Bathroom police really?

[playhavock]

Do people really LIKE the bathroom laws that are being put into place? Anyone feel better now? I mean, seriously people - REALLY?! WHY IS THIS A THING?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

I'm on my phone which makes copy/pasting beyond my ken but I wanted to give a definite answer on what makes a person a genuine transgender person. From the trans pov, they are trans the day they realize they are a boy in a girls body. From a medical / psychiatric pov, once the treatment team decides the individual meets the criteria for gender dysphoria and commits to living as a boy, choosing a boy's name, and living as a boy at school and home.

So, what do you suggest? Should we just take someone's word for it, require people to have a "gender" ID card, have a federal mandate that everyone be granted access to any restroom, or just tell all government agencies, local, state and federal, to take a hike?

[Divine Insight]

It would be nice if you would answer a question and dispense with the propagandizing. You have made your position clear. So, why not require that everyone be permitted in every restroom?

Do we need to make actual laws for every little thing?

These laws are specifically about enforcing religious bigotry against transgender persons. Period amen.

There simply is no need for them.

We shouldn't be making any laws that aren't necessary for the protection and well-being of the citizen's of the state.

No one is being harmed by transgender persons using restroom facilities that they feel the most comfortably using.

In fact, I've already made a very good case for why it will actually be more harmful to the citizens of the state if transgender people are forced to use restrooms where they will visually appear to be out of place in.

If we make laws to protect our citizens then we don't need to make any laws about who has to use which restroom.

In fact, calling attention to this very issue by making laws about it will actually result in causing much greater harm to the citizens of the state. Because when these laws are revoked there will naturally be troublemakers who will then start going into the wrong restrooms proclaiming that it's now "Legal" to do so.

That's why the legislators who made these laws are idiots beyond description. They are causing problems where there were no problems before.

[bluethread]

It would be nice if you would answer a question and dispense with the propagandizing. You have made your position clear. So, why not require that everyone be permitted in every restroom?

Do we need to make actual laws for every little thing?

These laws are specifically about enforcing religious bigotry against transgender persons. Period amen.

There simply is no need for them.

What about the city ordinance in Houston, way back on May 13, 2014, that started this whole thing. What "religious bigot" decided that small businesses had to verify the "gender" of men using the women's restroom? Is it the women, who don't want any men in their restroom, or is it the mayor, who wants to allow SOME men in the women's restroom? As you say, do we need to make actual laws for every little thing?

[Divine Insight]

It would be nice if you would answer a question and dispense with the propagandizing. You have made your position clear. So, why not require that everyone be permitted in every restroom?

Do we need to make actual laws for every little thing?

These laws are specifically about enforcing religious bigotry against transgender persons. Period amen.

There simply is no need for them.

What about the city ordinance in Houston, way back on May 13, 2014, that started this whole thing. What "religious bigot" decided that small businesses had to verify the "gender" of men using the women's restroom? Is it the women, who don't want any men in their restroom, or is it the mayor, who wants to allow SOME men in the women's restroom? As you say, do we need to make actual laws for every little thing?

I was just listening to a report this morning on NPR radio. The federal government has brought charges against these states for instating laws that are unconstitutional. These laws, as written by the states, are intended specifically to enforce discrimination against the LGBT community and specifically against transgender individuals, and to support the religious bigotry that condemns this community.

The federal government argues that this is not only unconstitutional, but that these are totally unnecessary laws that protect no one and only serve to enforce discrimination against a minority class of citizens.

I agree with the federal government's position on this issue and I'm betting that the supreme court will ultimately agree with them as well.

[bluethread]

What about the city ordinance in Houston, way back on May 13, 2014, that started this whole thing. What "religious bigot" decided that small businesses had to verify the "gender" of men using the women's restroom? Is it the women, who don't want any men in their restroom, or is it the mayor, who wants to allow SOME men in the women's restroom? As you say, do we need to make actual laws for every little thing?

I was just listening to a report this morning on NPR radio. The federal government has brought charges against these states for instating laws that are unconstitutional. These laws, as written by the states, are intended specifically to enforce discrimination against the LGBT community and specifically against transgender individuals, and to support the religious bigotry that condemns this community.

The federal government argues that this is not only unconstitutional, but that these are totally unnecessary laws that protect no one and only serve to enforce discrimination against a minority class of citizens.

I agree with the federal government's position on this issue and I'm betting that the supreme court will ultimately agree with them as well.

How does this answer the question? So, the federal government argues that the state government is acting unconstitutionally by enacting legislation in reaction to local ordinances that require people to identify which men can use the women's restroom. You repeatedly say that there is "religious bigotry" going on here. So, what is the "religious bigotry"? Women who don't want men allowed in their restrooms, or legislators who require that SOME men be allowed in their restrooms?

[Divine Insight]

So, what is the "religious bigotry"? Women who don't want men allowed in their restrooms, or legislators who require that SOME men be allowed in their restrooms?

How about the TRUTH?

Legislators who openly proclaim that they have passed these laws to support "Freedom of Religion" for those religious people who refuse to recognize LGBT citizens as being valid citizens.

Besides, why should we pass laws to prevent transgender persons from using the women's restroom just because some women "Don't Want" these transgender individuals in their restrooms?

Has any actual crime been committed? Has any citizen been harmed by unruly or violent transgender individuals using women's restrooms? Especially on a scope that justifies making a law to stop these specific crimes?

Where's the beef?

Why should legislators pass laws just because some women "Don't Want" transgender individuals using the same restrooms they use? That is not a legitimate reason to pass a law. And this is in fact, one of the points the spokesperson for the federal government made.

Transgender citizens of the state do have valid reasons for using restrooms that match the gender they identify with and pass as in public. For them to be forced to use restrooms based on their physical sex would actually create situations that are extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening to them.

The federal government recognizes this danger to these citizens and this is why it is it is concerned to protect their rights.

Women who merely "Don't Want" transgender persons using their bathrooms aren't being threatened with violence. They are just asking to have laws passed so they can obtain something they "want" rather than making laws to actually "protect" people from violent crimes.

I support the Federal Government's position on this issue.

[bluethread]

Why should legislators pass laws just because some women "Don't Want" transgender individuals using the same restrooms they use? That is not a legitimate reason to pass a law. And this is in fact, one of the points the spokesperson for the federal government made.

Transgender citizens of the state do have valid reasons for using restrooms that match the gender they identify with and pass as in public. For them to be forced to use restrooms based on their physical sex would actually create situations that are extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening to them.

The federal government recognizes this danger to these citizens and this is why it is it is concerned to protect their rights.

Women who merely "Don't Want" transgender persons using their bathrooms aren't being threatened with violence. They are just asking to have laws passed so they can obtain something they "want" rather than making laws to actually "protect" people from violent crimes.

I support the Federal Government's position on this issue.

I did not say women do not want transgendered persons using their bathrooms. I said women do not want men in their bathrooms. That is what they are complaining about. It appears that you are not saying they should not discriminate, but that they should discriminate. From the prospective of a woman, what is the difference between a man who claims to be a woman and one who is pretending to be a woman? Does simply claiming to be a woman make one a woman? If not, is the difference between claiming and pretending obvious to any woman that is not engaged in "religious bigotry"?

Now, you bring up "situations that are extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening to" transgendered individuals. So, are you arguing that the men's restroom is a violent place and the women's restroom is not? That seems to be a rather sexist thing to be arguing. Now, if you are talking about transvestites, a certain individual on this site, who seems to claim some authority on this matter, has pointed out that is something different. However, for the sake of argument, let's examine that.

I have noticed that female transvestites are not at all concerned about "situations that are extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening" regardless of which rest room they use, primarily the women's. Yet, you seem to be saying that when male transvestites go into the men's room there are "situations that are extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening". So much so that there is no way to control that other than to permit ANY man who claims to be a woman to use the women's room, even if that man is not a transvestite. What about the transvestite heterosexual man? Isn't he at more risk than the transgendered man who dresses like a man? So, of all the permutations of transgender and transvestite, it is only the male transvestite, not the transgendered, that risks the danger of being exposed as "passing" for a woman. You also seem to be arguing that the only way to make this situation not "extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening" is to allow ALL men who self identify as women to go into the women's rest room. Yet, you totally reject the "extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening" situation that might create for a woman who is trapped in the restroom with a heterosexual pervert.

Why not just enforce the current assault and battery laws?

[Divine Insight]

I did not say women do not want transgendered persons using their bathrooms. I said women do not want men in their bathrooms.

It doesn't really matter what you say. What matters are the arguments the legislators give.

Now, you bring up "situations that are extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening to" transgendered individuals. So, are you arguing that the men's restroom is a violent place and the women's restroom is not? That seems to be a rather sexist thing to be arguing.

Absolutely. And a person would need to be in total denial of reality if they refuse to acknowledge this. Women aren't going to beat up a woman who dresses like a man. So women who identify with the male gender are in basically no danger of using the women's restroom. The only "danger" there is that since they appear to be men for all intents and purposes, the women might actually freak out that there appears to be a "man" in the women's restroom. But actually that wouldn't be the case, anyway.

None the less, if women who dress and act like men will be FORCED to use the women's restrooms with these laws. Have you even given that any thought at all?

On the other hand men often take exception to other men dressing like women. And they will often act very rudely toward them if not hostile. And in some causes the hostility can become extremely dangerous and yes, potentially life-threatening.

So yes, there is a huge difference between a women who identifies with being a man using the women's restroom and a man who identifies as a woman using the men's restroom.

If that's "sexist" then so too must human reality be "sexist" because what I've just described above if a fact of life.

Yet, you totally reject the "extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening" situation that might create for a woman who is trapped in the restroom with a heterosexual pervert.

No, I don't reject that potentially dangerous situation. However, I hold that if there exists a heterosexual pervert who is going to physically harm or rape a woman in a restroom, he's not going to give a hoot about whether or not it's against the law for him to be in there anyway.

In other words, these laws aren't going prevent rapists and the criminally insane from doing what they are going to do anyway. You are addressing an entirely different topic from what these laws were designed to address.

Rapists and criminals who are out to molest people aren't going to be concerned about any "Bathroom Laws" anyway.

Are your kidding me?

Why not just enforce the current assault and battery laws?

Unfortunately those laws can only be enforced AFTER the crime has been committed.

It's far better to allow people to use the restroom they feel the safest using than to dictate by law that they use a restroom that could result in them being badly beaten so that they would need to call the police and report the assault after the fact.

I totally support the Federal Government's position on this one. And I'm quite sure they are aware of everything I've just argued for here.

There is no evidence that transgender people using the bathrooms that they feel the most comfortable using has resulted in an increase in violent crimes against women in women's restrooms.

In fact, if the states that made these laws could actually produce compelling statistics and evidence that it does, then they will certainly have something significant to present to the Court when they make their case for why they feel they need these laws.

But I'm willing to bet that no such evidence exists.

[4insight]

Do people really LIKE the bathroom laws that are being put into place? Anyone feel better now? I mean, seriously people - REALLY?! WHY IS THIS A THING?

I'm only for single person restrooms. they should not have many people in one restroom at all. Anyone can be a rapist. They need to make restrooms only can be occupied by one person at a time; but make rows of them.









[/url]

[bluethread]

I did not say women do not want transgendered persons using their bathrooms. I said women do not want men in their bathrooms.

It doesn't really matter what you say. What matters are the arguments the legislators give.

So, the effect of the law is not relevant? All that matters is the intentions of the legislators?

Now, you bring up "situations that are extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening to" transgendered individuals. So, are you arguing that the men's restroom is a violent place and the women's restroom is not? That seems to be a rather sexist thing to be arguing.

Absolutely. And a person would need to be in total denial of reality if they refuse to acknowledge this. Women aren't going to beat up a woman who dresses like a man. So women who identify with the male gender are in basically no danger of using the women's restroom. The only "danger" there is that since they appear to be men for all intents and purposes, the women might actually freak out that there appears to be a "man" in the women's restroom. But actually that wouldn't be the case, anyway.

None the less, if women who dress and act like men will be FORCED to use the women's restrooms with these laws. Have you even given that any thought at all?

No one is fooling anyone here. There may be some professional transvestites that do a really good job of looking like the opposite sex. However, in casual situations those women are clearly women. Even the rare case of a woman with a mustache, the facial and body structure are a dead giveaway.

On the other hand men often take exception to other men dressing like women. And they will often act very rudely toward them if not hostile. And in some causes the hostility can become extremely dangerous and yes, potentially life-threatening.

So yes, there is a huge difference between a women who identifies with being a man using the women's restroom and a man who identifies as a woman using the men's restroom.

If that's "sexist" then so too must human reality be "sexist" because what I've just described above if a fact of life.

Again, you are conflating transvestitism and transgendered. As has been pointed out by one person on this site who claims to be an authority, many transvestites are heterosexual. Allowing the transgendered to use the women's restroom would not change that.

Yet, you totally reject the "extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening" situation that might create for a woman who is trapped in the restroom with a heterosexual pervert.

No, I don't reject that potentially dangerous situation. However, I hold that if there exists a heterosexual pervert who is going to physically harm or rape a woman in a restroom, he's not going to give a hoot about whether or not it's against the law for him to be in there anyway.

In other words, these laws aren't going prevent rapists and the criminally insane from doing what they are going to do anyway. You are addressing an entirely different topic from what these laws were designed to address.

Rapists and criminals who are out to molest people aren't going to be concerned about any "Bathroom Laws" anyway.

Are your kidding me?

That is correct, many people who are going to commit acts of violence are not going to be deterred by which restroom someone goes into. So, allowing men to go into the women's restroom is not going to stop this. These men who commit terrible acts in the men's room can just do them in the women's room. The problem is violence, not where the violence occurs.

Why not just enforce the current assault and battery laws?

Unfortunately those laws can only be enforced AFTER the crime has been committed.

It's far better to allow people to use the restroom they feel the safest using than to dictate by law that they use a restroom that could result in them being badly beaten so that they would need to call the police and report the assault after the fact.

I totally support the Federal Government's position on this one. And I'm quite sure they are aware of everything I've just argued for here.

Assault does not require one to be badly beaten. All that is required is a threat. However, as stated above, if people are allowed to use whatever bathroom they choose, the beaters will just go into the women's room to do their beating.

There is no evidence that transgender people using the bathrooms that they feel the most comfortable using has resulted in an increase in violent crimes against women in women's restrooms.

In fact, if the states that made these laws could actually produce compelling statistics and evidence that it does, then they will certainly have something significant to present to the Court when they make their case for why they feel they need these laws.

But I'm willing to bet that no such evidence exists.

I am not aware of any evidence that allowing men to use the women's room has reduced violence against the transgendered. In fact, when I researched the bathroom violence you mentioned, the only thing I could find was an incident at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. This is ground zero for the LGBT. So, it doesn't stop violence there, how is it going to stop the violence anywhere else?