The Bathroom 'Freedom Fighters'

[DipStick]

I still laugh when Governor McCrory says this will "prevent rape".

If someone wants to walk into a women's bathroom and rape a girl, they're gonna do it. The law ain't stopping them. There are already laws against rape and lewd acts.

Using Governor McCrory's logic, banning guns will prevent crime.

 

[SamSpade]

I still laugh when Governor McCrory says this will "prevent rape".

If someone wants to walk into a women's bathroom and rape a girl, they're gonna do it. The law ain't stopping them. There are already laws against rape and lewd acts.

Using Governor McCrory's logic, banning guns will prevent crime.

You're right. 100%. I agree.

I'm concerned that opening the door for the types clamoring to get in PROTECTS people who might otherwise be legitimately asked to LEAVE the ladies' room.
As in, previously transgenders could come in - because no one knew, but if anyone claiming they self-identify as a woman can simply say "STFU bitches, I'm here to stay".
I don't care for the precedent.

 

[luvmygdaughters]

I'm going to break my ignoring you (I don't have you on ignore, I just don't reply because I think you're a self-righteous ass). You don't know me, even though you presume you do.

All of my kids are adopted and their personal stories might break your heart. They know all about pain and personal loss. So I protect them. It's my job.

I don't give a rat's ass about protecting my son's virginity - I just know he now has the ability to smack a perv in the nuts and fight for his life and is highly likely to make sure the people in CHINA can hear him.
He may be learning disabled, but he's 11 and does know BS when he sees it. My youngest is very small even for her age, and even if she should simply FALL IN the toilet, she's not likely to be able to call for help easily.
FWIW, I don't worry about my middle girl any more - she can just about bench her own weight and can carry a cinder block in each hand - and she's 8. I pity the first guy who touches her when she doesn't want it.

It's not their virginity, it's their safety. I just don't know why it has to be a public issue over transgender.

Well Said!

 

[luvmygdaughters]

I personally wouldn't want a strange man using the same public restroom as myself. It would make me feel anxious, especially if I we were the only two in there. I think its absolutely ridiculous that a minority is trying to dictate what the majority should do. How about schools, if this stupid law passes, will it apply to schools? I have two granddaughters, I certainly wouldn't want a man (even if he thinks he's a woman) entering the bathroom while they are in there. I

 

[DipStick]

You're right. 100%. I agree.

I'm concerned that opening the door for the types clamoring to get in PROTECTS people who might otherwise be legitimately asked to LEAVE the ladies' room.
As in, previously transgenders could come in - because no one knew, but if anyone claiming they self-identify as a woman can simply say "STFU bitches, I'm here to stay".
I don't care for the precedent.

I mean, people wouldn't know if a transgender person was in the stall next to them. I mean, I don't know what rednecks in Western North Carolina do, but everywhere I've ever been, people go to the bathroom, take care of their business, wash their hands and walk out and that's it.

This law is just another deal where people can't mind their own business. I mean, I've literally seen comments from HB2 defenders that make it sound like public bathrooms are where everyone stands in the middle of a big public place completely naked waving their dicks and breasts around or whatever. I mean, that stuff alone would, if I didn't live here, make me not want to ever visit North Carolina.

This is such a non-issue that was blown up to be some big, national crisis.

And people INSIDE North Carolina who don't like the law are more concerned about Section II -- which has nothing to do with bathrooms. Even a lot of conservatives think it's a bad law because of the power Raleigh has now grabbed from local governments.

 

[Christy]

:shrug:


But my girls, I'm different about it. Up until about five, I'd take them with the boy into the men's room,

I wonder how the new laws that mandate that one must use the restroom that equates to your anatomy will impact a parents ability to take their female children into the men's room and vice versa?

 

[Tilted]

I wonder how the new laws that mandate that one must use the restroom that equates to your anatomy will impact a parents ability to take their female children into the men's room and vice versa?

The law provides an exception for such cases.

 

[TheLibertonian]

I'm going to break my ignoring you (I don't have you on ignore, I just don't reply because I think you're a self-righteous ass). You don't know me, even though you presume you do.

All of my kids are adopted and their personal stories might break your heart. They know all about pain and personal loss. So I protect them. It's my job.

I don't give a rat's ass about protecting my son's virginity - I just know he now has the ability to smack a perv in the nuts and fight for his life and is highly likely to make sure the people in CHINA can hear him.
He may be learning disabled, but he's 11 and does know BS when he sees it. My youngest is very small even for her age, and even if she should simply FALL IN the toilet, she's not likely to be able to call for help easily.
FWIW, I don't worry about my middle girl any more - she can just about bench her own weight and can carry a cinder block in each hand - and she's 8. I pity the first guy who touches her when she doesn't want it.

It's not their virginity, it's their safety. I just don't know why it has to be a public issue over transgender.

Girls are not precious flowers that cannot defend themselves. We have knives, tasers, and guns.

Your children are no more likely to be preyed on with or without this law in place. That's my freaking point Sam. You are shooting at Quaker soldiers.

Again. They are no more safe or less safe with these laws in place.

You want to couch the law in some sort of morality thing? Sure. Fine. Go for it. But don't sit there and spew that this is somehow going to make your children "less safe". It doesn't. The practical application is nothing changes. You are already exhibiting the behavior that will prevent things from happening and some tranny going into a bathroom isn't going to make a tick of difference to your attitude.

I respect you wanting to defend your children, biological or not.

 

[GURPS]

Girls are not precious flowers that cannot defend themselves.

you have not been paying attention to the campus rape hysteria

 

[BlueSunday]

Private actors (to include businesses) should have the right to discriminate on whatever bases they see fit to.

That said, these kinds of state level laws are already legally iffy. More pragmatically though I would say these last-ditch efforts to hold back the tide of widespread societal acceptance of homosexuality (and bisexuality and transgenderism and whatnot) are probably going to backfire in this way: They are going to force the issue to the Supreme Court in a way and at a time that makes it likely that a protected classification gets recognized relating to sexuality and sexual identity along the lines that such classifications are recognized as relates to, e.g., race and sex. Up to this point the Supreme Court has avoided clearly identifying a protected classification for sexuality or sexual identity. But I think the Court's hand is soon going to be forced on that issue and I think the composition of the Court will be unfavorable for conservatives when it is. (When I suggest that these kinds of laws are going to backfire, I should qualify that. It might not really be fairly considered backfiring as I suspect these laws are mostly motivated by political considerations rather than ideological goals.)

Would you agree this law has more than just bathroom banning in it?

 

[Tilted]

Would you agree this law has more than just bathroom banning in it?

Certainly. It's a significantly more sweeping piece of legislation than most people realize, I think.

That's the part of it that's gotten the most attention, I suspect in part because that's the part that supporters think is easiest to defend. It represents a more viscerally marketable aspect of the law. To the extent that's the only part of the law that most people are aware of or thinking about, officials in North Carolina probably think that they'll be able to survive the pressure that's currently being exerted in response to it.

That is not, however, the part of the law that I've seen many opposed to it emphasize or allude to (though, for sure, some opponents have focused on or referred to it). It's not, e.g., what I've heard people speaking on behalf of businesses and in opposition to the law focus on.

 

[Tilted]

I'm willing to bet that a father who has to watch his daughter go into a public lady's room only to have some scruffy-looking man walk in behind her, claiming he's transgender, would have a serious problem with this or is mentally deranged.

Considering the likely more common scenarios, not the situations were someone is trying to make a point: Do you think the kind of thing you're referring to more so helps make the case against (that aspect of) the law or for it?

Seriously, requiring transgenders to use public bathrooms designated for the sex listed on their birth certificate (rather than the one they identify with) would more so lead to your hypothetical father being confronted with that concern, wouldn't it? The people (i.e. biological males) that would be using the women's bathroom (if they were allowed to) would be those that were living (and, e.g., dressing) as females such that the father might not notice something he thought was strange and which would cause him alarm. With the ban in place, it would be someone that looked like a guy (but was actually a biological female) that would supposedly have to use the women's bathroom with his daughter and give him reason to be alarmed.

Again, leaving aside the people that just want to make a point and be - as some have described them - militant about it, isn't that the bases of transgenders' concern about which bathroom they use? I mean, I don't personally know anyone that's indicated to me that they are (or that I otherwise think are) transgender. But I would think that would be what concerns them, at least part of it. They dress and look like the sex they identify as and, that being the case, they don't want to have to constantly be walking into what seems to others to be the wrong bathroom. They don't want to constantly have to deal with people questioning them about being a man going into the women's bathroom (when they're actually a biological woman that looks like a man). I'm not suggesting that the law is right or wrong or good or bad or whatever. I'm just trying to be realistic about what the concerns are. It seems to me that, if I were transgender, that is what would matter to me. That is why I suspect I would feel as they do, I would want to be able to use what seemed to others to be the correct bathroom.

Then again, I identify as the sex I was born as so I may be completely off when it comes to what I'd guess that they feel. I'd bet I'm not though because, for all of our differences, in our cores most of us work more or less the same. We have largely the same basic sensibilities and insecurities and emotional tendencies.

 

[vraiblonde]

If I were a transgendered person, hopefully I would be a good one and could "pass". Then I would quietly use the restroom I looked like I should use, without a bunch of defensiveness and nonsense, not making a big deal out of it to try and piss everyone off.

I have a female friend who is a lesbian, and she is also quite androgynous. She uses the ladies room, and to my knowledge nobody has questioned her or concerned themselves with her gender. I will bet, however, that she could also roll into a mens room and none of the guys would think twice about her being there because she looks very guyish and has guy mannerisms. I should ask her if she's ever used the mens room - some guys sit to tinkle, right?

Of course, when you're talking about bath houses and locker rooms, it's more apparent who is who and what is what. So my suggestion is that they simply adapt and deal with it, like someone with any other medical or mental problem does. Life is not set up to accommodate every single piddling difference people might have, so the person with the difference needs to figure out a way to deal. It's not our responsibility to deal with it for them, or be inconvenienced because of them.

While a woman wouldn't go into a mens shower to ogle the nekkid mens, men would absolutely try and get in to ogle the nekkid wimmins. You guys are a bunch of perverts and statistically WAY! more likely to be a sexual predator or child molester. So no, we do not want your stranger asses in our restrooms and showers and that's that.

 

[Tilted]

...

some guys sit to tinkle, right?

...

Ummm... No? I don't think so.

Wait... Was that sarcasm?

 

[DipStick]

Certainly. It's a significantly more sweeping piece of legislation than most people realize, I think.

That's the part of it that's gotten the most attention, I suspect in part because that's the part that supporters think is easiest to defend. It represents a more viscerally marketable aspect of the law. To the extent that's the only part of the law that most people are aware of or thinking about, officials in North Carolina probably think that they'll be able to survive the pressure that's currently being exerted in response to it.

That is not, however, the part of the law that I've seen many opposed to it emphasize or allude to (though, for sure, some opponents have focused on or referred to it). It's not, e.g., what I've heard people speaking on behalf of businesses and in opposition to the law focus on.

I know a lot of conservatives in the state who oppose this law and you're exactly right. The "bathroom" part is what's discussed the most because it's the easiest part for McCrory and North Carolina Republicans to defend. 78 percent of North Carolinians support the law because they see it as a bathroom bill. That's what people talk about.

Section II is broad and sweeping in how it takes powers away from local governments and shifts it to the state. SOME Republicans support this, because it "takes power away from liberals". But a lot don't like this because it's very likely that Democrats will post big wins in November. Republicans have done a lot of #### over the past four years that they're gonna have to answer for.

The way this state has stripped away any and all rights for LGBT people is pretty bad too. Another reason for Section II. Last year, part of the "Religious Freedom" nonsense was so courthouse officials could reject marriage licenses to same sex couples. This infuriated local governments as well as a lot of officers of the court.

I'm all for businesses being able to discriminate against who they want for whatever reason. But that's not legal in North Carolina. You can, however, discriminate against gay people as long as you spout some bible verse.

But government employees and officials, who have sworn an oath, should not have that right. If they don't want to sign off on a marriage license for a gay couple, they should quit their job and work for the church instead. If they don't want to turn the water on for a gay couple, they should have to quit their job. That simple.

 

[DipStick]

If I were a transgendered person, hopefully I would be a good one and could "pass". Then I would quietly use the restroom I looked like I should use, without a bunch of defensiveness and nonsense, not making a big deal out of it to try and piss everyone off.

I wonder how this law will be enforced in this regard. Are we gonna pass SHB2 next year and put cameras in bathrooms to make sure transgender people don't use them? (I would put a emoji but I don't put ANYTHING past Raleigh)

There was literally no outrage over the Charlotte bill that HB2 was supposed to counter. I knew nobody who gave a damn. It was a dumb bill but nobody cared. Our fearless leaders in Raleigh come along, for no reason, and have to pass this absurd law so that McCrory would be the champion of Southern Baptists and rednecks in an election year. He's also actively pushing to become Donald Trumps running mate in November.

 

[Midnightrider]

Ummm... No? I don't think so.

Wait... Was that sarcasm?

I know one guy who says that's how his mother taught him and it stuck. But I am pretty sure a lot of old guys with prostate issues do what with all the waiting to start and then stopping and starting....

 

[SamSpade]

Perhaps I am wrong about this one, and I am prepared to hear it...

I was very much under the impression that this deals not JUST transgenders - people who have physically changed to another sex, something that has been biologically possible for decades to varying degrees of success - but people who "self-identify" as another sex. It deals with Caitlyns, who are only marginally female but in fact are still male. "She-males" who still have all of their stuff, but somehow feel they're the other sex. Persons who think that - in their head - they're the other sex, even if there's nothing changed. Hence, the wording regarding their birth sex.

Am I wrong? Is this JUST prohibiting people who have actually been physically altered? Completely? Because if that's the case, I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Tilted]

Perhaps I am wrong about this one, and I am prepared to hear it...

I was very much under the impression that this deals not JUST transgenders - people who have physically changed to another sex, something that has been biologically possible for decades to varying degrees of success - but people who "self-identify" as another sex. It deals with Caitlyns, who are only marginally female but in fact are still male. "She-males" who still have all of their stuff, but somehow feel they're the other sex. Persons who think that - in their head - they're the other sex, even if there's nothing changed. Hence, the wording regarding their birth sex.

Am I wrong? Is this JUST prohibiting people who have actually been physically altered? Completely? Because if that's the case, I don't have a problem with it.

People who have undergone surgical changes and had the sex listed on their birth certificate changed can use the bathroom they identify as (and now physically match).

This is about stopping people who haven't physically changed sex from using bathrooms that they identify with rather than that match the sex that they physically still are. It sounds like you're suggesting that such people aren't actually transgender? Perhaps there was a time when that term only referred to people who had had physical sex changes, but that's not the case now. A transgender can be either case. I think the term transsexual was more so used only to refer to those who had physical sex changes, but that term isn't used much anymore. Perhaps that's for this very reason, so as not to suggest that the people in question necessarily have had physical sex changes.

 

[Hijinx]

People who have undergone surgical changes and had the sex listed on their birth certificate changed can use the bathroom they identify as (and now physically match).

This is about stopping people who haven't physically changed sex from using bathrooms that they identify with rather than that match the sex that they physically still are. It sounds like you're suggesting that such people aren't actually transgender? Perhaps there was a time when that term only referred to people who had had physical sex changes, but that's not the case now. A transgender can be either case. I think the term transsexual was more so used only to refer to those who had physical sex changes, but that term isn't used much anymore. Perhaps that's for this very reason, so as not to suggest that the people in question necessarily have had physical sex changes.

The whole problem is that these people keep pushing. They keep wanting more. If you push hard enough people start pushing back.
This bill may not make sense, but it is a push back . That is what it is.