The Bathroom 'Freedom Fighters'

[Tilted]

Target's move, also dumb.

Every action has an opposite but equal reaction. And North Carolina opened up Pandora's box.

Why (relating to Target's move)?

I think they're just announcing (or making official) what has likely long been their de facto policy and I suspect is the de facto policy of a lot of businesses. And it doesn't conflict with the North Carolina law, that law leaves private businesses free (to the extent they were before) to have such policies of allowing transgenders to use the bathrooms that they identify with.

I'd add that the provision of North Carolina law in question, as it applies to schools, is likely not long for this world. Even if the Supreme Court (or the Fourth Circuit en banc) were to overrule the case that was just decided out of Virginia (which I think is unlikely), it might just mean that the next administration needed to go through the required notice and comment rule-making procedure to more formally establish the same rule.

Tilted, you capture the issue so eloquently. So much better than my "WTF? This is just so stupid".

Thank you.

Well said and worth repeating! Thank you for being a voice of reason and having an insight that most people either cannot or do not want to see.

...

Thank you.

 

[Tilted]

Bye Curt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/sports/baseball/curt-schilling-is-fired-by-espn.html?_r=0

He's not well suited to maintain a public facing job like that (i.e. on that scale) in the current social environment.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why are they calling this "anti LGBT legislation"? My understanding is the state is just knocking down city legislation that wasn't terribly well thought out and has the potential to be extremely harmful. How is that "anti" anything? In my mind it's pro- common sense. Pro safety. Anti putting women at risk from predators.

It's amazing to me how the media plays these word games to manipulate the public....and the public just accepts it without question.

 

[vraiblonde]

Bye Curt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/sports/baseball/curt-schilling-is-fired-by-espn.html?_r=0

ESPN has nuked the shark and is now just another leftwing activist group. Now people are being fired for stating the obvious. What a country.

 

[Tilted]

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/m...-new-transgender-rules-make-it-totally-legal/


According to Seattle television station KREM, Seattle Parks and Recreation is trying to figure out what to do after a man walked into the women’s locker room at a public pool Feb. 8 and began undressing.

Several women were appalled and summoned staff, who told the man he had to leave. But the man said the law was on his side.

“The law has changed and I have a right to be here,” the man said, according to eyewitnesses.

The man apparently gave no indication, physical, verbal, or otherwise that he identifies or lives as a woman. Eventually he left, only to return later when young girls were changing their clothes for swim practice.

The police were never called and the unknown man was never arrested.

During consideration of its own ordinance amendments Charlotte looked at that Seattle incident (i.e. press clippings relating to it were included in the supplemental information packet relating to the proposed amendments). That was someone protesting the new law (or regulation or whatever it was) in Washington, right? At least, that's what it seemed like.

Anyway, yeah, in a society this large occupied by people with such divergent mentalities and interests and situations it's often going to be easy to find occurrences that would seem to demonstrate the possible perils of most any policy that might be considered. That isn't necessarily a function of all policies that might be considered being imprudent, it's a function of there being so many people in the world (or in a given society) and so many opportunities for people to do bad things. There are plenty of people that take advantage of good laws to do bad things. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that these laws in particular are good laws.) And there are other times when they aren't actually taking advantage of any laws, they're just doing something they'd be able to do regardless of what the laws are.

That said, I'd ask you much the same question I asked vrai to see if your answer is the same. Assuming arguendo that concerns about creeps being able to take advantage of these kinds of laws (e.g. the amendments passed by Charlotte) are legitimately substantial: Having undone the Charlotte amendments and forbid other localities from enacting similar rules, why did North Carolina also include the bathroom provisions in its own law? It wasn't to do away with the kinds of laws that creeps supposedly might take advantage of, that was otherwise done. So why make an issue out of something that otherwise, apparently, wasn't really an issue?

 

[Tilted]

Why are they calling this "anti LGBT legislation"? My understanding is the state is just knocking down city legislation that wasn't terribly well thought out and has the potential to be extremely harmful. How is that "anti" anything? In my mind it's pro- common sense. Pro safety. Anti putting women at risk from predators.

It's amazing to me how the media plays these word games to manipulate the public....and the public just accepts it without question.

That's how one side of the debate frames doing away with anti-discrimination laws. People on all sides of various debates do similar (often not so apt) branding. But, yeah, it is what it is.

That said, as we discussed previously the North Carolina law didn't just knock down that city legislation (and prohibit other legislation like it). It went further, to include the bathroom provision that we've all (now ) been talking about.

 

[Tilted]

By my read, this means the provision of that North Carolina law pertaining to restroom use by transgender students in schools which receive federal funds is also invalid.

Yeah. Initially I'm not seeing why the North Carolina law, as applied to schools, would be distinguished from the policy found to be prohibited by federal law in that Fourth Circuit decision.

 

[GURPS]

said nothing important

do you have a reading comprehension problem
let me type really slow for you ......

FLEEING THE STATE

how many business are fleeing the state ... besides a couple of rock concerts have they really LOST anything yet ?
so far I see ha handful of you suck, we are not opening new branches in your state

 

[vraiblonde]

That said, as we discussed previously the North Carolina law didn't just knock down that city legislation (and prohibit other legislation like it). It went further, to include the bathroom provision that we've all (now ) been talking about.

Real question: do you think it's discriminatory for a city to make accommodations for a tiny minority that disenfranchises and endangers everyone else?

As in, why am I being discriminated against and endangered because I don't want to take a shower with a strange man at the campground or gym?

Why is a 12 year old girl being subjected to strange adult men stalking her just because she has to pee?

These are real scenarios and not pulled out of the wild blue sky - anyone with any common sense whatsoever knows this. Radiant is going, "Well, they're going to stalk and rape your daughter anyway, might as well make it easier for them," and I reject that completely. That's horse#### and stupid talking, not even worth responding to. But you, Tilted, I have always considered more thoughtful and legal-minded.

So do you, Tilted, think it's okay to throw out a welcome mat to predators?

Do you think it's fair to discriminate against the majority in an effort to accommodate the minority?

 

[PsyOps]

So do you, Tilted, think it's okay to throw out a welcome mat to predators?

Do you think it's fair to discriminate against the majority in an effort to accommodate the minority?

And this sort of ties into the "Religious Freedom" thread. I honestly feel like these really smart lawyers and judges get themselves in a place where they weigh a logical decision against the backlash of going with that logical decision. I think many of them are motivated by political correctness and have progressive agendas (which I believe drove them to become lawyers to begin with); but it seems to me so many of them (and Roberts comes to mind) appear to be avoiding public backlash and make decisions that would normally go against their principles.

There is no logic in this whole transgender/bathroom thing. Anyone with a pinch of logic knows this not only violates the rights of the majority (as you put it), but the risk far outweighs the benefits (if there are any benefits as a whole).

 

[Radiant1]

Radiant is going, "Well, they're going to stalk and rape your daughter anyway, might as well make it easier for them," and I reject that completely. ?

I didn't say that, so you might want to remove the quotation marks.

 

[Gilligan]

I didn't say that, so you might want to remove the quotation marks.

We all knew that was what you meant to post though.

 

[vraiblonde]

I didn't say that, so you might want to remove the quotation marks.

I paraphrased it, but that's pretty much what you indeed expressed.

 

[vraiblonde]

There is no logic in this whole transgender/bathroom thing. Anyone with a pinch of logic knows this not only violates the rights of the majority (as you put it), but the risk far outweighs the benefits (if there are any benefits as a whole).

I think we can agree that it's just silly leftwing activist pandering.

I also think we can agree that it should be against the law to beat up or kill people, for whatever reason. If you are a trans dude and get set upon by some hater, that should be punished. But that's the same protection and consequences all Americans enjoy (or are supposed to enjoy, at least).

Someone's "comfort level", however....not sure how you can legislate that. Especially since you're making laws for 6 people's comfort, and in the process ripping away the comfort of millions.

 

[Radiant1]

We all knew that was what you meant to post though.

I paraphrased it, but that's pretty much what you indeed expressed.

No, it's not.

 

[vraiblonde]

No, it's not.

Then perhaps you should learn to express yourself better.

No law is going to make a difference, Vrai. If a predator wants to get to someone in the bathroom then he will dress like a woman and walk in or simply walk in. Really what do you think, Mr Pedophile is going to say to himself, "Hmm, it's against the law to go in this bathroom I'll have to find another way to get little Suzy". He's an f'n predator, he doesn't care about the law regardless of what it is! If he did then he wouldn't be trying to get Suzy in the first place. What you and others are espousing is nothing but a lame ass excuse to discriminate against transgender people and you do so because you don't like the ones who don't "pass".

^That^ my friend is a direct quote.

 

[Radiant1]

Then perhaps you should learn to express yourself better.




^That^ my friend is a direct quote.

And I have no problem with a direct quote. What I have a problem with is you quoting me as saying MIGHT AS WELL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM. I never expressed such a view. That is your view, not mine. Please in the future refrain from paraphrasing me and just stick to the direct quotes. Apparently, you are no better at paraphrasing others than you are guessing the motivations of others.

 

[Gilligan]

And I have no problem with a direct quote. What I have a problem with is you quoting me as saying MIGHT AS WELL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM. I never expressed such a view. That is your view, not mine. Please in the future refrain from paraphrasing me and just stick to the direct quotes. Apparently, you are no better at paraphrasing others than you are guessing the motivations of others.

Then why do you support making it easier for them??

 

[PsyOps]

No, it's not.

When you say "they're going to do it anyway" then support a law that makes it easier for them "to do it anyway"; it's the same as saying "Well, they're going to stalk and rape your daughter anyway, might as well make it easier for them".

I mean, you somehow came to the conclusion that people that disagree with allowing transgenders to use whatever facilities that fits their feelings; we are using that as an excuse to discriminate against them. My argument doesn't come from a bigotry towards them, in that they don't belong on this earth. I am strictly coming from a biology and a matter of ensuring people are, first-and-foremost, safe. I will extend all the respect anyone deserves, regardless of lifestyle. That doesn't mean I have to accept a man-dressed-as-a-woman using a public shower with my daughter.

 

[Radiant1]

Then why do you support making it easier for them??

I don't.

then support a law that makes it easier for them "to do it anyway";

I don't.



Look people, I do not believe that this law will make it harder for predators to prey on little boys or girls, or even big boys and girls. I do not think the lack of this law will make anything easier for such predators. Therefore, I would not nor have I ever said what you claim I did.

I don't care if you don't like my views. I don't care if you have an opposing view. I do, however, care if you misquote me or misrepresent me. I speak for myself perfectly fine so there is no need for anyone to paraphrase me or project their own views onto me, thank you.