What's all the hubbub about today with NC govt and transsexuals?

[bleeduncblue]

I guess using the bathroom of your choice is going to make it a lot easier to nail that horny chick that you meet in a bar in the chick's bathroom of said bar.

That + men's public restrooms are filthy .. I'm definitely gonna start using the women's room.

And maybe sometime I'll "identify" as a bank employee and help myself to the cash behind the counter ... all rules are stupid and must go away to allow me to act however I feel like acting!! Why stop with restooms and locker rooms??

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I guess using the bathroom of your choice is going to make it a lot easier to nail that horny chick that you meet in a bar in the chick's bathroom of said bar.

If I did this, I'd have to say I identify as a woman, in order to get access to the women's room. If I then had sex with a chick in there, does that make that chick lesbian? What if she's not comfortable calling herself a lesbian? Then she wouldn't be honoring my self identity of being a woman... would she then get in trouble with the PC police?

 

[strummingram]

This is certainly revealing the true nature of people. There's no doubt there.

 

[strummingram]

Why stop with restooms and locker rooms??

How long did you piss on toilet seats before someone said lift it up?

Sometimes, on rare occasions, people have better instincts to just do what is right because it feels like the right thing to do. You have a conscience and you have empathy. You're compelled by what is basically The Golden Rule. You treat others as you wish to be treated. It's just a universal feeling we all have.

All of this malicious behavior that you are afraid of, and try to portray as an inherent danger, can happen any time and all the time. What I find interesting is how graphic and detailed some of you can be about the possibilities. It's very revealing, as I said before. I don't have that kind of imagination, or inclination. And, in spite of what I've heard and read, I'm still not afraid of it. I realize that I'm not really someone that will be targeted, in any aspect of this. Honestly, I really wouldn't care if a woman shared a public restroom with me. I'm going to respect their privacy becaue I want mine respected. If you can't keep yourself controlled, we already have consequences for that in place.

 

[UNC '92]

You're compelled by what is basically The Golden Rule. You treat others as you wish to be treated. It's just a universal feeling we all have.

I agree with what you are saying, but I wish this part of your poast were true with everyone.

 

[strummingram]

I agree with what you are saying, but I wish this part of your poast were true with everyone.

It IS true with everyone. We all have that. Whether or not we act on it, or how frequently we do, may differ.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Sometimes, on rare occasions, people have better instincts to just do what is right because it feels like the right thing to do. You have a conscience and you have empathy. You're compelled by what is basically The Golden Rule. You treat others as you wish to be treated. It's just a universal feeling we all have.

The notion that everyone abides by the Golden Rule is ridiculously "pie-in-the-sky". If everyone did all the time: rape, murder, theft, abuse, etc. would never occur.

All of this malicious behavior that you are afraid of, and try to portray as an inherent danger, can happen any time and all the time.

This is true. And I agree with you when you say if a rapist wants to rape - the sign on a door doesn't have a good chance at stopping that. But, by having a sign on the door, it's an additional hindrance, or safeguard. If you see a man in the women's room - you know something is up, even before they commit a rape/assault. If only women were allowed in women's rooms, it would immediately cause alarm if someone saw a man walking in there - which could indeed prevent something bad from happening. At the end of the day, it really boils down to what is more important - making sure that 0.3% of the population feels comfortable with what restroom they use, or preventing 0.3% of rapes from occurring because of the additional hindrances/safeguards. I guess this is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, preventing the small amount of rapes than can be prevented is more important than making sure the small amount of feelings aren't hurt - but I'd be open to hearing opposing arguments on that.

If you can't keep yourself controlled, we already have consequences for that in place.

While redemption is nice... I've always thought that prevention was better.

 

[prlyles]

Men being allowed to shower with young girls because they "identify as a woman" today. Or be in the restroom with them .. etc etc. I realize you don't see that as "dangerous" and that is fine, I don't care .. but as the father and uncle of young girls and having been involved with sexual addiction and sex trafficking groups for many years, I see it as very dangerous - a large percentage of men are sexually SCREWED UP big time and giving them free choice to use whatever restroom/locker room they want puts the ball on a tee for many of them.

What kept this from happening for the hundreds of years before this was passed?

 

[bleeduncblue]

Strum, serious question, do you have a daughter(s) ?

 

[bleeduncblue]

This is true. And I agree with you when you say if a rapist wants to rape - the sign on a door doesn't have a good chance at stopping that. But, by having a sign on the door, it's an additional hindrance, or safeguard. If you see a man in the women's room - you know something is up, even before they commit a rape/assault. If only women were allowed in women's rooms, it would immediately cause alarm if someone saw a man walking in there - which could indeed prevent something bad from happening. At the end of the day, it really boils down to what is more important - making sure that 0.3% of the population feels comfortable with what restroom they use, or preventing 0.3% of rapes from occurring because of the additional hindrances/safeguards. I guess this is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, preventing the small amount of rapes than can be prevented is more important than making sure the small amount of feelings aren't hurt - but I'd be open to hearing opposing arguments on that.

EXCELLENT Hark ... that is exactly my point. Lets satisfy .3% of the population and take the chance that nothing malicious will ever happen. Not.

It's such an ambiguous argument and assuming the very best in people.

 

[bleeduncblue]

What kept this from happening for the hundreds of years before this was passed?

Seriously, you cannot answer that? The signs on the doors ... the women who would immediately react if a man walked into their shower ... common sense, self policing .. need I go on? c'mon, you're not that stupid.

 

[bleeduncblue]

What I find interesting is how graphic and detailed some of you can be about the possibilities. It's very revealing, as I said before.

That's right .. no PC police in my explanation of sex crimes or any other. We're grown men, I think.

 

[prlyles]

Seriously, you cannot answer that? The signs on the doors ... the women who would immediately react if a man walked into their shower ... common sense, self policing .. need I go on? c'mon, you're not that stupid.

And how does this law keep that from happening now????

 

[tarheel0910]

making sure that 0.3% of the population feels comfortable with what restroom they use, or preventing 0.3% of rapes from occurring

Are you just guesstimating those numbers or has there been a study done?

 

[strummingram]

The notion that everyone abides by the Golden Rule is ridiculously "pie-in-the-sky". If everyone did all the time: rape, murder, theft, abuse, etc. would never occur.

But, see... you, and most others, miss the point. You're not responsible for everyone else! You are responsible for you.

You have to be willing to adhere to it, ALL THE TIME, in spite of what you think everyone else is or isn't doing. I promise you, that by doing that, you draw that result closer to you, more often, and it becomes more prevalent with everyone else.

Most people are so preoccupied and afraid of what everyone else MIGHT do, that they basically abandon the Golden Rule themselves. If you're not willing to do it, then, yeah, you're going to be afraid of others.

There's no Pie In The Sky. It's right here... waiting. You make the choice or not.

 

[strummingram]

That's right .. no PC police in my explanation of sex crimes or any other. We're grown men, I think.

I didn't ask for, or expect "politically correct." That is not what I am referring to. I want people to be candid. I'm glad they are. It allows me to examine just exactly what, and how, they are thinking! It's important to know that. I do NOT endorse or encourage the censorship of Politically Correct language at all. I never have. I was simply making the observation of what you guys are prone to think and potentially act.

From what you have written here (and I realize that is probably not the actual person. Even though I try to portray myself EXACTLY as I am in person, I don't assume everyone else does, nor does everyone have the capacity to understand an online personality), you come off to me as someone who has intimacy issues, you have lots of shame and guilt surrounding anything sexual, toward yourself and projecting to others. Your default settings, assuming that is what you're displaying here, are set WAY too high!

Just because you have offspring that are female doesn't really mean squat in this discussion. It just means that you project your own insecurities, and presumptions about society's deviant potential (as you define deviant), in general, through them! They are likely to be able to adapt, protect, and take care of themselves just fine without your biased, and fear-based, understanding of what our society is or isn't. With any luck, they'll ignore your fears and base their opinions and attitudes on their own experience and not yours!

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Are you just guesstimating those numbers or has there been a study done?

I saw somewhere (I believe in this thread) that 0.3% of the population identifies with a different gender than is on their birth certificate - I'm not sure if whoever posted that got that from a study or not, but I assumed they did. As for the 0.3% of assaults prevented - I don't think they'll ever be able to do a study to quantify that number, because no one will say "Oh hell ya I was gonna go in the womens room/locker room and assault that chick but not being allowed into her bathroom/locker room stopped me", so it was just a guesstimate. An incredibly conservative (low) guesstimate in my opinion, but one that fit with the aforementioned percentage of population being catered to.

I mean think about it - how much easier would it be to assault (whether that's actually touching, or even just looking) a woman, if the man was allowed to be in the same place as her when she was naked (either fully or partially) and in a stall (toilet or shower stall). Again, I have nothing against trannies or anything like that - and if the public opinion is that their feelings trump sexual assault prevention, then that's what should be the law. I just am somewhat dumbfounded that people don't see added opportunity (no matter how slight) that allowing any man to walk into any womens bathroom or locker room brings.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

Can we just go ahead and dispense with the strawman of "allowing any man to walk into any women's bathroom or locker room?"

That's basically the fallacy that HB2 is based on, and it's complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Can we just go ahead and dispense with the strawman of "allowing any man to walk into any women's bathroom or locker room?"

That's basically the fallacy that HB2 is based on, and it's complete and utter nonsense.

Honestly, I'm not very informed on the details and intricacies of HB2. You posted earlier that the bill went way beyond bathrooms, etc - and removed protections on sexual and gender identity (which I think is wrong) and took away the right to set local wage ordinances (which I also think is wrong). So I'm not in support of the HB2 bill and never have been.

But the point that I have been debating is the "strawman" you refer to above. I don't think it's a good thing to allow anyone to use whichever bathroom or locker room they choose. I think that raises the chances of a mishap (voyeurism, assault, rape, etc.) by a non-zero amount. I thought that was common sense, but that point has been contested in this thread. Do you think allowing anyone to choose where they go raises the chances by a non-zero amount? And if so, do you think that additional risk is worth the reward of not disappointing people who would like to choose whichever bathroom or locker room they would like?

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

I don't think it's a good thing to allow anyone to use whichever bathroom or locker room they choose.

That's the strawman. Charlotte's ordinance or any like it doesn't allow that, any more than how it was in the past. Your pedophile hairy ape and your raging hormone teenage boy are going to be just as unwelcome in the ladies room as they ever were. Your petite queen who would be terrified to step in a men's room is going to use the ladies just like "she" always did. The ordinance just took that common sense and made it city policy, giving that tiny segment of the population a little peace of mind that they weren't going to be locked up for going to the wrong bathroom.

But then the BUT THE CHIL'RENS contingent stepped in and not only reversed that but also threw in a bunch of other stuff that ordinarily wouldn't have seen the light of day except they figured they had the perfect cover because THE CHIL'RENS! And astoundingly, people are lapping it right up.

It's not about bathrooms.

 

[tarheel0910]

Can we just go ahead and dispense with the strawman of "allowing any man to walk into any women's bathroom or locker room?"

That's basically the fallacy that HB2 is based on, and it's complete and utter nonsense.

On the other side the ordinance is based on the strawman that they were not being allowed to use the bathroom in the first place. To my knowledge there was no discrimination going on. The status quo was the best solution.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

The status quo was the best solution.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But if Charlotte's voters wanted that ordinance they were within their right to pass it. The rest of this sh*tstorm is on the General Assembly and McCrory's office.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Can we just go ahead and dispense with the strawman of "allowing any man to walk into any women's bathroom or locker room?"

That's basically the fallacy that HB2 is based on, and it's complete and utter nonsense.

Explain.

 

[gunslingerdick]

My buddy got drunk as shit last night and drove home. He got pulled over by a cop and failed a field sobriety test. But he told the cop that he identifies as a sober person so the cop had to let him go.

 

[gunslingerdick]

In other news, Charles Manson told a judge that he now identifies as a sane person. So they're letting him out of jail.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Leonardo DiCaprio just said he now identifies as a black man. I'm waiting to see if he's invited to the Source Awards.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Tiger Woods wants to win again. So he has stated that he now identifies ( at least for the time being) as a woman and he'll now be playing on the LPGA tour.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

It's not about bathrooms.

I get that the bill isn't entirely about the bathrooms. I couldn't give two craps about the bill because it doesn't effect me one iota. I feel like I'm having a different debate with Strum (and maybe others?) than you're having with the "CHIL'RENS" crowd. You never answered my questions, which were the points I wasn't originally thinking would be contested, but clearly have been, and I'm wondering how many others agree with that notion.

 

[tarheel0910]

My buddy got drunk as shit last night and drove home. He got pulled over by a cop and failed a field sobriety test. But he told the cop that he identifies as a sober person so the cop had to let him go.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

In other news, Charles Manson told a judge that he now identifies as a sane person. So they're letting him out of jail.

Well, clearly only Charles is responsible for Charles. They should let him out because they're not responsible for him. I'm sure he'll follow the Golden Rule. If you for whatever reason think he might kill someone, that's just because this backwards society has struck fear into you.

 

[strummingram]

Well, clearly only Charles is responsible for Charles. They should let him out because they're not responsible for him. I'm sure he'll follow the Golden Rule. If you for whatever reason think he might kill someone, that's just because this backwards society has struck fear into you.

Charlie made the bus fly, man!

Speaking of Charlie; They let Leslie Van Houten out on parole... 46 years later.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Well, clearly only Charles is responsible for Charles. They should let him out because they're not responsible for him. I'm sure he'll follow the Golden Rule. If you for whatever reason think he might kill someone, that's just because this backwards society has struck fear into you.

Plus, he only killed people when he was identifying as a crazy person. Now, since he identifies as a perfectly sane person, he's fine to let back in to society. No reason to be leery of the new Charles.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

I get that the bill isn't entirely about the bathrooms. I couldn't give two craps about the bill because it doesn't effect me one iota. I feel like I'm having a different debate with Strum (and maybe others?) than you're having with the "CHIL'RENS" crowd. You never answered my questions, which were the points I wasn't originally thinking would be contested, but clearly have been, and I'm wondering how many others agree with that notion.

I thought I did. Your question, as I understood it, was about the consequences of allowing "anyone to choose where they go." My response is I don't think that's an accurate or fair representation of the issue, as no one anywhere is proposing that. Just one very particular - and as several have pointed out - very small subset of the population that doesn't fit into the normal boxes.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I've been thinking,...next year at tax time, I'm only going to pay taxes of those in the lowest tax bracket because despite my annual income, I identify as a poor person.

 

[Raising Heel]

All just comments and not backed up by any facts or stats.

Because any report of "facts or stats" would simply read -0-. Again, I've yet to see a single instance where a transgender law has facilitated criminal activity. Neither has the Charlotte Observer:

“We haven’t found any instances of criminals convicted of using transgender protections as cover in the United States. Neither have any left-wing groups or right-wing groups,” the Observer wrote. “There was one incident in Canada, involving a rapist. In the US, there have been a few yet-unproven allegations.”

 

[Raising Heel]

Honestly, I'm not very informed on the details and intricacies of HB2. You posted earlier that the bill went way beyond bathrooms, etc - and removed protections on sexual and gender identity (which I think is wrong) and took away the right to set local wage ordinances (which I also think is wrong). So I'm not in support of the HB2 bill and never have been.

Here's a good explanation of the bill's provisions. Quick excerpt:

The law states, “This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based on the public policy expressed herein.”

“In a very hidden way, it eliminated the ability for employees in North Carolina to file claims under state law for employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, color and age,” [Charlotte School of Law Professor Brian] Clarke said, “And that’s a right that North Carolina employees have had since 1982… and it’s gone.”

 

[strummingram]

Here's a good explanation of the bill's provisions. Quick excerpt:

The law states, “This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based on the public policy expressed herein.”

“In a very hidden way, it eliminated the ability for employees in North Carolina to file claims under state law for employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, color and age,” [Charlotte School of Law Professor Brian] Clarke said, “And that’s a right that North Carolina employees have had since 1982… and it’s gone.”

My closest openly-liberal/socialist friend told me tonight that the bill had some rider in it that prevented a minimum wage increase in the state. I haven't looked into that, but I have now HEARD that was in the bill, whatever.

 

[Raising Heel]

My closest openly-liberal/socialist friend told me tonight that the bill had some rider in it that prevented a minimum wage increase in the state. I haven't looked into that, but I have now HEARD that was in the bill, whatever.

That's correct. Prevents municipalities from setting their own minimum wage.

 

[strummingram]

That's correct. Prevents municipalities from setting their own minimum wage.

Ahhh! Well, there ya go. We can't have that. That's gonna affect some mega-rich mf'er's bottom line, big time. Or, maybe a few of them. Owners gonna own.

You really have to stand in awe at how these people operate. Only the clergy acts beneath them. These people are notorious for slipping in something like "mandatory submission of your first-born" in a bill to officially make the first Monday of summer "Funday Monday!"

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I thought I did. Your question, as I understood it, was about the consequences of allowing "anyone to choose where they go." My response is I don't think that's an accurate or fair representation of the issue, as no one anywhere is proposing that. Just one very particular - and as several have pointed out - very small subset of the population that doesn't fit into the normal boxes.

Ok, then my next question is, how do you determine who is in that subset? Or asked another way... If I were to claim I identified as a woman, even though my birth certificate reads male, should I be allowed to go into the women's room? If not, why not?