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?

[Divine Insight]

In Washington State there have been reasonable accommodations, without unfettered access. However, for some that is not good enough.

You need to tell this to the states that made laws that people need to use restrooms based on the sex indicated on their birth certificates. Is that "reasonable accommodations"? I think not. It's clearly a refusal to accommodate anyone.

I'm all for "reasonable accommodations". Too bad these states didn't come up with laws that demand public facilities to provide "reasonable accommodations" instead of just demanding that everyone must use the restroom that matches the sex on their birth certificate.

Clearly there are ways of coming to consensus on this issue.

I think what we are seeing at this time is basically a "civil war" in America going on between extreme conservatives and extreme liberals.

I would gladly embrace "reasonable accommodations". And this is what our leaders should be doing instead of waging wars of political extremism on both sides.

[bluethread]

In Washington State there have been reasonable accommodations, without unfettered access. However, for some that is not good enough.

You need to tell this to the states that made laws that people need to use restrooms based on the sex indicated on their birth certificates. Is that "reasonable accommodations"? I think not. It's clearly a refusal to accommodate anyone.

I'm all for "reasonable accommodations". Too bad these states didn't come up with laws that demand public facilities to provide "reasonable accommodations" instead of just demanding that everyone must use the restroom that matches the sex on their birth certificate.

Clearly there are ways of coming to consensus on this issue.

I think what we are seeing at this time is basically a "civil war" in America going on between extreme conservatives and extreme liberals.

I would gladly embrace "reasonable accommodations". And this is what our leaders should be doing instead of waging wars of political extremism on both sides.

"Reasonable accommodation" is a legal principle, not a clear legal standard and I think that was the standard principle applied even in those states. The problem came about when those "extreme liberals" started insisting on unfettered access as a civil right. That is that anything less than that was not "reasonable accommodation". In order to protect businesses and even governmental institutions from being caught between civil rights violations on the one hand and privacy violations on the other, they codified sex based privacy as the overriding standard. The other side does not provide a clear legal standard, it just objects to whatever standard happens to exist. That said, I am glad to see that you are finally acknowledging that this is not an issue of one sided persecution.

[Divine Insight]

That said, I am glad to see that you are finally acknowledging that this is not an issue of one sided persecution.

I'm not acknowledging that at all. These states that quickly made laws demanding that people must use the restrooms based on the sex marked on their birth certificates most certainly are engaging in "one-sided" extremism.

Also to your remark:

The problem came about when those "extreme liberals" started insisting on unfettered access as a civil right. That is that anything less than that was not "reasonable accommodation".

I don't believe they made any claim that "anything less" is not "reasonable accommodations".

As far as I can see you are yourself not willing to meet at middle ground. Instead you want to act like the liberals are extremists whilst the conservatives are trying to be reasonable, which is absolute bunk.

These laws that demand that people must use the restrooms based on the sex stated on their birth certificate is flat out denial of the real issue. It's basically a slap in the face to transgender individuals. It's discrimination based on extreme ignorance and bigotry. That's hardly "reasonable accommodations".

So no, I'm not acknowledging that these laws that were passed by these states is not one-sided persecution. It most certainly is.

These laws were passed specifically to take a stab at the LGBT community. They most certainly weren't any attempt to seek a solution of "reasonable accommodations". And it appears that this extreme hatred is going to continue to escalate rather than moving toward any "reasonable accommodations".

[bluethread]

These laws were passed specifically to take a stab at the LGBT community. They most certainly weren't any attempt to seek a solution of "reasonable accommodations". And it appears that this extreme hatred is going to continue to escalate rather than moving toward any "reasonable accommodations".

So much for conciliation. It was nice for the brief time it lasted. Reasonable accommodation was the legal principle used prior to attempts to force unfettered access, i.e. District 211 in 2013. This is an individual with male genitalia who was granted reasonable accommodation. The accommodation was that transgender students may use their gender-identified locker room if they change and shower privately. That was not enough. It is insisted that everyone in the women's shower and locker room must risk confrontation with male genitalia, lest the one with that genitalia suffer humiliation for not being treated like a woman. In light of this, three states have codified physiological standards that can be objectively verified. I don't know about you, but, to me, it does look like reasonable accommodation was made and unless we are going to do away with separate showers altogether, there needs to be some kind of objectively verifiable standard. What do you recommend?

[Divine Insight]

What do you recommend?

I recommend private facilities for everyone. There really is no reason why people need to shower together publicly. I was actually against that in high school. I didn't like the idea of being forced to publicly shower with all the other guys.

And the argument that it would be too expensive to construct private facilities for everyone is nonsense. There is no reason why public showers can't be constructed in such a way that only one person can enter the shower bay at a time briefly showering and then exiting into another private area to dress.

If engineers can't figure this one out I would gladly offer them design suggestions. There is no reason that such a facility can't be constructed for very close to the same cost of current facilities.

There's just no excuse for why restrooms and showers can't be made private in the first place. There may have been cost excuses in the past, but in today's world with our abundance of clever engineers and materials cost is no longer an excuse.

So perhaps the real solution is to just make public showers and restrooms a thing of the past. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

It's certainly better that having a civil war over bathroom usage.

[bluethread]

So perhaps the real solution is to just make public showers and restrooms a thing of the past. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

It's certainly better that having a civil war over bathroom usage.

Well, I agree that showers and restrooms should be provided to the public based on market forces and not government mandate. However, unless you are suggesting that public restrooms and showers be outlawed, the "civil rights" argument is going to place even market driven facilities into this same problem.

[Divine Insight]

However, unless you are suggesting that public restrooms and showers be outlawed, the "civil rights" argument is going to place even market driven facilities into this same problem.

I don't see why they would need to be outlawed in general. However, if people want to provide public restrooms or showers why should the state make laws about who can legally use them?

In the case of state or federal funded facilities it could be mandatory that no public restrooms or showers be constructed. After all, if the state is funding these projects they can mandate whatever like want in terms of what facilities need to be built into these buildings.

Private schools and organizations can do whatever they want, but then like I said above, why should the state make laws about who can legally use their public restrooms or showers?

I think moving toward private facilities is way overdue. This is something I would have supported the very first time I was forced to use public facilities in schools. I never did care for public showers, even when I'm showering with other people of my own sex.

Back when I was a kid I never even considered the option of refusing to use public facilities. I wasn't mature enough at that time to realize that I could even complain about. In fact, back in those days (the 50's and 60's) kids pretty much had to do whatever the authorities told them to do. If you complained about anything you were seen as being rebellious and refusing to obey authority figures.

Also, in the 60's there was the whole "Hippy movement" with "Make Love not war" being the anti-Vietnam chant, and so being openly sexual was something we saw on the news pretty much every night. Complaining about public shared restrooms or showers in that era would have been laughed at.

Even the women were burning their bras and going topless to protest against male chauvinism and stand up for women's right.

What the heck, if women are exposing their breasts on the street how could it hurt to take a shower with them?

It's funny how times change so dramatically. Who would have thought that decades down the road there would be political wars over who can use a public bathroom?

Sometimes it looks like we're moving backward instead of forward.

[playhavock]

funny how years and years went by where none of this was ever an issue.
Ever.
Now that two dumb states made a law ... its an issue.
I'm laughing at how much revenue NC lost due to the several famous people that canceled bookings there as well as several bands and groups and more seems on the way.

We have people that look like a woman who have a woman's parts who by this law... would have to use the men's bathroom. Why? Because birth-record.

It address's a non-issue that never was an issue and makes for a waste of cop time when they could... you know - be doing something really useful?

Moral? HA. If you think that you need a law to tell people where they can pee and poop is a moral issue then my word you are deluded beyond all rhyme and reason. We do not need this law. And soon, it will lose out, just like how the right to be married is now universal - this too will end badly for those who want to keep holding on to old, worn out superstitions and "morals" based on a dusty old book that is best used as a paper weight.

[Jonathan1976]

[Replying to post 1 by playhavock]

Well since I have a daughter, I only want women going into the bathroom she is using

[Jonathan1976]

[Replying to post 47 by Divine Insight]

Totally agree