photographer than to the person who doesn't want to bake a cake. In both cases the business owners should get over it and not discriminate.

I don't feel strongly enough to boycott these states, as we still have plans to visit a cousin's family in North Carolina in the next year or two. I think it is smart for businesses to use their influence to try to make these states less discriminatory.

John said...

So if the photographer who believes the LGBT life is sinful is "homophobic"...

What is the photographer who believes mink farming is sinful/wrong?
"farmerphobic"... "hunterphobic"...

Should that PETA business person just get over it and not discriminate?

It is an interesting dilemma...

Comic 1 Comic 2 Comic 3 Acronym

Anonymous said...

Religion is protected by the first amendment.

Lots of religions argue that being gay is just fine. If you fire people who hold and practice that faith, are you discriminating against their religion?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

He should be Jewish (or an invited guest) to participate in Jewish services. Skinheads should be barred from participation.

So does that mean it's ok for a skinhead to fire someone because he practices Judaism?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Your questions bring up a good point.

What Jewish person would choose to work for a skinhead? and
What LGBT person would want to do business with someone who is anti-LGBT behaviors?

All this LGBT gnashing of teeth that some religious conservative may refuse them service... As if legally forcing the religious conservative to capitulate will result in a positive experience for either party.

As if my mink farmers would really ask a PETA photographer to work for them... I think the farmers would get very tired of hearing the photographer cry as the mink were dropped in the killing device...

Anonymous said...

What Jewish person would choose to work for a skinhead?

Lots of people work for employers they don't like. I am sure many Hobby Lobby employees use birth control.

What LGBT person would want to do business with someone who is anti-LGBT behaviors?

Business is business, especially in this economy. I can tell you if I had tickets to vacation in Mississippi, or North Carolina, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. I do vacation in Florida despite the fact that the state government is mostly a subsidiary of drug cartels.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Now you're understanding the problem. "Live and let live" sounds like a pretty good way to determine who is right in any given case. If you're gay, I don't know and I don't care. If you're in my face demanding I photograph your wedding, you are choosing a behavior to which I have the right to object.

And if you're demanding the right to use any bathroom or locker room you feel like, THAT is a behavior that's simply unacceptable. Accommodations have frequently been made for the tiny few kids with gender dysphoria, to use private rooms. Why should we instead force the vast majority to alter THEIR behavior? It doesn't make any sense.

Here's another test: If big business or big government is involved in dictating a change in behavior, the chances are very good that somebody's rights are being trampled.

Sean said...

LGBT status and PETA membership aren't the same thing from a legal perspective, so trying to conflate them misses the point completely.

jerrye92002 said...

So are being black and being "transgender" wanting to use another bathroom-- two totally different things, yet the Guv insists on calling them both "discrimination." Doesn't sound like a lot of "discrimination" is going on in Dayton's mind.

John said...

"LGBT status and PETA membership aren't the same thing from a legal perspective"

Sean,
Please explain, because in many States I believe it still is.

Please remember that LGBT rights are not clearly protected at the Federal Level like those of religion, sex, race, special needs, age, etc.

And Group 1 just barely got LGBT Marriage legalized... (ie 5 - 4 decision)

jerrye92002 said...

And need I say there is a difference between that which is legal and that which is right?

jerrye92002 said...

"Minnesota- where everything not mandatory is prohibited, and everything not prohibited is mandatory."

John said...

Since I share Group 1's belief that in most cases being Lesbian, Gay and/or Born in the wrong sexes body is a physiological mandate, I see it a little different.

Of course how how bi-sexual even made the acronym is beyond me... I mean that simply says you can make a choice to sleep with either sex and be okay with it.... So of course it is then a choice.

jerrye92002 said...

You have a good point about "B" being contradictory of the claims for L and G being "inborn" rather than choices. But then why not the same logic for "T"? "Born in the wrong body" says that you make some sort of choice, doesn't it? You have the equipment to do what your sex normally does, or even what an L or G does, if you acknowledge that as choice. And changing your body is a BIG choice, defying what you were "born with."

And when it comes to LGBTQQGQIAASCPGSM, I think people are starting to just make stuff up to tick off the old folks.

jerrye92002 said...

Saw a great poster the other day:

"Want to know which bathroom to use?

Look in your underwear.

You're welcome."

Anonymous said...

"I mean that simply says you can make a choice to sleep with either sex and be okay with it.... So of course it is then a choice."

Why do you insist on flaunting your ignorance about bisexuality?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Please teach me then.

Why in the world would a bi-sexual need special legal protections that are different from a Gay or Lesbian person?

And if you are equally attracted to and have no qualms about who pleasures you... How can you say that going one way or the other is not a choice?

jerrye92002 said...

I see two problems for you, Joel.
1) First is you want to make assertions without supporting facts.
2) Second is that you want to make assertions without any supporting logic.

Anonymous said...

"Please teach me then."

We have been over and over this, John. I have attempted to educate you on this in the past. You see attraction as a choice. I do not.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"Why in the world would a bi-sexual need special legal protections that are different from a Gay or Lesbian person?"

Who has asked that they be given special legal protections that are different from other queer people? If they are in a monogamous relationship, it will be either heterosexual or homosexual.

But I think I see where you're coming from...but that means you're erroneously equating bisexuals with polygamists.

Joel

John said...

Now I am very happy eating steak or barbecued pork ribs. I can happily choose to eat one or the other.

Now if a woman's appetite is flexible, and if society protects Gays and Lesbians... Why does the Bi-Sexual person need special protections?

I mean if she enters that loving long term relationship with a man, she is Straight. And if she enters it with a woman she is a Lesbian. She is covered either way.

Unless this is some pre-cursor to wanting to make non-monogamous multi-partner groups an acceptable societal norm.

John said...

Since our comments crossed, then maybe the acronym should be LGT instead of LGBT.

Anonymous said...

"Why does the Bi-Sexual person need special protections?"

What are you talking about?

Joel

Anonymous said...

"...maybe the acronym should be LGT instead of LGBT."

Why should a non-member of a group haven any say in who belongs to said group?

It is about identity, not a specific behavior at a specific time.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
The LGBT community is looking for acceptance and freedoms from the social collective of the USA. So yes the non-members in the collective get to weigh in on what is acceptable and what is not within the society that they all live.

That is simply the way social norms and laws work in a democratic society work.

Now the LGBT argument goes that "this is just how we are wired, it is not a behavioral choice"... I am just pointing out the bi-sexuals are clearly making a choice to behave in a certain way... Since they can be attracted to either sex.

Anonymous said...

"So yes the non-members in the collective get to weigh in on what is acceptable and what is not within the society that they all live."

So Caucasians can say that certain African Americans aren't "black"?

"I am just pointing out the bi-sexuals are clearly making a choice to behave in a certain way..."

The choice they are making is to commit themselves to the person that they love. So, tell me again how they are different than gays, lesbians, or straights?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Yes the law gets to say who is "Black". Otherwise a bunch of white folks may be applying for scholarships and programs that are reserved for Black people.

If a bi-sexual commits themselves to a single man or woman... The term no longer matters because they have made choice... I still don't get it.

Anonymous said...

"The term no longer matters because they have made choice..."

You have learned nothing. A person does not cease to be bisexual when they have committed to someone.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"Yes the law gets to say who is "Black". Otherwise a bunch of white folks may be applying for scholarships and programs that are reserved for Black people."

Fair enough. But a bisexual does not become "straight" just because they commit to a person of the opposite sex. So...they are still bisexual. You seem to have this weird idea that they are just waiting to make a decision about which side they will fall on.

I can't imagine why, in a world - a universe - as varied as this, that you'd insist that human sexuality should be one of the very few things that is binary, that has no gradations from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Joel

John said...

Is this where I should come unglued and accuse you of putting words in my mouth? :-)

"that you'd insist that human sexuality should be one of the very few things that is binary, that has no gradations from one end of the spectrum to the other"

You seem to forget that I am a Group 1 member who strives for balancing the Group 1 / Group 2 freedoms. If you disagree, please feel free to find a comment that supports your perspective of my belief.

The reality is that bi-sexual people really don't need a classification in my opinion because in reality they are just waffling between gay/lesbian and straight. All of whom are covered in the laws... (ie they are in the middle of the continuum)

Unless they intend to shove their sexual flexibility into the face of others... It really does not matter.

Anonymous said...

"The reality is that bi-sexual people really don't need a classification..."

Nobody should need classifications at all, but we don't live in a utopia. We live in a world where people are routinely discriminated against, harassed, and murdered because they are different from the 'norm'. Bisexuals fit that description.

"...in reality they are just waffling between gay/lesbian and straight."

Except they're not.

But I think we're talking about two different things, which likely explains my frustration. I'm talking about how people identify themselves. You're talking about how the law identifies people. Does that sound right?

Joel

John said...

Of course they are waffling just like a true moderate voter may vote Democrat sometimes and Republican at others... And I am pretty sure no bi was harassed when they made the straight choice. It was only when the made the G/L choice where they behaved against society's norms.

Yes. How people self identify is a very personal thing.

When they want to demand that others accept them and their behaviors in our society it is a very public thing.

jerrye92002 said...

PMFBI, but I think maybe I can help. Joel posits one useful distinction, that what is legal is not necessarily moral-- part of the "social mores" of the culture. Who was it who said "The constitution is suited for the governance of a moral people, and no other." We cannot invent rights for ourselves, nor trample the rights of others, by laws we make ourselves. That doesn't mean we can't make distinctions in law.

Sorry, off track there. The other distinction that keeps getting overlooked is that nobody gives a rip about whom you are "attracted to." a) we don't know and b) it doesn't matter except, perhaps to the two people involved. HOWEVER, when you choose to DO something about it, THAT is a choice of behaviors, not a "status" or "orientation." Thus the bisexually-oriented can CHOOSE either sex for sexual behavior, or choose to remain celibate but bisexual in which case, who cares, again?

In the current fracas, therefore, you are what your genitalia dictates you are, for the legal purposes of using sex-specific facilities. Attempting to change that behavior by law is trampling the rights of those who wouldn't care if you were simply differently "oriented" but who have rightful expectations about privacy and security in such places. Dayton is being irrational.

Anonymous said...

"In the current fracas, therefore, you are what your genitalia dictates you are, for the legal purposes of using sex-specific facilities."

The issue is gender, not biological sex. They are gender-specific facilities. If a person looks like a man, should they use the men's or women's restroom?

Joel

Anonymous said...

"Of course they are waffling just like a true moderate voter may vote Democrat sometimes and Republican at others..."

So when they choose a Democrat, does that make them a Democrat or are they still a true moderate?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

No, Joel, the issue is biological sex for determining which bathroom to use, AND gender for deciding to respect that distinction. Example: most women and girls would be uncomfortable with an obvious man (who claims to be a woman inside) leering at them in the shower room, but most men would have no objection to having a woman in the men's shower. Different gender roles corresponding to the biological sex. You want to change that, by law? Why not pass a law declaring that the planet has to get cooler?

Anonymous said...

If I may do so, I copy here a comment from MinnPost by Max Millon. I believe it perfectly illustrates the problem with jerry's line of thinking and with the bathroom laws now sweeping the country.

Joel

"Dennis, I'd like to provide a few scenarios of how this type of thing plays out. I have a transgender friend. She transitioned several years ago, and very clearly is a woman. If you walked past her on the sidewalk you wouldn't know her history or really think twice about her. You could sit next to her on a plane and not notice a thing.

So let's say we have Scenario A. Government doesn't get involved, my friend uses the women's bathroom, and literally no one notices. She has privacy and everyone else is comfortable.

Let's also add Scenario B. Our society is better about making the relatively simple transition to gender-neutral bathrooms, and there are no privacy or safety issues regardless of who is using what bathrooms. As an added bonus, 'family' restrooms are no longer needed, and caretakers of the elderly or disabled persons no longer need to worry about accompanying someone of the opposite sex in a restroom. Great!

Now we have Scenario C. Under this type of law, she is forced to go into the men's restroom, otherwise she is committing a crime. This makes the men uncomfortable, and also makes her uncomfortable. It also instantly outs her as transgender, which is dangerous given the high assault rates for transgender people. So she is forced to choose between making everyone uncomfortable and possibly opening herself up to assault, or breaking the law.

So which of these scenarios would you prefer?"

jerrye92002 said...

I prefer the scenario in which restroom choice is determined by apparent biological sex. This solves the problem of men deciding to be women today and causing problems. Once the transition is complete, the same rule applies, since a post-operative T is apparently now of the proper sex for the designated bathroom.

And "this type of law" makes proper allowance, so scenario C doesn't happen. B is very expensive and doesn't begin to address the locker room question which goes along with it. We have scenario A right now. Why mess with it?

Anonymous said...

That is contrary to what you posted earlier. Have you changed your position?

9:27 AM today

"In the current fracas, therefore, you are what your genitalia dictates you are, for the legal purposes of using sex-specific facilities."

1:04 PM today

"I prefer the scenario in which restroom choice is determined by apparent biological sex."

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Explain, please, how you see an inconsistency between "your genitalia" and "apparent biological sex"?

Anonymous said...

If you think they are the same, you didn't understand the scenarios above.

In Scenario A, the person is "apparently" female, and thus uses the women's restroom. You don't "know" the person is biologically female unless you check their genetalia or DNA.

In Scenario C, the person is "apparently" female, but uses the men's restroom. This is what these laws would force on people.

I can't believe you still don't get it.

Joel

Anonymous said...

And for the record, I agree with you when you say, "We have scenario A right now. Why mess with it?" But you support passing these laws, which will mess with it.

You're being contradictory.

Joel

John said...

Jerry,
You even confused me.

Personally I think that if the LGBT folks want to demand equal access to restrooms and locker rooms based on their feelings. (ie equality) Then I think society should pass laws to ensure that people with the wrong parts have to sneak into the bath room of their choice.

If a man looks and acts like a woman and has a penis... Go to the ladies room in public spaces where you are not known... No one will know to give you a hard time. But don't go use the ladies locker room unless you want to get busted.

I don't think that the Group 1 folks understand that they triggered the demand for these additional laws...(ie religious freedom / bathroom) I mean before the LGBT equality law onslaught none of this mattered to most people. People used the facilities that drew the least attention.

Now the "in your face laws" are making people think they have to regulate the "LGBT freedom"... As it crashes into our religious and proper behavior norms...

jerrye92002 said...

OK, perhaps this will clear things up. Forget bathrooms for a minute. Let's talk about locker rooms, which are the bigger problem and included in the same sorts of bills. Calling it the "bathroom bill" is, IMHO, an attempt to make something sound perfectly reasonable while concealing the very real (intended or not) consequences. So, in locker rooms, "apparent biological sex" would be based on obvious things like genitalia-- they're the same. Laws which codify the current situation, where that is the criterion, are codifying the scenario A, the status quo. We've since added special considerations for the tiny few who could be troubled by the status quo, so why mess with the 99.9% of everybody else by insisting that such laws are "discriminatory" in some bad sense of the word?

Anonymous said...

You should take a hard look at the North Carolina law. It's almost completely NOT about the bathroom issue...or locker rooms. It's much more insidious than that.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Perhaps you could provide an objective reference?

Anonymous said...

North Carolina HB2

Hope I did the hyperlink correctly.

Joel

Anonymous said...


NC House Bill 2

Last attempt.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, thanks for the cite. I found it pretty easy to read through, typical of state legislation but not federal, and it says exactly what I have been saying about it. It's simple common sense (scenario A+) while accommodating everybody. Nothing discriminatory at all. Dayton is wrong.

John said...

WP NC Gov Takes Action

SC Gov Speaks Out

Anonymous said...

Backtracking

'The executive order, McCrory says, "expands the state's employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity" and "seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination."'

jerry, based on your comment, you have no problem with people not having the right to sue in state court for discrimination. I find that reprehensible.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

I did not say that. What I will say about your unrecognizable interpretation of my comment is that people have the right (and unfortunate proclivity) to file lawsuits about anything. They do NOT have the right to prevail, especially where the law is clearly against them.

Look, I've got some experience here. Years ago we had a guy, full beard, show up for work in a blond wig, low-cut red sequined cocktail dress, high heels, and walked into the ladies room like he owned the place. We fired him. Was that because of his sexual orientation or gender identity? Could he or should he win a lawsuit?

John said...

The problem with law suits in this case is that the Group 1 folks are trying to use them to get judges to "pass laws" through precedent. Instead of working through the State legislators and Governors.

For better or worse LGBT is not a protected class in many states.

So there really should be no grounds on which to sue.

John said...

For more info... Employment at Will

Anonymous said...

"What I will say about your unrecognizable interpretation of my comment is that people have the right (and unfortunate proclivity) to file lawsuits about anything."

Is it really that hard to see that you agreeing with the law as written means you agree that people shouldn't be allowed to bring suit for discrimination. After all, that's what the law does.

"Years ago we had a guy, full beard, show up for work in a blond wig, low-cut red sequined cocktail dress, high heels, and walked into the ladies room like he owned the place."

When you can address the issue of transgenderism as opposed to giving examples of transvestites, perhaps we can have a conversation. But...it appears you don't know the difference.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Is there like a glossary that describes all of these unique variations?

And hopefully some guidance as to who the LGBT community wants to be free to do what?

Now I understand that a Lesbian is a woman who is attracted to women... And a Gay is a man who is attracted to men... And a Bi is either who is attracted to everyone... And that there are no serious bathroom or locker room issues with these folks...

Beyond that the waters get really murky... This is SO confusing...

jerrye92002 said...

"When you can address the issue of transgenderism as opposed to giving examples of transvestites, perhaps we can have a conversation."

I AM addressing precisely that issue. If we segregate locker rooms by "apparent" biological sex (genitalia, not DNA), then post-op transgenders access what their self-determined "gender" prescribes, and there is no problem. Pre-op transgenders and transvestites either use what their obvious biological sex (genitalia and DNA) prescribes, or they access special private facilities designated for their use. What problem am I failing to see, that needs solving?

Anonymous said...

The word is the description.

Trans-vestite = cross-dressing
Trans-gender = cross-gender

A man with a full beard is most definitely not trying to be a woman, no matter what he's wearing.

Pretty simple.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

" And that there are no serious bathroom or locker room issues with these folks..."

John, they may not be serious, but there are issues. So long as the behavior is acceptable no one will know and therefore no one will care. If their status is known and there is a behavior problem (often called "leering") or worse, then there is a problem. Not nearly so serious as the current discussion and much more amenable to sorting out with a "live and let live" approach, without government interference.

Anonymous said...

The problem, jerry, is that people have been sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with transgendered people for basically forever, without issue. But now conservatives and republicans are deciding to muck it up.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"A man with a full beard is most definitely not trying to be a woman, no matter what he's wearing."

Exactly. A man does not belong in the girls' locker room, regardless of what he is wearing. So does his declaration that he is "transgender" and feels like a woman today change that fundamental biological and legal reality? It shouldn't.

John said...

Joel,
I don't think it is the Republicans that mucked it up...

The muck started about the time the LGBT folks decided that they needed the ability and freedom to openly share the facilities after openly telling everyone how much they were turned on by the same sex...

Society has been trying to work this out ever since.

Anonymous said...

Which restroom do these folks belong in?

John, I'm pretty sure you lose an argument once you start blaming the victims.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

So, who are the victims? Those doing the encroaching or those encroached upon?

And calling it the "bathroom bill" may be a bit deceptive, still. Nonetheless, let me ask the obvious question: How is anyone going to know a law is broken unless the appearance of the individual belies their bathroom choice? A man that looks like a woman using the ladies room where there are private stalls, isn't going to be an obvious law-breaker-- no "probable cause" for a misdemeanor arrest. Women in the men's room, same thing, unless she steps up to a urinal. What these laws are intended to cover is those who LOOK out of place and therefore ARE out of place. And restrooms aside, locker rooms make such stuff obvious, and it matters.

Anonymous said...

The victims are those who have been harassed, marginalized, and murdered for centuries.

So you admit that what we had before this stupid bill was just fine. People who look like/identify as men use the men's room and people who look like/identify as women use the women's room. Again...Republicans have muddied the waters by making those things illegal. Why do you want to force people to break the law?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"The problem, jerry, is that people have been sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with transgendered people for basically forever, without issue. But now conservatives and republicans are deciding to muck it up." -- Joel

You are going to have to explain that one. Gays and lesbians, sure, because we segregate by biologic sex and you can't tell G or L or B or even full-T (presumably) from everybody else with the same genital appearance. So what Republicans are trying to do is establish that situation in law, because it appears somebody wants to upset that long-standing situation. Why do they feel that need, and why should anybody object to it?

jerrye92002 said...

" People who look like/identify as men use the men's room ..."

You've got one tiny error that makes worlds of difference in that statement. Had you said "people who look like men use the men's room" you would be correct and in line with the NC law. When you add "identify as" you cause problems. Probably not a problem in Men's rooms (it often happens at sporting events) or even men's locker rooms. But somebody that identifies as female causes a problem if their appearance doesn't match. That's the issue. "Want to know which restroom to use? Look in your underwear." Even if it's silk and lace.

Anonymous said...

The law makes no distinction. It states that biological sex at birth as indicated on the birth certificate is what matters. So, people who look like men, BY LAW, must use the women's room if they were born with a vagina.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

OK, you are still missing an essential distinction. If someone born with a vagina looks like a man and uses a private stall in the men's room, nobody is going to know or care. The question arises when someone born with a vagina and looks like an "anatomically correct" male wants to use the men's room. The law states that her birth certificate can be changed, legally, allowing him to use the room corresponding to his birth certificate and biological appearance. Again, where is the problem, and do we need to discomfit the thousands of people who do NOT fit this description when it is far easier to accommodate the tiny few that do? (all in the law)

Anonymous said...

This was not an issue until the people with tiny minds discovered that not everyone is like them and that they may have to share facilities with people they don't understand.

I've been in situations where the men and women in my group have had to share dressing rooms. Nobody batted an eye...but then...we're all college educated and know how to be adults.

Good grief.

Joel

John said...

"blaming the victims"
"share facilities with people they don't understand"

Again... There was no problem in most cases when others did not know their peer's preferences...

Now let's consider this... A straight man envisions naked women while pleasuring themselves or fantasizing... I assume gay men envision naked men while pleasuring themselves or fantasizing... I assume lesbian women envision naked women while pleasuring themselves or fantasizing...

Now many women certainly would not be comfortable changing in front of a man who may be envisioning them in a compromising position...

Why again should those same women be comfortable changing in front of a woman who is openly a lesbian?

This logic that it does matter fascinates me...

John said...

Maybe the LGBT folks have this all figured out... We need to all change over to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms...

Maybe they had it right in Starship Troopers

Anonymous said...

I have some questions:

How exactly are people going to know someone else's preferences?

Who cares?

Is the government in the business of making laws based on what someone may or may not think?

I don't know about you, but I'm generally not concerned about what other people are thinking and/or doing in the restroom unless they are actually DOING something that forces me to wonder what's going on.

It astonishes me that people find it so hard to mind their own damn business.

Joel

John said...

For millennia most of us were...

Remember don't ask don't tell...

Then the LGBT community decided that they wanted to make sure people were aware of their preferences. And they wanted others to openly accept them as they are.

And now we are here.

jerrye92002 said...

That is what confuses me, too. So long as nobody knows that you are a man in the ladies restroom, we probably don't care. If suspicions arise because of your behavior, you are doing it wrong. Now go to the locker room situation, and it's pretty hard not to notice the obvious and therefore that is not acceptable behavior, I don't care what your "preferred gender" is. Now if you are a lesbian in the locker room and nobody knows, nobody cares. If you walk in with a big sign, your behavior may arouse suspicions. Most adults will, in fact, tolerate the "difference," up to a point, so long as we don't have the government telling us we must comply.

Anonymous said...

"Remember don't ask don't tell..."

You mean that policy that allowed "normal" people to go about their daily lives, talking about their personal lives with their colleagues, while the "queers" were forced to lie and hide and lurk in the shadows, and not show any evidence of a personal life in order to just take part in the service of our country? Yeah...good times. I'm sure the harassment, assaults, and suicides were just an aberration.

"...wanted to make sure people were aware of their preferences."

That is a complete misrepresentation of what people in the LGBT community want(ed). Being able to live openly and freely, supposedly a bedrock of this country, should not be met with such opposition. Those people who came out during a time when it was quite dangerous to do so, who paved the way for the freedoms that I and so many others now enjoy, were far braver than many Americans, most of whom have never had to face the hatred of their countrymen.

"And now we are here."

Ah, yes. The oppressors are now trying desperately to find new ways to hold on to their power. Sorry, but freedom and love will win the day.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"Now go to the locker room situation, and it's pretty hard not to notice the obvious and therefore that is not acceptable behavior, I don't care what your "preferred gender" is."

Riddle me this. How dangerous do you suppose it is for a transwoman, who has male parts, to use a men's locker room? Being forced to use the men's locker room immediately outs the person as transgender, opening that person up to great danger and ridicule. You'd open people up to scorn, ridicule, harassment, and assault just to save the fragile sensibilities of people who've never once had to question their existence. Pardon me if I don't care how you feel.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"Pardon me if I don't care how you feel."

No, I will not. Don't ask me to tolerate whatever aberration from normal sexual behavior you choose, should it become glaringly obvious, and not have you accept that I do not approve of it. If I assault you physically because of it, have me arrested. But do not think that passing a law allowing you to assault my sensibilities is going to do anything but harden my opinion.

And I don't even understand your example. If a woman has male parts, which locker room would you have herim use? Would it be the same for a man with male parts or a man with female parts? Under the NC law, she/he could access a private room if available, but otherwise would use the one designated for their apparent sex. How "apparent" it was might make it more or less difficult for everybody, but that's not something the law can fix.

Anonymous said...

Well, you obviously don't care how transgender and other LGBT folks feel, so I guess the understanding is mutual. You bring it upon yourself by oppressing people. Blaming the victim when they finally speak up against their oppressors is heartless, childish, and incredibly sad. I'm terribly sorry that you can't open your mind enough to accept that not everyone is exactly the way you want them to be nor do they act the way you want them to. I'm sorry for you that it's so hard to be an adult.

"herim" "she/he"

It's HER. This is not a difficult concept to understand. And your intentional use of inaccurate or ambiguous terms is tiresome and offensive. Grow up.

What would you have her do? The woman with male parts doesn't belong in the men's room because it is not where it makes sense for her to be and it is potentially very dangerous for her. She also now doesn't belong where she feels comfortable due to ignorant people creating laws based in ignorance, fear, and animus.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Well right back at you... You obviously don't care how sensitive straight folks feel...

"Victims and Oppressors"... Really...

It looks like we need to revisit Victim Mentality

John said...

This has got be one of the strangest phrases... "The woman with male parts"

Anonymous said...

'This has got be one of the strangest phrases... "The woman with male parts"'

I agree. But when you learn and understand that this is reality for some people, you get used it.

It's funny. I read a story the other day about a primate (a monkey? not sure) that has survived after being given a pig's heart. I wonder if it is considered a primate still or if there is some confusion over what type of animal it is. I'm guessing that it's still considered a primate even though not all of its parts are primate parts.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"It's HER. This is not a difficult concept to understand." -- Joel

You make it exceedingly difficult to understand, because we are talking about, as you describe the person, "the woman with male parts." You say "she" does not belong in the men's locker room. Then, again, what is all the fuss about? Why "become" male if you want to use the women's facilities, and don't we have enough males willing to do that without starting out as women? Look, I don't intend to "oppress" anybody, so long as they don't oppress me. Letting people use the facility matching their genitalia-- whether natural or artificial-- makes sense and doesn't bother me. Letting them use the facility OPPOSITE their genitalia-- natural or artificial-- does not make sense and I object. And for those few who can't decide or have switched, we can accommodate them in private facilities. I'm still trying to understand exactly what your quibble with the NC law is, because that's exactly what it says.

Anonymous said...

"Why "become" male if you want to use the women's facilities."

They "become" male and want to use the men's facilities. The law would force them to use the women's. I don't know what you're talking about here.

"Letting them use the facility OPPOSITE their genitalia-- natural or artificial-- does not make sense and I object."

Only because you know. You've undoubtedly been in the presence of a transgender in your restroom or locker room in the past without any objection from you. In other words, you'd rather these people hide and live in secrecy with all its attendant pain and depression than for you to be confronted with something you don't like.

The simplest answer is to let people use the facilities that match their identity.

Joel

John said...

I was curious what one would call a hippopotamus if they graphed an elephant's trunk on to it in place of it's nose....

That may be more similar to what we are discussing than a primate with a pig's heart. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

"Only because you know. You've undoubtedly been in the presence of a transgender in your restroom or locker room in the past without any objection from you. In other words, you'd rather these people hide and live in secrecy with all its attendant pain and depression than for you to be confronted with something you don't like."

Please, Joel, explain to me how I could shower with a "transgender person" and NOT know? If a man thinks he's a woman on the inside, he's still a man on the outside and shouldn't be in the ladies'. Period. If "he" has had surgery, hormone treatments, etc. and changed clothes, the now-she belongs there. Otherwise you're just talking about a transvestite, and those are going to be noticed regardless of which way they go. A man in a dress is going to be obvious going into the men's room, and a woman in pants is going to get found out in the shower. That's what we're trying to avoid here, in the name of tolerance and compassion, are we not?

Anonymous said...

So, because transgender people are discreet and don't want to be "discovered" in the "wrong" locker room, that means that you've never shared a locker room with one?

Quite the logic you got going on there.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

NO, I have not. Somebody with the wrong body parts would, shall we say, "stick out like a sore thumb" in the wrong locker room.

Anonymous said...

"NO, I have not."

LOL

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Your LOL is funny of itself, because it's completely illogical. Explain to me how a woman could hide her biological sex in the men's shower. Or vice versa. One doesn't expose one's mind, where "gender" might reside, when otherwise naked.

Anonymous said...

That you think you've never shared a locker room with a transgender person in all your years on this earth is laughable, hence the LOL.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Back to facts and data.

“If you're in a high school of 2,000 kids, you're probably going to have somewhere between two and four trans kids in that school at any one time,” says Dr. Norman Spack, the co-director of the gender management clinic at Boston Children's Hospital."

This means there is only 1 to 2 per 1,000 students Based on this it is likely many people have never been in a shower room with a transgender person.

John said...

And this source says 3 per 1,000.

"An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender."

jerrye92002 said...

OK, let's do some real numbers. According to statistics, there are about 200 sex reassignment surgeries per year, so in a "generational cohort" of 20 years there would be 4000 such individuals, meaning the chance of ever encountering one is just north of 1 per 100,000 people. So the $64 question is, why should we change the law to discomfit 99,999 people just so that one person can feel comfortable in the locker room with others of his "chosen gender" and appearance?

John said...

So you think your assumption/math is better than the 0.3% statistic?

I assume many can not afford the surgery.

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, I do, because that is a REAL number, and because it clearly distinguishes between true "transgender" and those who simply suffer from "gender confusion"-- a psychological rather than physiological difference. The former should use the facilities matching their physical sex. The latter should do likewise.