On the bathroom issue

mb227 said:
I remember seeing photos of that dude...seems to me that he was a USAir regular out of PHX who did that partially for kicks and partially to jack with TSA. There was an active discussion on FlyerTalk a few years (or more) about him...
Click to expand...

Lol. Well, if that's the case, then he may not be so bad of a guy.
 
C6f7L4SWYAAd5JN.jpg
 
If that jack*** Strauss, in Texas, would get out of the way. We could have joined NC and given them a little support on the issue. The execs at the NCAA and all those other jokers that are using their organizations to black mail the voting public and our representatives should be run out of town on rails. Screw the NCAA. If they don't want to come to Texas...then they can bite me. Our values are more important than a few bucks from a tournament.
 
OUBubba said:
don't we want people going to the bathroom that coincides with the gender to which they identify? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

That's what social conservatives are scared of. They fear a person "choosing" their bathroom and immediately jump to the hypothetical situation of a pedophile or pervert feigning being transgender to gain access to young girl, as if that doesn't happen already.
 
OUBubba said:
don't we want people going to the bathroom that coincides with the gender to which they identify? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

We want the 99% of the public to not have to bend to the will of 1% of the public. We want the status quo that has been ok, until the left took this up as a pet cause, to remain intact. The right didn't go out and hunt this issue down. The right reacted to the lefts insistence that a new paradigm be established. N.Carolina state legislature didn't enact their bill until Charlotte, NC pushed their NEW law. GOP didn't pursue this until Obama admin started their pursuit.

We want women and girls to be as protected as possible and comfortable in their locker rooms and bathrooms. While there may not be a massive bathroom fraud out there, there are certainly pedophiles that are already willing to go to extreme lengths to find and hurt children. Allowing them to put on a dress and masquerade as a female only makes it that much easier.

I don't want LGBTQ folks to be harmed or persecuted, but I sure as heck don't want their aberrant behavior to dictate what we view as normal and what is good policy for national public behavior.
 
Seattle Husker said:
immediately jump to the hypothetical situation of a pedophile or pervert feigning being transgender to gain access to young girl, as if that doesn't happen already.
Click to expand...

It's not hypothetical. It's happening. And normalizing it just emboldens people. It's a bizarre argument to me that since apparently it's already happening, we should just accept it and make it easier to accomplish. It's like saying "people are going to peep in your window anyway, so you might as well stop building privacy fences."
 
North Carolina sure showed them! It's cost them something like 3-4 billion so far. Maybe it's not about aberrant behavior as it is behavior that's not 100% mainstream. To me, having those laws makes it more likely that an assault is going to take place.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Then how about repealing all these goofy laws and letting common sense dictate the issue as it always had?
Click to expand...
It's been so long that I've forgotten what the law Charlotte actually passed. Wasn't it simply an anti-discrimination law? Essentially, a transgendered person had a choice to use any bathroom they wanted which is what has been happening anyway? They simply protected that person's choice. It was then that the state stepped in and put into law that a person had to use the bathroom of the gender assigned on their birth certificate.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's been so long that I've forgotten what the law Charlotte actually passed. Wasn't it simply an anti-discrimination law? Essentially, a transgendered person had a choice to use any bathroom they wanted which is what has been happening anyway? They simply protected that person's choice. It was then that the state stepped in and put into law that a person had to use the bathroom of the gender assigned on their birth certificate.
Click to expand...

The ordinance forced public accommodations and businesses to allow people to use the bathroom that comports with their gender identity, which from a legal and objective standpoint, is meaningless. How's a business supposed to handle such a rule besides just letting anybody into any bathroom they choose?

And the NC legislature only set the policy for government facilities and permitted allowances to make accommodations for transgender people. For private individuals and businesses, it left the issue to be decided by each business. For all the flack they got, what they passed was far less onerous than what cities have been doing.
 
don't we want people going to the bathroom that coincides with the gender to which they identify? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Why should it be gender and not sex that is the determinant? And why are we suddenly hearing that gender should overrule sex from the same people who used to argue that gender was nothing but a social construct?
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's been so long that I've forgotten what the law Charlotte actually passed. Wasn't it simply an anti-discrimination law? Essentially, a transgendered person had a choice to use any bathroom they wanted which is what has been happening anyway? They simply protected that person's choice. It was then that the state stepped in and put into law that a person had to use the bathroom of the gender assigned on their birth certificate.
Click to expand...
If this were true, they protected the choice of the transgendered and infringed on, or ignored the choice made by the "non-transgendered". Who is actually being discriminated against?
 
ProdigalHorn said:
It's not hypothetical. It's happening. And normalizing it just emboldens people. It's a bizarre argument to me that since apparently it's already happening, we should just accept it and make it easier to accomplish. It's like saying "people are going to peep in your window anyway, so you might as well stop building privacy fences."
Click to expand...
I think you touched on a deeper issue between liberals and conservatives. The selfish liberals only care about feelings getting hurt and don't care about protecting a 7 year old little girl being violently attacked. If a bathroom law prevents just one 7 year old girl from being violently attacked it's worth it over a million transgenders having their feelings hurt.

Plus, what about the 7 year old girl being embarrassed/having her feelings hurt when seeing something she doesn't understand?
 
Run Pincher said:
The selfish liberals only care about feelings getting hurt and don't care about protecting a 7 year old little girl being violently attacked.
Click to expand...
You really think that? That doesn't describe anybody I know. As far as the reasoning "if it prevents just one person from being violently attacked" or "saves just one life" you get to a point where civil liberties and 70 mph speed limits are something we read about in history books.

I recognize the stridency on both sides of this issue. Reasonable people can come up with reasonable and fair solutions without help of legislators. If there's gotta be a law, there will be unpleasant unintended consequences, no matter who writes and interprets them. I had one law class in my life and the phrase "hard cases make bad law" still resonates.

A transgendered kid, his parents and his community should accept an accomodation of using a unisex faculty bathroom rather than taking "her" penis into the girl's bathroom and freaking people out ... or wearing curls, makeup and a dress into the boys bathroom and freaking people out there. Sharing a locker room with people of different biological sex is a legitimate freak out in the United States. Probably less so in worldly places where seeing someone of the opposite sex naked is routine and unexciting.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
It's been so long that I've forgotten what the law Charlotte actually passed. Wasn't it simply an anti-discrimination law? Essentially, a transgendered person had a choice to use any bathroom they wanted which is what has been happening anyway? They simply protected that person's choice. It was then that the state stepped in and put into law that a person had to use the bathroom of the gender assigned on their birth certificate.
Click to expand...
The problem with the ordinance and others like it is that it is identity politics, with absolutely ZERO medical intervention required, not that there is an objective medical examination that can be performed to determine whether someone was legitimately transsexual as opposed to a pedophile or fetishist.

It leads to incidents precisely as are described here: http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom

Men in dresses are still male. They can use the mens bathroom. If they are having issues there, then perhaps they should ask the legislatures to focus on male violence instead of demanding that females sacrifice space to mollycoddle their delicate fee-fees.
 
Crockett said:
You really think that? That doesn't describe anybody I know. As far as the reasoning "if it prevents just one person from being violently attacked" or "saves just one life" you get to a point where civil liberties and 70 mph speed limits are something we read about in history books.

I recognize the stridency on both sides of this issue. Reasonable people can come up with reasonable and fair solutions without help of legislators. If there's gotta be a law, there will be unpleasant unintended consequences, no matter who writes and interprets them. I had one law class in my life and the phrase "hard cases make bad law" still resonates.

A transgendered kid, his parents and his community should accept an accomodation of using a unisex faculty bathroom rather than taking "her" penis into the girl's bathroom and freaking people out ... or wearing curls, makeup and a dress into the boys bathroom and freaking people out there. Sharing a locker room with people of different biological sex is a legitimate freak out in the United States. Probably less so in worldly places where seeing someone of the opposite sex naked is routine and unexciting.
Click to expand...

First, you've gotten a lot more sensible on this issue in the last few months. And that's a compliment. Most people who talk about politics mindlessly spout their prejudices and never actually think anything through.

Second, if this is your view, you should support SB 6. If you ignore the politics and simply look at the substance of what the bill actually does, it fits your position better than the current law.
 
Run Pincher said:
....If a bathroom law prevents just one 7 year old girl from being violently attacked it's worth it over a million transgenders having their feelings hurt.....Plus, what about the 7 year old girl being embarrassed/having her feelings hurt when seeing something she doesn't understand?
Click to expand...

This is a part of Obama's Title IX "directive" that gets glossed over. His "guidance" was broad, covering locker rooms and showers.

Think back to when you were in junior high school? Would you have ever left the showers?
 
Crockett said:
You really think that? That doesn't describe anybody I know. As far as the reasoning "if it prevents just one person from being violently attacked" or "saves just one life" you get to a point where civil liberties and 70 mph speed limits are something we read about in history books.
Click to expand...

I think there's validity to this, and I often catch myself thinking exactly what was posted - these people would rather see kids molested or innocents blown up in a town square than risk hurting someone's feelings - that ultimately they just don't care when it's not them. And maybe there are some, but I agree that most don't have that view. (Although most of them will happily apply the "if it saves one life" fallacy when it suits them in other contexts.)

The reality in some ways is more dangerous: they just don't see a connection. Seattle is on here excusing this by saying "well men are gonna creep into women's bathrooms anyway." I read a post after the London attack where someone basically ripped westerners for hypocrisy about "condoning" violence toward women and minorities every day (not sure when all that became legal and acceptable on any scale in the U.S., but whatever...) and freaking out "just because one a**hole decides to act out." The idea being "hey - there's one at every party! Some people are just jerks, and someone's always going to be committing some random act of terrorism."

This idea that the tragedies and attacks against helpless people are just "the cost of doing business" in our society is becoming more and more common among progressives. And in reality, those situations give them a chance to really shine - no one does tragedy and empathy like a leftist. They can have their memorials, cry on each others' shoulders, bemoan the evil of the world and vow that WE WILL NOT LET EVIL WIN (whatever that means.) And then they go right back to enabling those behaviors because they're good people and their cause is right, and any issues should be blamed not on the enabling policies, but on the Evil People that we're fighting against - which is usually not the people who actually committed the crime in question.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I think there's validity to this, and I often catch myself thinking exactly what was posted - these people would rather see kids molested or innocents blown up in a town square than risk hurting someone's feelings - that ultimately they just don't care when it's not them. And maybe there are some, but I agree that most don't have that view. (Although most of them will happily apply the "if it saves one life" fallacy when it suits them in other contexts.)

The reality in some ways is more dangerous: they just don't see a connection. Seattle is on here excusing this by saying "well men are gonna creep into women's bathrooms anyway." I read a post after the London attack where someone basically ripped westerners for hypocrisy about "condoning" violence toward women and minorities every day (not sure when all that became legal and acceptable on any scale in the U.S., but whatever...) and freaking out "just because one a**hole decides to act out." The idea being "hey - there's one at every party! Some people are just jerks, and someone's always going to be committing some random act of terrorism."

This idea that the tragedies and attacks against helpless people are just "the cost of doing business" in our society is becoming more and more common among progressives. And in reality, those situations give them a chance to really shine - no one does tragedy and empathy like a leftist. They can have their memorials, cry on each others' shoulders, bemoan the evil of the world and vow that WE WILL NOT LET EVIL WIN (whatever that means.) And then they go right back to enabling those behaviors because they're good people and their cause is right, and any issues should be blamed not on the enabling policies, but on the Evil People that we're fighting against - which is usually not the people who actually committed the crime in question.
Click to expand...
I can disagree here. Let's look at your terrorism example. I'd say that the ham-handed Muslim ban will do more exponentially to create more terrorists around the globe than it will to stop any terrorist activity. The hard liners like Trump are the best recruiting tool that ISIS has with disaffected populations.

On the bathroom issue....was there a problem to even be fixed? Looks to me like it was a solution in search of a problem based upon fears of the unknown. Am I wrong? Maybe.
 
OUBubba said:
North Carolina sure showed them! It's cost them something like 3-4 billion so far. Maybe it's not about aberrant behavior as it is behavior that's not 100% mainstream. To me, having those laws makes it more likely that an assault is going to take place.
Click to expand...

It has cost them money and I think that sucks but I think they still did the right thing...until today. We can keep trading our values and morals for dollars or we can stand our ground. If Texas (ie. Strauss) had done the right thing then there would likely have been several others follow suit. I'm tired of executives using the clout of their organizations to black mail the public. The NCAA womens tournament is estimated to have brought in $20MM or so to Texas...so what!!! I'm very tired of the business GOP calling all the shots. I want the conservative values GOP to take the lead. They can't run Texas out of business. We have more clout than just about every other state. If we stand up to the black mail, then others can too.

Money comes and goes. There will always be tweaks to the tax code and debates over budgets. If we let the culture slip, we will never get it back.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I'm tired of executives using the clout of their organizations to black mail the public.
Click to expand...

I find that statement interesting. I'd argue these executives are supporting their customers/constituents. Most Corporations don't lean left because it's the right thing to do but rather because there is an economic benefit to doing so. North Carolina just experienced it.
 
OUBubba said:
I'd say that the ham-handed Muslim ban will do more exponentially to create more terrorists around the globe than it will to stop any terrorist activity. The hard liners like Trump are the best recruiting tool that ISIS has with disaffected populations.
Click to expand...

This argument doesn't make sense because it assumes that a substantial part of the issue ISIS is exploiting has anything to do with immigration policy. ISIS has been recruiting quite well for quite a while, well before anyone started accusing people of issuing a "muslim ban" (you can keep calling it that, but that won't make it true or even remotely accurate.) We could throw the borders wide open tomorrow, and it wouldn't change a thing regarding ISIS activity.

OUBubba said:
Looks to me like it was a solution in search of a problem based upon fears of the unknown.
Click to expand...

No, based on the reality of what the Obama administration and progressives had actively touted as their goal, which was full integration into common areas of vulnerability with no boundaries as to who could enter. It's not "fear of the unknown" that causes people to say "we have to stop this trend." And I do believe it's a deliberate attempt by progressives to wipe out any gender lines. I know this because whenever concerns are raised that point out that maybe it's not a great idea to allow grown men to shower with adolescent women, those concerns are dismissed and they're told exactly what you're saying now. And then they keep writing legislation in the same broad terms with no attempt whatsoever to mitigate the issues that the vast majority of Americans would agree are unacceptable.
 
OUBubba said:
On the bathroom issue....was there a problem to even be fixed? Looks to me like it was a solution in search of a problem based upon fears of the unknown. Am I wrong? Maybe.
Click to expand...

You are sorta correct. It became a problem with stupid city ordinances and a legally groundless Department of Education memorandum. Prior to that, it truly was a solution in search of a problem, but after the stupidity of those ordinances and the memorandum, there is now a manufactured problem.
 
OUBubba said:
I can disagree here. Let's look at your terrorism example. I'd say that the ham-handed Muslim ban will do more exponentially to create more terrorists around the globe than it will to stop any terrorist activity. The hard liners like Trump are the best recruiting tool that ISIS has with disaffected populations.

On the bathroom issue....was there a problem to even be fixed? Looks to me like it was a solution in search of a problem based upon fears of the unknown. Am I wrong? Maybe.
Click to expand...
Your statement is based on zero evidence whatsoever. If it is true, who gives a damn. Since when do we let terrorists (or potential terrorists) determine our policies? What fool would decide to appease the friends of possible terrorists so that those friends don't become terrorists? Honestly, what kind of coward are you to change our country for the benefit of a culture that considers women slaves, wants to subjugate all non-Muslims, and, to a great extent, wants sharia law? Open your eyes and look at Europe.
 
Saudi Arabia just banned immigration from Pakistan and is in the process of deporting 40,000 people they consider unstable jihadist elements. It is so immoral that they have enacted a Muslim ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top