The Bathroom 'Freedom Fighters'

[vraiblonde]

pandering politicians are coming up with absurd legislation in an attempt to save us from the trannies.

Upon further consideration, it's not the trannies they're trying to save us from; it's the predator men who would use it as an excuse for lurking around the ladies room.

 

[BlueSunday]

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.

As I said earlier many gays feel the same way as most of you they want men in the Men's room and women in the Lady's room but what I have a problem with is the part of the law that allows discrimination against gays .Vrai said in one post of hers that her nephew is gay,does this make him a bad person,shouldn't he be able to buy a car go to the grocery store go to the movies buy a wedding cake?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-north-carolinas-radical-new-anti-lgbt-law/

 

[BlueSunday]

Upon further consideration, it's not the trannies they're trying to save us from; it's the predator men who would use it as an excuse for lurking around the ladies room.

So women just use classrooms is that it?

 

[vraiblonde]

So women just use classrooms is that it?

Run the numbers, babe.

 

[vraiblonde]

Vrai said in one post of hers that her nephew is gay,does this make him a bad person,shouldn't he be able to buy a car go to the grocery store go to the movies buy a wedding cake?

He does all of that except buy a wedding cake because he is not married. But if he were to get married, I'm sure he could find a number of bakeries that would be glad to make his cake. There would be no need for him to single out the one lone baker who won't.

 

[nutz]

Radiant! If they are clearly a man, with a beard and hairy legs and lumberjack clothes, they are not transgender - they are a mentally ill man who for some reason wants to bother women in the restroom.

Why couldn't I just be a guy who has to use the bathroom. Maybe I just really had to go and didn't care which door I picked. Maybe I know that girls don't pee on the seat or leave it up so that can shave 5 seconds off my time.

 

[Tilted]

I think a few more gaskets are getting ready to blow or have already just blown.


EDIT: Sorry for the cryptic post. I'm referring to this. I'll be back in a few minutes to explain what it is.

 

[This_person]

Ok, but I will say that academia also once thought homosexuality a mental disorder as a whole hose of other things we find perfectly normal today. They tend to change their minds given a bit of time because psychological diagnoses happen within a cultural context.



Since you view transgendered persons as having a psychological defect and not having been born with what amounts to a physical defect, then there is no need to go on.



I see where you're going, and I have to ask...if it was your daughter, sister or mother raped would you change your mind about gain vs loss? If it were your child or grandchild that was aborted would you not worry about it? If someone you loved died from a drunk driver violating a traffic law would you concern yourself with it? I'm curious if you apply this gain vs loss analysis only when you are removed from any one given situation, or if you stand by it regardless.

To be fair, being raped or killed is a pretty far cry from having two sets of sex organs trying to decide where to urinate.

 

[DipStick]

Not if it was someone who was intent on abusing this law to sexually harass/abuse women/girls; which there are already cases of this happening.

But there are ALREADY LAWS against this type of behavior. Wouldn't you, as a small government conservative, agree that we need tougher punishments for this type of action, not more laws?

If someone illegally buys a gun and kills someone with it, they should be put in prison for life. We don't need another law to say that them loading the gun was a crime.

 

[Tilted]

I think a few more gaskets are getting ready to blow or have already just blown.


EDIT: Sorry for the cryptic post. I'm referring to this. I'll be back in a few minutes to explain what it is.

Okay... So this is a ruling that just came out of the Fourth Circuit. That's Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. There's a lot of legal stuff going on in this ruling, but I'm going to ignore all but the part that's relevant here - to the issue being discussed in this thread.

Title IX (20 USC § 1681) provides in part that:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...

Title IX was recently interpreted by the Department of Education to require schools receiving federal funding, if they provided separate bathroom facilities for the different sexes, to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that they identify with rather than the bathrooms that match their biological sex. A school in Virginia didn't do that and a transgender boy (i.e. his mother on his behalf) sued. The district court found in favor of the school system. The Fourth Circuit heard the case and, relevant here, determined that the DoE's interpretation of federal law controls:

We conclude that the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation, § 106.33, as it relates to restroom access by transgender individuals, is entitled to Auer deference and is to be accorded controlling weight in this case. We reverse the district court’s contrary conclusion and its resultant dismissal of G.G.’s Title IX claim.

I'll add a few brief notes in a subsequent post.

 

[Tilted]

A few brief notes regarding the Fourth Circuit decision I just posted about:

(1) The Fourth Circuit panel's decision was not based on the U.S. Constitution. Although the student claimed a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as well as a violation of Title IX, the panel did not consider the EPC argument.

(2) The panel also found that the school's proposed accommodation - allowing the student and others to use one of several single-occupant unisex bathrooms that were created - would not be enough to bring it into compliance with Title IX.

(3) It remains possible that someone could challenge this policy requirement itself - allowing transgenders to use facilities based on the sex they identify with - on constitutional grounds. It is possible that this Title IX requirement, interpreted in this way, could represent an unconstitutional violation of the privacy rights of others who would have to share facilities with transgenders using facilities that don't match their biological sexes. Indeed, this decision leaves open the possibility that this same requirement might not apply when it comes to other facilities in which users might routinely see each other naked - e.g., locker rooms.

(4) This is the current administration's interpretation of the law in question and, although it is legally entitled to deference from courts if it meets certain conditions, that interpretation is not set in stone. A future administration could, in theory, change the applicable interpretation such that it wouldn't require this.

EDIT: (5) For those that take note of such things: The panel split 2-1 on the relevant holding. The majority was made up of a judge appointed by President Bush II and President Obama and a judge appointed by President Clinton and President Obama. The dissent came from a judge appointed by President Reagan and President Bush I.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

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.

 

[GURPS]

Wrong. I'm arguing for human rights.

so you are ok showering at the Gym with one or more 'women' with there twigs and berrys

 

[LibertyBeacon]

so you are ok showering at the Gym with one or more 'women' with there twigs and berrys

Hyperbole much?

 

[Gilligan]

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.

Nothing but victories for you LGBT folks lately. Good for you.

 

[GURPS]

My guess is they put it in so predator men wouldn't invade the ladies room and then say they were transgender when they got caught.

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/04/11/need-transgender-bathroom-laws/


Trouble is, while transgendered people in particular might not be sexual offenders, there are plenty of people out there who would take advantage of a law that would allow men into women’s restrooms. I know that, because with a quick Google search, I was spoiled for choice on story after story of a man being busted for spying on women in the bathroom, some of them even claiming transgenderism.

In fact, here are just four examples that happened recently:

1. Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying Into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say – VA, Nov 17th, 2015

2. California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Women’s Bathroom – CA, Apr 10th, 2016

3. Man Strips In Women’s Restroom, Says New Transgender Rules Make It Totally Legal – WA, Feb 17th 2016

4. Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter – Toronto, Mar 4th 2014​

Again, these are just four that I found with a light Google search. There were more that had men not even pretending to be women to get in, and just straight up doing it. None of these people may have actually been trans, but it doesn’t matter? They utilized trying to look like women in order to gain access to the privacy of women and girls.

Imagine what it would look like if doing this was legal, which is exactly what North Carolina was trying to avoid. The media and transgender activists can throw around words like “civil rights,” and “bigotry” around all day. But in the grand scheme, they should really stop for a moment and take a look at what would follow them through the door should they open it.

Kaeley Triller, a rape survivor, actually faced the worst of consequences as a girl. She wrote about it in an article at The Federalist.

“I read these reports, and my heart starts to race. They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters.”​

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.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Herp derp. I eat paste.

Whatever is working for you, champ.

 

[BlueSunday]

He does all of that except buy a wedding cake because he is not married. But if he were to get married, I'm sure he could find a number of bakeries that would be glad to make his cake. There would be no need for him to single out the one lone baker who won't.

just as the baker should not be allowed to single him out .

 

[Gilligan]

Whatever is working for you, champ.

You've taken better pics...love the purse though.

 

[Radiant1]

Using a public restroom isn't a "right". Using the restroom designated for the opposite sex is absolutely not a "right". Like, not even close to being a right.

You have a very broad idea of what constitutes (see what I did there?) a right in this country.

They don't view themselves as the opposite sex. You do, but they don't. I'm talking about their right to the gender they identify with, which includes but is not limited to letting them use the proper bathroom.

No. This sort of retardation is not doing them any favors and makes them look like unreasonable aholes, even if trans people have nothing to do with it and it's just a bunch of crazy militant activists who are bitching about this.

It depends on who you ask as to who is the unreasonable #######. :shrug:

Upon further consideration, it's not the trannies they're trying to save us from; it's the predator men who would use it as an excuse for lurking around the ladies room.

Predator men already do that. Predator women too.

To be fair, being raped or killed is a pretty far cry from having two sets of sex organs trying to decide where to urinate.

To be fair your determination as to who is male or female and therefore who must use what bathroom doesn't apply to the hermaphrodite which is why I brought it up. And, I still think you're dodging, but that's ok, I know why you're doing it and we are beyond that point now anyway.

so you are ok showering at the Gym with one or more 'women' with there twigs and berrys

If you're not throwing your twig, berries, hooha, or tatas in my face, then I could care less, you're just showering. If you are, then you're harassing me and there are laws about that no matter what you have between your legs.


Two generations and this will be such a non issue, even the "omg predators the sky is going to fall" argument.