Now this is getting interesting.
Hot Air Obama Forces Issue
TownHall IL Parents Sue DOE
AW Who's Bathroom Is It
Breibart Parents Sue
USA Today NC will not Lose Funding
Hot Air Obama Forces Issue
TownHall IL Parents Sue DOE
AW Who's Bathroom Is It
Breibart Parents Sue
USA Today NC will not Lose Funding
67 comments:
""You are apparently only concerned about the 0.3% of people."
What does the 0.3% have to do with anything? I have a friend who's a Hindu (also less than 1% of the population) -- which of his civil rights can I infringe on because he's part of a small minority?" Sean
"Which right is infringed if a man wants to use the ladies restroom?" Jerry
"Let's try this again...
- 1st: Religion is a clearly a protected class
- 2nd: Your friend being a Hindu does not force another citizen or their children to be naked in front of... or exposed to anyone else's parts...
I wonder what our society would do if a "Hindu or another religion" demanded the right to walk around naked in public?
Where does the right to do as one wishes crash into the right of others to not be exposed to it?" G2A
Hey, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the "0.3%" -- that's you. Why is it relevant to the discussion? Is the question fundamentally different if it's 2% or 5% or 10% or 25%?
Just keeping the scope and magnitude of this issue in perspective. Please remember that I only researched this after some Liberal commenter on MP insisted that we had all been in a bathroom with a transexual.
One more thought: we are discussing social norms.
Now if 25% of the population was transexual, it is very likely that our norm would be very different. With it at 0.3% it is almost a non-factor for most people in our society.
Also, I think it is fascinating that so many people are so sensitive to the wants of this non-protected group of people. While being totally insensitive to the wants of a very large portion of the population.
And the question being begged is, why now for this particular assault on common culture? Might it be to hide the disasters in the economy, in health care, in foreign policy?
now that younger son is home from college I asked him how common it was for students to shower after phy ed class in middle school and highschool and he said students pretty much never showered, so all the hysteria is really over nothing. Or do you guys also freak out that someone may be seen in their underwear while changiing into their gym shorts.
about disasters in the economy under Obama the problem is that republicans that are confused about this (or misinformed by Rush and by Fox news:)
"In both cases Democrats and independents are correct in their understanding of
how things have changed since Obama became President, but Republicans claim
by a 64/27 spread that unemployment has increased and by a 57/27 spread that
the stock market has gone down.
“It’s a fact that unemployment has gone down and the stock market has gone up
during the Obama administration,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. “But GOP voters treat these things more as issues of opinion than issues
of fact.”
Laurie,
You are absolutely correct... This hysteria is over nothing.
The LGBT supporters should stop suing school districts, governments, businesses, etc. The citizens in each community, city and state should be free to address the issue as they choose.
Do you agree? I mean if it is no big deal.
I agree though. I have no idea what disaster Jerry is alluding to...
Perhaps you're right that we don't have a disaster on our hands. The official unemployment rate is down, but of course the "real" unemployment rate remains over 10%, and we have the lowest labor force participation rate since the Carter years. Obama has essentially doubled the national debt and covered it up by having the Federal Reserve print trillions of dollars in new money out of thin air. GDP growth is way behind what it should be, and bears no resemblance to any real "recovery."
In healthcare, rather than saving $2500 per family, a recent study found that costs have gone UP by roughly $4800 per family. Whether that counts the huge increase in deductible expenses, essentially making the "insurance" part of Obamacare a moot point, or not I do not know. We do know that a federal judge has now ruled that most of the Obamacare subsidies currently being paid are unconstitutional, and we also know that insurance companies are planning increases anywhere from 10% to 40%, and that the penalties for not having insurance go up next year. All of these will combine to make the "affordable care act" a more obvious disaster than it already is – anything BUT affordable.
Foreign policy matters. ISIS strikes in Paris, Brussels, San Bernadino, and is committing genocide across Syria and Iraq. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are struggling to keep a viable government while Obama's great achievement in the Middle East is to guarantee that Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and gets an extra hundred billion dollars from us to help out.
Is there any doubt that race relations have deteriorated rather than gotten better?
Let us put this another way: where is there NOT a disaster?
You are on the losing side of this issue, John, just as you were with gay marriage. Join the twenty first century, where we are slowly recognizing civil rights for all people.
Maybe. However in this case you are giving and taking freedoms simultaneously.
With gay marriage no one was really impacted since that was between citizens and the government.
The forcing business to serve LGBT customers against their religious objections, and forcing teen age girls to dress with a girl with penis seem much more interesting.
Only time will tell...
Laurie...
Newer is not always better.
What is legal is not always what is right.
John, "gay marriage ... was between citizens and the government." Aren't you the one always telling us that WE are the government? And remember that amendment actually got majority support, and in other states got 70% majorities. You are not on the "losing side" at all, it's just that the wrong side on these issues has the big megaphone.
7 Things I'm Learning About Transgender Persons
For those who remain ignorant, please read. For the enlightened, this is also a good read.
Joel
Okay, let's say I was ignorant. I read the article, so now I'm enlightened? That seems odd, since I didn't learn anything I didn't already know, and the author apparently agrees with me that some tiny fraction of humanity is born with non-specific genitalia, and a slightly larger fraction are born on the statistical fringes of their biological sex's brain patterns, maybe even to the point of overlapping the opposite statistical fringe of the opposite gender. There are some women, for example, who are stronger than the weakest men, and some men better at language and fashion than some women. SO? We don't have a test of your brain at the door to the locker room. Gay men shower with the men, lesbians with the women, and everybody else does likewise, according to their OUTWARD "gender." I may think I am, or even think like, a 6'4" WNBA player, but they're not going to let me in their locker room, nor should they.
'Gay men shower with the men, lesbians with the women, and everybody else does likewise, according to their OUTWARD "gender."'
Apparently, you didn't learn that Gender Identity isn't an orientation.
Joel
Also, #4, which you show your confusion about quite regularly.
Joel
Joel,
Let's assume we all decide to let transsexuals use the bath / locker room of their choice. How do you envision keeping the transvestites, pedophiles and/or perverts from claiming they are transsexual to gain access to where they should not be?
Are you thinking all the transsexuals will carry a card from their psychiatrist?
Maybe have them change the sex on their ID/driver's license?
John-
I don't know the answer about transvestites, but they are typically not interested in BEING the gender they are dressing as, so unless you've heard of there being problems, I think you're a little too obsessed. And if they're not otherwise committing a crime, is it really that big of a deal?
As far as pedophiles go, would you feel better if you knew a pedophile was using the proper restroom/locker room?
Perverts? Charge them with a crime if they commit one.
The problem here is that bigots couldn't accept the knowledge that transgender folks were using restrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their gender identity. Now there are suddenly innumerable reasons to discriminate against transgendered people in the name of public safety when no such problem existed before for the general public (although safety has always been a concern for transgendered people).
So, sorry, it doesn't necessarily follow that you have the moral high ground simply because you are now aware of something you were previously ignorant of.
Joel
Joel, you are not making sense. If these "transgendered" people (and we still have not defined the term properly IMHO, at least not sufficiently for the lawyers) have been using facilities with the opposite physical sex for years-- HOW???
Granted, Gender identity isn't an orientation, but it is exactly the same in that it is a mental condition, not a physical one. No doubt gay men have been showering with men for a very long time, and men who think they are women have no doubt done so. Nobody objects because all visible "clues" to their gender are appropriate for the room they are in. But should a man who thinks he is bisexual, or thinks he is a woman, shower with the women? Wouldn't he arouse suspicions and rightly so?
"discriminate against transgendered people in the name of public safety when no such problem existed before for the general public"
Joel,
You continue to act as if nothing has changed during the last few years. Remember that just recently transgenders needed to hide their use of the bath / locker room that did not match their parts, or they just had to swallow hard and get naked with people who looked like them. (OMG...)
Now they are suing to openly use the room they want which is at odds with our very very long historical social norm of penis = men's room and vagina = women's room.
They are suing because they are being denied access to a place they rightfully belong.
Joel
"penis = men's room and vagina = women's room."
Seeing as nobody checks genitalia at the door, this statement cannot be verified to be true.
Joel
The only historical social norm you can verify, John, is that people who look like men have used the men's room and people who look like women have used the women's room, which is exactly what pro-LGBT people are continuing to fight for. Anti-LGBT people are fighting to change the social norm.
Joel
" because they are being denied access to a place they rightfully belong." So, where does somebody that is a O-> rightfully belong, with the O+ people? Please explain. Only you can explain.
"... people who look like women have used the women's room, which is exactly what pro-LGBT people are continuing to fight for." NO, they aren't. They're saying people who look like men but THINK they are women can use the women's facilities.
"They're saying people who look like men but THINK they are women can use the women's facilities."
You continue to display your ignorance.
Joel
And now you are also apparently an advocate for policing thought.
How pleasant.
Joel
"who look like men have used the men's room and people who look like women have used the women's room, which is exactly what pro-LGBT people are continuing to fight for"
Well no...
The pro-LGBT people are fighting for the right that a transgender person "no matter what they look like" be allowed to use the restroom /locker room of their choice.
Which I assume means they will be allowed to be less discreet in doing so if they wish. I mean they will have the legal right to be there clothed or naked. And they will be free to sue anyone who feels offended.
I would say that is a pretty HUGE change.
Joel,
I think you are being inconsistent... Now were they using the restrooms before the legal chaos or not?
"They are suing because they are being denied access to a place they rightfully belong."
"The only historical social norm you can verify, John, is that people who look like men have used the men's room and people who look like women have used the women's room."
here is a link that john and jerry will appreciate:
Yes, we should protect transgender people but we’re going about it in a dangerous way
Yep. Seems pretty logical.
At what point did simple logic and common sense become unacceptable??
"The pro-LGBT people are fighting for the right that a transgender person "no matter what they look like" be allowed to use the restroom /locker room of their choice."
And anti-LGBT people are fighting to force a transgender person "no matter what they look like" into using the restroom they don't feel comfortable in.
Seems we are at an impasse.
I do find it interesting that here I am, the silly progressive liberal, advocating for personal freedom, and there you are, the libertarian conservative, fighting for more government control and intrusion.
"I think you are being inconsistent."
You misunderstand me. Obviously, not all transgender people have been barred from using the proper restroom, but where they have been, they have rightfully sued for the right to use the proper restroom. That doesn't change the fact that transgender people for countless years have used the restroom they desire without the general population's knowledge. But I have to wonder who lobbed the first grenade. It is highly likely that it was some bigot who somehow found out a "pervert" was using the same restroom. That's just a guess, but perhaps you should consider ALL of the possibilities before blaming transgender people for the current fracas.
Joel
"silly progressive liberal, advocating for personal freedom and there you are, the libertarian conservative, fighting for more government control and intrusion."
As I noted above, this argument puts the freedoms of a very small minority against the freedoms of the majority. And it is the pro-transgender group who drug the government into it via the courts. But you are correct we are at an impasse...
"they have rightfully sued for the right to use the proper restroom"
"proper" is what is being questioned during this discussion. Is proper determined by parts like it always has been, or is proper determined by a state of mind.
"Is proper determined by parts like it always has been..."
And again, you misrepresent reality.
People don't bat an eye at someone who looks like a man going into a men's room. Never have. Never will.
People don't notice when a person with a vagina enters a men's room...UNLESS that person looks like a woman. So...it is about appearance, NOT genitalia. Always has been.
How can we break the impasse if you won't recognize reality?
Joel
"How can we break the impasse if you won't recognize reality?"
I was thinking the same thing...
Explain how I am incorrect then, please.
What I have explained is fundamentally true, but you don't accept it.
Joel
Joel, your problem is definitions. You are insisting that shower rooms (forget bathrooms for a moment, that just clouds the issue) be segregated by gender-- what is between the ears-- rather than by sex--what is between the legs-- and that has never been the norm. If that is NOT your position, you need to be more clear because, right now, you seem to be the one denying reality.
Joel,
Let's say that you are at the McDonald's Play Land with your child. And there is a sign that clearly states. "ONLY to be USED by CHILDREN under 8 years old" Now your child is 10 years old, is small for their age and they want to play... If you let your child play and no one complains, did you change the Play Ground age rule?
From my view, people violating a rule does not change the rule... It just means they broke the rule and did not get caught.
Now the LGBT folks are working to change the posted rules so they don't need to be worried about being caught in the future. And some people don't want to change the posted rules...
Joel,
Just curious...
If many people successfully shoplift and succeed without being caught...
Does this mean they have a right to shoplift?
Should we change laws to ensure kleptomaniacs become more respected?
"Now your child is 10 years old, is small for their age and they want to play... If you let your child play and no one complains, did you change the Play Ground age rule?"
If black people are to sit in the back of the bus, what happens when they sit in the front? What happens if a black person uses a white drinking fountain?
Joel
As I keep saying, however using your example this time...
Now the Black folks and supporters are working to change the posted rules so they don't have to sit in the back of the bus or drink from a specific fountain. And some people don't want to change the posted rules...
The difference here is that the difference is not "Black and White". :-)
It is in someone's mind.
"It is in someone's mind."
Does that make it less real?
Joel
Yes it does since they can not be observed, measured, etc.
It is only the transgender's thoughts. (I want to use that bathroom of my choice)
And the non-transgender's thoughts. (I feel very uncomfortable if a person with the body of the other sex is naked in front of me... Or sees me naked)
Now who's freedom / thought is more important? That is the question we are working to resolve.
So if it can't be observed, measured, etc., it's less real?
You mean...like...faith?
And since we're diminishing the realness of such thought, those who object on faith grounds can be disregarded in this national argument.
That should deaden the noise a bit. Should you tell them or shall I?
Joel
Of course... That is why we have a separation between Church and State.
I mean if we were a religious state... Which one would we choose???
Then there is that little thing called the 1st Amendment
So you agree that people of faith shouldn't have a say in this argument.
Good.
Joel
NO, a "government of faith" should have no voice in this argument, yet that is exactly what we have-- a government COMMANDING that people forsake their religious and social beliefs just to accommodate a tiny few and a much larger cohort of deviates.
I am amazed that someone who believes that Roe v. Wade found a Constitutional right to privacy now believes that nobody has a right to privacy.
"I am amazed that someone who believes that Roe v. Wade found a Constitutional right to privacy now believes that nobody has a right to privacy."
On the contrary, no one has the right to invade the privacy of those wishing to use the restroom by demanding they announce their gender.
Joel
"NO, a "government of faith" should have no voice in this argument, yet that is exactly what we have-- a government COMMANDING that people forsake their religious and social beliefs just to accommodate a tiny few and a much larger cohort of deviates."
In a nation of law, whether you believe people are deviates or not is irrelevant. Leave those notions at the door if you want to have a debate about law.
Joel
"On the contrary, no one has the right to invade the privacy of those wishing to use the restroom by demanding they announce their gender."
Nobody is asking anybody to announce their gender. And we don't NEED to ask about their sex in the locker room. If somebody with a heavy black beard and chest hair walks into the ladies, his gender is the last thing we care about, it is his sex that should get him arrested.
"In a nation of law, whether you believe people are deviates or not is irrelevant."
That's exactly wrong. A nation of laws intends to keep all "deviant" behaviors from occurring. That includes things like murder, child molestation and voyeurism. Simply changing your appearance and demeanor and "passing" in the wrong restroom (with stalls) doesn't count. Wandering into the women's showers with the wrong appearance and demeanor is against the law and quite reasonably so. Yet it happens, and NOT by those trying to "fit in" in the conventional sense of the words.
Really, Joel, what exactly is it you are trying to defend against what seems all rationality?
"That includes things like murder, child molestation and voyeurism."
Funny. Show me a case where a transgender person has been found guilty of any of these things.
Joel
"If somebody with a heavy black beard and chest hair walks into the ladies, his gender is the last thing we care about, it is his sex that should get him arrested."
Also funny, because the NC law forces transgender people of the description you just provided to use the women's room.
Joel
"Funny. Show me a case where a transgender person has been found guilty of any of these things." -- Joel
You have exposed your own flawed thinking. If "transgender" is defined only by what someone thinks, it cannot be proven in a court of law. So therefore, I can claim that EVERY case, at least of child molestation or voyeurism (in a restroom) was committed by a transgender. Now, if you will allow that we should segregate such facilities by physical sex, which is easily proven, than the many, many cases of such infractions can be blamed on individual criminals, rather than on a class of people distinguished by an arbitrarily-defined way of thinking.
"Also funny, because the NC law forces transgender people of the description you just provided to use the women's room."
Really? What kind of transgender people do you know? Are you sure you're not talking about transvestites? Even those guys TRY to look like women. If you are telling me that most or even /any/ man wanting to be a woman wouldn't start by shaving, I would say those folks are more than just GENDER confused. The NC law would seem to work to absolutely PRECLUDE such a ridiculous (sorry, it used to be ridiculous) situation.
" What kind of transgender people do you know?"
Women transitioning to become men.
Examples
Sorry, jerry, YOU are the one who is confused about the NC law, which would force people to use the restroom corresponding to their sex at birth. A woman who has transitioned to a man would look like a man (as you described: with a heavy black beard and chest hair) and be forced to use the women's room.
I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to you. It's as if you don't even want to understand.
Well...yeah...I guess that's it, isn't it.
Joel
Yes the bathroom laws are written in a silly manner, since they are focused on what is on someone's birth certificate...
Maybe we need to have a process to regulate "sex" through driver's licenses and ID cards... Then if one can convince the government that you have the correct parts and personality, you can use the restroom that matches your ID...
Ah! Now I see. You think that women who are trying very hard to look like a man by taking hormones and growing facial hair, and wearing men's clothes, are men. They are not, but as women, they should have a very special appreciation for the upset they will cause walking into a locker room with other women. They should be using a private facility until their private parts match their outward appearance, or they can use private stalls, if available, (I know, violating the law but who will know or care) in their preferred sex-specific facility. Meanwhile, those whose private parts DO match their outward appearance can't get away with being in the wrong place just by claiming some mental "change of pants."
I'll grant that the law could be clarified for the benefit of the few who need it (as I understand, there is allowance to change one's birth certificate) while still keeping at bay those many who would abuse it. I don't want to say that transgenders are "handicapped," but it seems to me the same "reasonable accommodation" laws should apply, and be done with it.
"They are not, but as women, they should have a very special appreciation for the upset they will cause walking into a locker room with other women."
No. They should be using the men's room.
Joel
OK, then how do you prevent Joe Lumberjack, who looks exactly the same head to boot, from walking into the ladies room?
How does one prevent it today? It's not a crime to use the "wrong" restroom today in Minnesota, yet we don't seem to have a problem.
"we don't seem to have a problem."
Please explain your rationale or provide proof.
"Please explain your rationale or provide proof."
I'm not aware of there being evidence of widespread crimes being committed by people who utilize the so-called "wrong" bathroom. Not even the people who propose these bills have brought forward such evidence, and in the very few instances in which bathroom crimes have occurred it hasn't been transgender folks who have been the perpetrators.
I'm not sure, Sean, what kind of rationale it is to say that criminal behavior is against the law, and that therefore we do not have a problem if the law is changed to make it more difficult to prove that the law was broken and punish the offending criminals. Just because "transgender" people, by YOUR definition, are not committing these crimes (presumably) does not mean these crimes do not get committed by people who would not fit your description.
Let's be clear: Republicans are the one who are suggesting changing the law, not Democrats.
As stated repeatedly...
Only because the LGBT lobby started suing people...
There was a time when we did not need a law to tell people which restroom to use. But of course that would involve individual responsibility and common sense, both of which seem to have fallen from favor in certain segments of our population.
Post a Comment