Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Pulls North Carolina Plan After Transgender Bathroom Law (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: PayPal Holdings Inc on Tuesday canceled plans to open a global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina and invest $3.6 million in the area after the state passed a controversial law targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens. In a letter on March 29, founders and chief executives of more than a hundred companies, including Apple Inc, Twitter Inc, and Alphabet Inc urged North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to repeal the legislation.
PayPal is one of the first companies to protest the controversial measure requiring people to use bathrooms or locker rooms in schools and other public facilities that match the gender on their birth certificate rather than their gender identity. "The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal's mission and culture," Chief Executive Officer Dan Schulman said in a statement. PayPal's original plan was to open the operations center in Charlotte and employ 400 skilled workers there.
Are they going question every one of their customers and make sure their values aligned with PayPal's and seize their funds if not?
That law is ridiculous and I am glad other people recognize this. Dan Schulman made the right call here.
nothing wrong with that
I see how the law is targeting transgender people, but how the law is targeting lesbian, gay or bisexual people?
for those who think this isnt an egregious concern for the state of North Carolina, they very much do have a lot to lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is one of the largest research parks in the world, but its been largely a pearl in an otherwise very salty oyster. Its home to Cisco, Redhat, Microsoft, and NetApp among others. Governors and statesmen are wrecklessly gambling with this research park in the hopes that pandering to ten million North Carolinians with rhetoric from the culture war is a sustainable or responsible approach to governing their state.
PayPal has made it very clear: there are 49 other states that will gladly accept our proposition to employ hundreds of high skilled knowledge workers. Your tax incentives are by no means exclusive to the state.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I wouldn't be too quick to applaud the principled stance of paypal, or corporations generally, as they typically will do business even in atrocious hellholes if the money is right(and/or go out of business at the hands of competitors who don't share their scruples); but it is worth remembering that they have options, and they aren't going to choose a location unless its overall combination of 'desirable' and 'cheap' beats out that of the alternatives. Some places make it on desirability(it's not like you go to any trendy part of silicon valley for the rent). Some places focus on being cheap. Most combine the two in varying proportions.
This being the case, making your location less desirable strongly suggests that you will have to make it more cheap in order to maintain the same level of interest. You have fun with that, NC.
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH. Which means it doesn't matter if you've had the surgery. Alternately, have you seen the photos that some trans men have posted--bodybuilders, with no way you could guess from appearance that they were born any different? Yeah, by this law, they have to use the ladies' room.
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
to reduce this to basics, in usa, when there is a conflict where two group have conflicting values, one group is saying only the values backed up by money should matter.
ideally,
majority democratically established, with constitutionally established checks and balances, should pass laws.
constitutionality of the laws should be judged by courts.
while that is never achieved, continuous blatant violations in favor of money elite, and ignoring of others legal attempts, will eventually bring about a conflict that will get ever more violent and illegal. be warned.
If a random dude decides to do that, I'm guessing it would be no different than if he decided to do that a month ago. He'd be arrested. It's not exactly hard to figure who's living life as a woman, and who's just -- pardon the pun -- dicking around.
If you have a penis, use the boys room. If you don't you'll make everyone else in the womens room uncomfortable.
there are many people with a penis that would look entirely inappropriate in a boys room.
What if some regular schmuck decides for the lulz to dress up as a women for a day and go all perv in womens room?
then hes committed a number of already existing criminal infractions such as disorderly conduct or sexual assault at worst. men already do this. this law wont fix the problem
At this point why not make all restrooms communal or unisex?
Here in West Hollywood, we kinda did. instead of passing a law that stated gender normative restrooms had to be enforced we did the opposite. we made a law that states all restrooms have to be accessible by both genders. Some smaller bars and restaraunts just made both their restrooms locking unisex. Larger night clubs and hotels converted to an architectural model that provides a fully closed rack of stalls, and around a corner enclosed urinals with privacy partitions.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Way to go political, dumb ass... The bathrooms are segregated by gender, You cannot change your gender, just like I cannot become a llama.
Except according to the law, if you do have gender reassignment surgery (get your penis chopped off, as you say), you will still have to use the bathroom of the gender you were born with. If you look like a woman, have the equipment of a women and feel like a woman, you might be, by law, forced to use the men's room.
This bill isn't "about" bathrooms (that's just one provision of many, probably added so that people like the submitter can spin the backlash as being about that).
The far more significant provision (the one which actually has PayPal and others abandoning the state) is the one which explicitly permits business to discriminate against LGBT employees and customers under the guise of "religious freedom".
Another fact you missed. The summary stated this was an act of protest, the law didn't actually prevent them from opening.
People need to remove the LGB from this discussion because there is nothing about Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexuals in the debate. Except that for positioning people conveniently lump those other groups into the lot. Here is your trigger warning, either go away or hold that rage for a minute. This is about people who dress like the opposite sex. The reasons for dressing like the opposite sex are varied, and can be perverse as well as due to any type of identity condition.
So you are a parent, do you mind if the older principle goes into the boys bathroom to check out the young penis? Prove it's not because she wants to be a man. If you are a parent, do you mind the janitor going into the girls bathroom to check out the young ladies? Prove it's not because he wants to be a woman.
This blanket assumption that everyone is innocent and altruistic is a fantasy that people need to snap out of. The actual amount of transgender people demanding to use any restroom they want is extraordinarily tiny. Blackmailing companies to force them to do it the way .1% of the population wants it is not the way to succeed in society where the other 99.9% of the population does not agree.
People need to wake up to the amount of social engineering being forced down their throat and take action against it. If not, well, you can see how things turned out in other countries when the loonies started running the asylum.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The comments they make when I release the death fog is fucking hilarious. I don't care how big your dick is, lady. My alien acid shits will drive you out of the men's room FOREVER!!!!
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail? You can't make one happy without making the others unhappy. This is the nature of politics. You have to decide and say "you get your way, and you, just deal with it."
The governor of NC chose to side with 51% of his state over probably 0.001% of his state. Sure, there are women who would agree with sharing the restroom. The governor can't know how many. All he probably knows is that he's likely never met a woman in his state except a few activists that like the idea. Therefore he is doing precisely what we ordinarily value which is letting the majority rule.
Stop bullshitting. It was done to ensure individual communities couldn't pass laws that prohibit discrimination. In other words, the Jesus-yokels in the state house said "We're looking at YOU, Raleigh, Charlotte, and especially you hippies in Asheville, and we don't like you getting all fag-friendly and whatnot."
The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth, meaning that even if someone was a complete post-op transsexual, they're still considered be their original sex by the state.
You're as entitled to your opinion on this as anyone else, but at least have the balls to admit what the law really is, instead of all this double-talk about "different and contradictory laws" in different communities. What happened to that conservative maxim of keeping power out of the hands of central government and letting local communities decide what's best? Oh, that was hypocrisy? What a shock.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I think we will need more than three
Have gnu, will travel.
Remember, this is the same company that excludes its users from commerce in legal but politically incorrect products & services.
https://www.paypal.com/ca/weba...
Nice try. You left out that whole bit about how the law "bans local jurisdictions from offering any LGBT protections beyond what the state does, which is "none". Cities had local laws saying, for example, you couldn't refuse to rent to a gay couple just because they were gay...those city laws are now struck from the books by state mandate." My thanks to Sowelu (713889) for articulating this.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Honest question here - how does this law affect gays and lesbians? It doesn't (to my admittedly naive thinking) seem to apply to anyone who has not changed their gender. Right? Wrong?
Unisex bathrooms.
And make them with closed stalls. So nobody will know which way the feet are pointing when they take a leak.
Have gnu, will travel.
As a citizen of North Carolina, I am grateful to Paypal for standing up to protect people from discrimination. As bad as the treatment of transgender folks is in this law, the real impact is much broader. This law removes the right of all citizens to access state courts to sue for employment or housing discrimination based on age, race, national origin, or sex. The Republicans are using the bathroom stuff as cover because they think a majority of voters don't identify with transgender people. But the real impact is to legalize all forms of discrimination in North Carolina.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
And hermaphrodites ?
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH.
Ever heard of 'born again'? Hallelujah! Praise the lawd!
Have gnu, will travel.
Who cares! "Look everyone: LGBT/gay" etc. to control a narrative for "damage control" distracting from real issues like bogus wars YOUR TAXES PAY FOR that rebuild enemies (fucking stupid if you beat someone's ass, right or wrong, keep them down or they come back at you, not help them but the rich get richer on no-bid contracts for their good ole' boy netywork and soldiers come back to no jobs that they were promised). Instead they import the enemy to infiltrate us those stupid fucks (since they work cheaper) and give them welfare too AND then give soldier and us citizens jobs to those enemies overseas too! How fucking STOO-PID! Why were wars like WWII ones that helped the USA? We eliminated competitors in what made us strong - manufacturing (though I don't feel it's right to bust up others in THEIR HOME telling them how to live - let them handle it). No, instead, they put up bullshit like this to distract from say, the 1% panama papers bullshit. It's all this bs really is. Carrots for ignorant donkeys that fall for it. The 'powers that be' must really RREALLY think we're all fucking stupid pulling tricks like bullshit "stories" like this one against more important issues that affect far more people adversely. Makes me ill. I hope it does the rest of you also. It's such ridiculous inconsequential horseshit designed to make you forget the real issues out there that are burning the USA into the ground due to shitbag leaders who are nothing more than puppets of the wealthy who fund their campaigns (trump excluded) and who consider the usa their constituency stupid, obviously. Toss some "bread and circuses" in their too and you have their recipe for controlling the masses (along with controlling communications this way).
People have the right to do whatever they feel like doing. The consequences for their actions are a different story. If you are male and want to pretend you are female, that is fine. When you DEMAND that others agree with you is when there is a problem. Why post AC?
So answer me this, how exactly will anyone verify the integrity of this law? Genital inspection prior and or after use of the listed facilities per chance? So what is the ultimate purpose of this law, to ensure members of the opposite sex do not view each other genitals whilst members of the same sex are allowed to view each others genitals. Surely in the case of ambiguous partner choices having a law ensuring that only members of the same sex can view each others genitals is, well, very questionable. It seems like some closeted individuals want to ensure they only genitals they see in public facilities are the genitals they secretly want to see and that they are so tempted by.
If it was really all about privacy and security, they would demand uni-sex facilities with individual, private and secure cubicles, with monitored access points and direct access of public corridors. They law intend seems to be governed by a preference for homosexuality and to ensure no accidental exposure to the genitals of the opposite sex.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Republicans are all for everyone's right to be a Republican. That's why they fight against the ACLU and EFF and so on, yet have no conservative organizations that "compete" against these to protect our rights in a "conservative" way, whatever way that might be. They don't give a shit about how big government is or whether it's trampling on any of your rights, as long as you've got the right to guns (Reagan's Addendum: if you aren't black).
Exactly. Seeing a penis is not the end of the world for a little girl.
One thing that puzzles me about this:
Why do people, who are supposedly straight, want so strongly to have gay men in the men's room?
Real life says gender at birth
That's not quite 100%, though. If your chromosomes and dangly bits agree, though (which is almost everyone), use that restroom or you'll be creeping out the womenfolk. If they disagree, fine, whatever. If a business wants to do better, add a third bathroom for anyone to use.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Sorry, I sound like real life. You sound like a Bernie supporter
If you have to ask this question, you are a bigger asshole than you give yourself credit for. Who is supposed to be more comfortable, you or everybody else. Stop being the 1%
Nobody cares about that. The real end result of all of this is the small minority want special privilege and are willing to use the government against the majority to get their way. YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITE!
I've always figured the public bathroom gender designations were more of a cultural suggestion. If you're obviously a man entering a woman's bathroom you're going to get in trouble, culturally. Probably in the form of a black eye. I didn't think it was ever a matter of law.
So what's wrong with that system? The reason for different bathrooms is women are uncomfortable undressing around men. If you were born a man and identify as a woman you can use their bathrooms if you manage to not make them uncomfortable being around you. If you do, no law is going to save you. If a woman wants to use a men's room, I couldn't imagine anyone complaining.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
the .01% can do whatever they want. I thought you knew this.
Even if they don't, there are stalls in most bathrooms. I see this as an issue so minuscule, it is only worth political discussion.
When I started my transition in 1990, I would have never imagined such support and solidarity. Thank you Pay Pal.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
wrong, any pervert can now claim "he's feeling like a woman and soon to undergo various stages of transition"
these LGBT-nazis are trampling on women's rights in this and other matters
I don't believe any law requires that they be "living as a woman" just identifies as one; they don't even have to be wearing a dress or other woman's clothing. You'd be hard pressed to arrest anyone, no matter how obvious their intentions, in any place with the "use the bathroom you identify with" law in place.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Other posters are right. This is just cover for holding Jeebus up high and striking out at people that don't conform to your views. This is exactly how the "Family Values" types try to claim that all gay men are pedophiles. Now suddenly all transexuals are actually peeping toms who want to wear dresses.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just as young children should be exposed to people of different races, creeds and ethnic backgrounds, and introduced to the idea of liberty and equality. That's how you destroy bigotry, by raising children that don't have bigoted views.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Which seems the good solution to me. I rather like real privacy, and not the imaginary privacy of a row of urinals.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But showing your penis to a little girl is the end of the world for you.
Where aliens will be found, computers will be sentient, brains will be uploaded, and Linux will have a year on the desktop, all believed with the fervent faith of a religious nutter...
but the idea that gender identity is an innate function of the brain, which may not always develop to the identity dictated by chromosomes or genitalia, is just too damn mind blowing for them to handle, despite oodles of scientific evidence.
Who I see this law abusing is transsexuals that haven't had the reassignment surgery yet, and those that may never have it (my understanding is that not all trans individuals have the surgery).
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue this isn't a 21st century version of "She's a Witch! Burn HER!!!!!" because that's what is going to happen. Some poor trans person who hasn't had the reassignment surgery is going to be hauled out by the police as screaming conservative reactionaries demand her head, declared a pervert, just like gay men were in many parts of the western world well into many of our lifetimes, be declared a sex offender, rendered unemployable and have their lives ruined. All so some politicians can pander to the lowest common denominator. And then, in a few years, after the poor woman's life has been trashed, the courts and a growing change in public opinion will wipe the law off the books, and North Carolina will slap itself on the back for entering the modern age. You know, how many Southern Baptists seem so pleased that they decided ten years ago that blacks probably aren't inferior, so now aren't they so very forward thinking.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That is the better way to handle things.
Laws allowing people to decide which bathroom to use based on their feelings are just asking for trouble since they are impossible to judge. Pervert or true trans, who knows and since it's feelings based there is really no way (barring previous convictions) to stop one without also stopping the other. Passing a law requiring gender neutral facilities (but also allowing for gender specific where gender neutral are also present) is much better.
Forewarned is forearmed. As a parent if you know men and woman are sharing the same bathroom you may act differently when your small child has to go than if they are gender specific.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
There are such things as gender-neutral and unisex bathrooms; eliminates need for separate gender restrooms, provides appropriate privacy and is even being done by the US navy on aircraft carriers. Some minor modifications to existing bathrooms can get most to this standard. They are not expensive and actually can reduce the overall restroom footprint and maintenance requirements for separate bathrooms.
But this would get in the way of someone's old fashioned hate, so it probably is a bad idea.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Some people are fine with co-ed bathrooms. Some aren't. Offering both co-ed and segregated bathrooms sounds win-win to me, but telling people who get creeped out by that "suck it up" seems to me like over-reach by the state. If that changes in a generation or two, as it probably will, change the law then, when no one will complain.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Uh, probably not, but what crime will the pervert be committing assuming he's just looking at little girls put on their bathing suits? Will there have to be surveillance cameras and laws regulating eye position in bathrooms and changing rooms so that a tiny number of deviants can feel both special and normal?
Also a prominent Broadway composer has banned his works from being performed in NC. I'm very heartened by this; the boycott movement might actually get legs and make NC think twice.
Unfortunately, Mississippi has passed an even more egregious law than the one in NC. The Mississippi law basically makes it legal to fire LGBT people and refuse them housing.
What the hell is going on in the Bible Belt? Are these people insane?
Actually, no. Before this law was passed, North Carolina was going to gain 1200 new jobs; 400 from Paypal and 800 from whatever company you work for. Now, they're only getting 800, because the other 400 are going somewhere else.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
A lot of transsexuals never have "the surgery", whatever you think "the surgery" is. But they still look like the gender they present as and would be far more at home in a washroom that matches their gender expression than one that matches their genitalia.
For example, the NC law would force this man to use the women's restroom. And it would force this woman to use the men's room.
And what's even more ironic is that while male-to-female transsexuals are pretty much all over the map as far as sexual orientation goes, the vast majority of female-to-male transsexuals are attracted to women, so they've just been thrown a license to party in the ladies' room!
The same crime he was always convicted of.
Let's imagine for a moment a female sex predator sneaking a peak at young girls in a women's washroom, or a male sex predator doing the same in a men's washroom. Are you saying these individuals cannot be prosecuted because they have the right bits under their clothes?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
OK, if "any pervert" can claim that, please cite cases. Many jurisdictions (Ontario, Canada; California, USA, etc.) have similar non-discrimination ordinances like the one struck down in Charlotte. Ontario has had it for almost 4 years.
Find a case of "any pervert" abusing the law by pretending to be transgender. Go on. Try.
I live in a place with a population of over 10 million and a "use the bathroom you identify with" law. There have been no problems since the law was introduced 4 years ago. I mean zero, none, nada.
There are women, who were born women... who just happen to have XY chromosomes and a genetic insensitivity to the androgens that that Y chromosome produces, so they develop as female anyway.
And there XXY in men, women and intersex people ... Yup in complex systems all sorts of things can go wrong. But this is beside the point which was that gender is inherently mental (in contradistinction to sex which is matter, your objection to the word 'chromosome' notwithstanding).
It's rare, but it happens, and if you pin sex to chromosomes, you end up having to call such people male; and also say that most of the time we have no fucking idea what sex anybody is.
Oh I don't mind being wrong on rare occasions. :) I don't follow what you mean about "most of the time" though, nearly all of the time genetics and anatomy work out just fine.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
At this point why not make all restrooms communal or unisex?
OMG!!! That would be just like being on an airplane!
So your wife has bought into the bullshit fear-mongering. Lucky you and lucky her.
What crime will a pervert be committing assuming he's just looking at little boys putting on their bathing suits? Or is that OK because he's got a penis too?
If someone is gawking at kids or other adults in a bathroom, then there's a problem. What sex they are is irrelevant.
On the other hand if some transgendered person goes into a stall in the women's bathroom and minds their own business like we'd expect anybody using a public bathroom to do then honestly I don't understand the problem.
Most doctors are required by law for you to take a long bunch of psych evaluations over many months by several different physiologists before they even start you on your hormone therapy. That would have to be one dedicated perv.
No-one's asking you to participate in anything. If you go into a public washroom and you encounter a transgender person there, here's my survival guide:
Step 1: Ignore him or her and go about your business.
Step 2: See Step 1.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
All good then. Gender != Sex. Sex is what is between your legs. Gender is not known until the child has identified with one. It can't be known at birth.
Indeed, similar situation here. Also in debt up to my eyeballs from all the bills related to doctor and endocrinologist appointments.
If anyone ever tells you being trans is easy, they're lying or grossly misinformed.
Birth gender is not as cut and dry as most people think. There are many many people who had gender assignment surgery just after birth, to make the child meet the physical standards of being a male or female. From wiki, Sex Assignment:
- In approximately 1 in 2,000 infants, there is enough variation in the appearance of the external genitalia to merit hesitation about appropriate assignment by the physician involved.
- Before the 1950s, assignment was based almost entirely on the appearance of the external genitalia. Although physicians recognized that there were conditions in which the apparent secondary sexual characteristics could develop contrary to the person's sex, and conditions in which the gonadal sex did not match that of the external genitalia, their ability to understand and diagnose such conditions in infancy was too poor to attempt to predict future development in most cases.
Not only that, you may have had re-assigment surgery, and never been told. Before the 1990's:
- Non-disclosure of the intersex condition to the individual on whom sex assignment treatment was conducted.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Inn Seattle, just after a LGBT friendly law was passed a man walked into a women's changing room at a pool and undressed in front of young girls. He was wearing standard men's clothing and after swimming he returned to the dressing room and repeated the process. At no point were any police called because he said he 'identified' as female and the staff were unable to prove otherwise. He was told he could use a separate room but he refused and they were not legally allowed to force him.
It's not going to happen everywhere but with 'feelings' based laws there is little anyone can do about it unless the person has prior sexual convictions and then they would most likely be in violation of something else besides these laws.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender - He didn't get off scott-free but that doesn't undo the damage he's done
You do realize that most of the South is going to pass these laws, right? And having locations in the South is much cheaper. So you're going to find that most corporations will just move from one state to another. Sorry, but that's corporations for you. Fine taking a stand until they have to lose money and explain it to the stockholders.
No they're not--or at least if they do, the laws won't last long. The laws are blatantly unconstitutional and there's a 90%+ chance they won't survive a challenge at the appellate level in a federal court anywhere in the country.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
Two points:
1. You fully have the right to live your life as you see fit.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
So you want to play girl. Fine, you go for it, I doubt the vast majority of people care. I know I don't.
But if you were born a man, then you need to go in the men's room. You likely are no threat to my wife or daughter, but they can't know that, now can they? How exactly do they tell the difference between you and someone just pretending to be you?
Answer: They can't. It may not be "fair" to you, but your right to live your life as you wish ends when it impacts their ability to feel safe in a public restroom.
Seattle, a couple weeks after a similar law was passed there a man, dressed in standard men's clothing, entered a women's changing room at a pool and proceeded to get changed in front of young girls (I do not believe he got completely naked). When asked to leave he simply stated the law says he could choose to use the women's room and the staff at the pool were unable to prove otherwise so he was allowed to remain and even return for a later swim.
In Toronto, a man was charged with sexual assault and jailed as a dangerous offender after using the transgender claim to gain access to a women's shelter. While this happened just prior to the law in Ontario passing, shelter's in the Toronto region used similar standards at the time when permitting men access to female areas. His word was enough.
Those were two semi-high profile cases but most cases of abuse of these types of laws wouldn't be reported since police wouldn't be involved. You can't be charged with a crime when they only evidence you're guilty is you own feelings on the issue. There's also the fact that in many cases victims wouldn't even know they were victimized if all the person wanted to do was peep.
I have no problem with gender neutral washrooms and if legislation is required would prefer that to these types of "do what you feel" type laws. Laws that are intentionally written to be gray are, in general, just bad legislation.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
No one is talking about the baby changing station. Think about it. You're a guy. People already look at you funny if you're with your own child and the mother is elsewhere. Now you can't even use the baby changing station, because it's in the women's restroom.
Or maybe you can, after all, people understand right? Baby needs a new diaper. It's obvious. So you take a chance. You go in, and a nice lady inside smiles at you because she finds the image of a young father with a baby adorable. And so you're in there, changing the babies diaper, you come out and...
You're surrounded by cops, (or worse, Asset Protection.) Wait, what?
Onlookers, confused, and trying to fill in the missing data, assume the worst. Because it would be asinine (but correct) to assume it has to do with your chromosomes, they make more reasonable assumptions like, "he stole a baby," and "he's a peeping tom."
Welcome fathers, to the future! You're now officially a creep until proven otherwise.
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
There is no difference. It's called 'autogynephilia', meaning that these so-called "transsexuals" get off on being treated as women. They make other people reluctant props for their own sexual arousal. Stuff like this used to be considered extreme anti-social behavior.
When you ditch morals and discernment, all bets are off.
No one is asking you to give up your morals. Just don't use the Bible or the law as a fig leaf to justify your hatred towards your fellow citizen.
If we as a society weren't irrationally concerned with people seeing other people's bodies outside narrowly defined, culturally relative bounds of acceptability, that would be a complete non-issue.
There are nudist colonies where children of any sex can see adults of every sex all the time and they're not psychologically traumatized by it.
There are and always have been societies around the world where all sorts of people routinely see all sorts of people naked and nobody fucking cares.
Our culture's hangups about what parts of which sex have to be covered by what garment is just a slightly lesser version of the same ideas that lead to mandatory burkas in Islamic countries.
The law should not mandate anything about clothing except where it might be a public health concern (e.g. the kinds of places where hairnets or gloves or whatnot are mandated).
Laws about clothing are the "feelings" based laws in the first place. Oh noes, you're offended by the sight of someone's body; or worse, by someone else's sight of someone else's body! Who fucking cares. You're free to be offended and to shame or disassociate from such people as you like, free speech and association and all that, culture's going to do what culture does and if naked people are uncool, whatever; but they should be legally free to dress (or not) as they like, because it's not harming anyone.
Also, bathrooms should all be unisex (as far as the law is concerned) for similar reasons, except in that case who the hell's genitals are visible to other people even in a bathroom? (At least without going to creepy, obvious efforts to look at them, which should be as much a problem for cis men creeping each other in the men's room as transwomen creeping other women in the women's room... not that it's even really possible in a women's room, since there are no urinals and toilet seats get private stalls).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
you know, year after year I come back here to post a snarky comment and read some stupid commentary.
even thought i tell myself i should spend that 10 minutes a day more usefully.
but this is too much. idiotic back and forth about restroom use and laws clearly to appeal to
idiots who think the whole men dressing up as women thing is just too icky
not coming back. there is in actuality nothing left to see here.
And if he doesn't have any convictions and doesn't do anything demonstrably wrong, a pedophile is free to change in a room full of little boys -- as always.
I don't see how any reasonable non-evil person can argue that the safety advantage of preventing the hundreds of actual violent attacks on transgender people forced to use their legal gender restroom is negated by one perv in Seattle changing in the women's room. Come back when you have a long list of women assaulted or murdered and we can have a reasonable debate about which way is safer.
This space intentionally left blank
And how often do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it is irrational to punish all trans because very infrequently, some asshole takes advantage of the changed rules?
All liberties can be abused, and to some point they can be abused in such a way that there is precious little anyone can do about them. That's hardly an argument for revoking liberties for everyone. Punishing every trans person because some asshole wants to show off doesn't strike me as a very wise or desirable use of state power.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It may surprise you to learn that there's nothing that keeps men from going into women's restrooms to attack women in North Carolina either, whether dressed as women or not. The attack is against the law anywhere, and someone wishing to attack is not going to be stopped by a sign that says "do not enter" because what they're planning to do is already far, far more illegal than going into the wrong restroom is.
The only safety issue involved is for the transwoman who is in mortal danger (have a look at the stats) if forced to go into the men's restroom where they stick out like a sore thumb to every opportunistic violent bigot.
This space intentionally left blank
That's because this isn't about bathroom privacy or about protecting children, it's about imposing social and religious views out of step with the times. Since a trans woman is going to go into a bathroom stall just like a woman born to that gender, can you explain how anyone's privacy has been breached? And with the current state of gender reassignment surgery for trans men, it isn't likely to often be a problem for men.
You can certainly try to hide your bigotry behind some flimsy wall of privacy and decency, but it doesn't really hold up. Trans women forced to use men's washrooms are going to be at pretty significant risks in some areas, and since they aren't actually bothering you at all, why exactly do you feel your non-right to not feel icky should overwhelm their very legitimate concerns and liberties. What is it you think is going to happen in that stall beside you?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Remember: Far more senators have been arrested for sexual crimes in bathrooms than trans people using the bathroom of their identity.
Let's pass laws banning politicians from public restrooms and THEN worry about whether there're actually any issues with the trans community.
No, I think just a hetro bathroom and an everyone else bathroom should cover it. Maybe now they'll make stall doors without the obligatory 2" gap around them.
Nullius in verba
How exactly do you propose to make the law pertain to only the good people and ignore the bad ? Do you have any answer to this besides some fantasy view of the world as being full of perfect people who will do no harm? I have not seen an answer to this question, and very much doubt you have one. In fact in you just falsely claimed that my reasoning about your poor decision is based on "panic", when in fact I spelled out exactly what the problem with a law in of this nature is.
If people were only worried about the use of the rest room as you just attempted to claim then there is no need for the government to force people to accept the minority view. I can not find one instance of a woman being arrested for using the men's room without other circumstances (drunk, drugs, violent). Men are not running around threatening women with lawsuits if they happen to be transgender and using the men's room.
Alternatively, I have seen is women *rightly* complain that they feel threatened by women that appeared to be very masculine using their rest room. So this law does the exact opposite of protecting woman. Women will be _MORE_ at risk with a law of this nature.
So answer the point I addressed instead of making more false claims and ad hominem and fallacy. Surprise me with reason and logic instead of providing the expected trolling we normally see from SJWs and shills.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Perhaps they will, but as others have pointed out,perverted men who like to look at boys aren't permitted by current laws, so it boils down to depriving all trans of the use of the washroom of the gender they identify with because some pervert might try to use it to get a peek.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
PayPal seems to have no trouble doing business there. What are Saudi Arabian bathroom policies like? How are LGBT rights doing there?
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
That's not quite 100%, though. If your chromosomes and dangly bits agree, though (which is almost everyone), use that restroom or you'll be creeping out the womenfolk.
There is no situation that avoids the creep-out factor though.
Birth gender = Men creeped out by shemale trannies, women creeped out by bodybuilder trannies
Mental gender = Men creeped out by bodybuilder trannies, women creeped out by shemale trannies
Third toilet = Trannies freaked out by each other
So maybe people could just learn to not get freaked out by other humans and the problem will go away?
It may surprise you to learn that there's nothing that keeps men from going into women's restrooms to attack women in North Carolina either, whether dressed as women or not.
It may surprise you to learn that you completely and totally miss the point.
If a man walks into a woman's bathroom, she has every right to feel unsafe and expect him to leave. If not, either the law can get involved and arrest him or she can defend herself. Or leave, if leaving is an option.
What she should NOT have to do is guess... guess "is this a man who feels like a woman, or a man who is up to no good".
The problem with "guessing" is that she has to wait until he does something bad. By then it is too late.
As it stands now, by his mere presence, he has made himself a thread and she can respond accordingly.
The attack is against the law anywhere
Do you always wait for someone to attack before deciding if they are a threat or not?
The only safety issue involved is for the transwoman who is in mortal danger (have a look at the stats) if forced to go into the men's restroom where they stick out like a sore thumb to every opportunistic violent bigot.
Sadly, you're wrong... but since you're not a woman, you don't understand that.
The solution is to create stalls; stalls for urinals and stalls for showers. Frankly I hate public showers, mainly because I'm an overly bloated middle aged guy that all the jocks mock, sometimes openly. I'd gladly use a shower co-ed show facility where everyone had privacy. That way, whether the person next to you was a man, a woman, a trans man, a trans woman, a ten year old or a ninety year old, would be irrelevant. If privacy is the real concern here (which it isn't, I think even the supporters of this law know perfectly well that it is a smokescreen for legalized discrimination) then the solution isn't three types of bathrooms, it's one type of bathroom with more privacy.
As it happens, I'm seeing more urinal stalls in public facilities all the time, which is nice, because why should urinating be somehow a less private act than defecating?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
there are many people with a penis that would look entirely inappropriate in a boys room.
Yes, probably, but boys can generally defend themselves, or should be able to...
Triple that against girlie men...
The issue is women's bathrooms, not mens...
Here in West Hollywood
Well there is your first problem...
Do you think Saudi Arabia should set the standards of conduct in the US?
No, it isn't. We have separate public toilets as a remnant of a policy of excluding women from public life and enforcing class divisions. Female public toilets did not exist until the early 20th century and were still rare well into the 20th century.
Additional fun facts: In West Virginia, women were barred from jury service until 1956 because courthouses didn't have female toilets. In the US Capitol building, there were no toilets for female senators until 1992.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
And you don't think a judge can't tell the difference between a genuine transexual and a pervert?
Irrelevant. The judge will rule based on what the law says; if the guy says "I identify as female", the judge is not allowed to go "Oh no you don't", the prosecution has to provide proof that the person did not, at the time of the offence, identify as female. This is clearly impossible.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If a man walks into a woman's bathroom, she has every right to feel unsafe and expect him to leave. If not, either the law can get involved and arrest him or she can defend herself. Or leave, if leaving is an option.
Or mind her own business until someone does something genuinely threatening to her. That's an option too; the correct one. Her irrational fear of someone just because of their sex does not justify assault, and especially does not justify state-aided assault, abduction, and confinement.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Show me in the law where there is discriminating. Not someone telling you that it is discriminating, but the actual portion of the law which is discriminating. The majority of the bill is defining what exceptions exist for the use of the bathroom by someone of the "other" gender. The only complaint I can find (not the hysterics and ranting) is that people are legally restricted to the restroom matching their biological gender, and that local ordinances can not nullify or supersede the law. That last part being painted as nefarious and unconstitutional ignores the fact that nearly every State Law does this same thing. Your city can not pass a law reducing the drinking age to 12, or make it's local speed limits 200MPh, or allow 9 year old kids to get married, legalize heroin injection, etc.. etc... because the State Law is written to prevent usurpation by lower levels of Government. Federal laws prohibit States from usurping their power too. In other words, it is not only Constitutional for the State to claim exclusive powers but nearly boilerplate in the bill writing process at the State and Federal level.
If you are going to point to Section III, and the use of the term "biological sex" I have to ask WTF? If a transgender woman wanted to teach physical education to boys they can not be discriminated against due to being a biological woman. That wording is not discriminating, it's inclusive. If your complaint is that they didn't also call out every possible politically correct term we can find for gender then you are extremely short sighted. That level of detail would be discriminatory if they did not also call out every possible religion, ethnicity, handicap, etc..
The people complaining about a transgender person using the rest room are not men. As I said below in a different comment I can not find a single case of a woman being criminally charged for using the men's room without additional circumstances and charges (drunk, narcotics, violence, criminal trespassing/vandalism, etc..). Transgender does not make a difference, there are simply no charges I can find being filed, and no law suits to stop a person that I can find either. You may be able to find the 7-leaf clover, but that is not indicative of a systemic problem requiring legal protection.
I can find plenty of cases where men are arrested for being in the woman's bathroom. There is a pretty even split between transgender men and perverts in a brief search. So who are you trying to protect exactly? The men who are the subject of the overwhelming majority of the complaints benefit, not the women attempt to portray as needing the protection.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Or mind her own business until someone does something genuinely threatening to her.
A man walking into a woman's restroom is doing just that.
First she says "excuse me, you're in the ladies room".
Normal men will say "oh gosh, so sorry, and rush out the door in embarrassment".
Men up to no good will not. Those are the threats.
Her irrational fear of someone just because of their sex does not justify assault, and especially does not justify state-aided assault, abduction, and confinement.
No, you're wrong and mistaken...
What you are actually saying is that if a man were to walk into her home, where he doesn't belong, then she shouldn't assume he is a "bad guy" until he actually touches her.
She feels threatened by a man in a place he does not belong, when asked to leave, he refuses. Self-defense is justified at that point.
Transgender does not mean that a person has been reassigned. A person being reassigned changes their biological sex, not to be confused with their sexual orientation.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Discrimination sucks too, but PayPal is like a used car salesman who mated with the return line at walmart.
People claiming this is some outrageous act by the State ignore that nearly every State Law has the same wording. This is done to prevent lower Governments from usurping State power. Federal law does the same thing, to prevent States from usurping their power.
If people want to complain about State authority that's fine, but demand that you can have laws like a local drinking age of 18 and legalize drinking while driving and open containers. State law will negate any local laws regarding that subject, and if you believe otherwise let me know how jail feels.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Normal men will say "oh gosh, so sorry, and rush out the door in embarrassment".
Men up to no good will not. Those are the threats.
Firstly: no, just being there is not itself threatening, not nearly enough to warrant violence. There could be many reasons for a man to be in a women's restroom on purpose; just one example someone else gave in this thread is they may have a baby in need of changing and the men's room may lack a baby changing station. Or, an example I've seen myself, they may have a daughter who needs help using the bathroom; would you rather the little girl have to go to the men's room, than her daddy help her in the women's room? Or maybe their daughter went in to use the room by herself and hasn't been hear from since, and the father is checking in to make sure she's OK and still in there and didn't slip past him outside and get lost. I'm sure you can come up with more scenarios yourself. Point is, unless the guy's response to "this is the women's room, why are you here?" is to glare menacingly at the woman's breasts or something, just being in there is not in and of itself a threat to anyone.
Secondly, and correct me if I misunderstood you, but you seem to be lumping transwomen in as "men" (for being biologically male), in which case, they are not "up to no good", they are using the bathroom where they're less likely to get beaten up by homophobic neanderthals. This, the very case under discussion, is in itself a counterexample against the notion of any biological male in the women's room on purpose being "up to no good", which you're trying to use to keep exactly these not-up-to-no-good people from using the bathroom where they feel safest.
Thirdly, say a transman (born biologically female, on androgens and looks and acts and identifies as male now) walks into a women's room. Should the women there feel threatened because he looks like a man, or is it all fine because he's genetically female? Note that this law in question now requires that he use the women's room, where, I expect, you will say it's justified for the women there to assault him, for doing as the law mandates.
What you are actually saying is that if a man were to walk into her home...
That's her home. Sex and gender have nothing to do with it at that point, she has every right to control who is or isn't in her home and enforce that as necessary. You are begging the question if you say the cisgender people in public restrooms have that same right to determine who shares the bathroom with them; the question at hand is precisely who does or doesn't belong in what bathroom, and leaving it up to the cisgender masses is basically condoning a public mob to chase trans people out of every bathroom with the threat of violence.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH. Which means it doesn't matter if you've had the surgery.
False.
North Carolina transgender law: Is it discriminatory?
Stam: "In North Carolina, you can have your birth certificate changed if you do reassignment surgery. It has been reported several places that we said it's your sex as designated at birth (that government agencies will use to define who can use bathrooms or changing facilities). And that is not correct. ... It's not what you are at birth. It's based on your birth certificate, which can be changed."
--------
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
That would only be true if there were "massive" numbers of "trans" people, which there isn't. Even homosexual only comprise about 1.5% of the population and they are more common.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
... German Rails are marking some trains compartments as women-only. I wonder if I'm allowed to use it when I'm bigender. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-women-transportation-idUSKCN0WX2F2)
Why not simply have unisex bathrooms? I suppose there are some practical reasons - women tend, on average, to take longer in the bathroom, or perhaps more accurately, men are quicker, because they have the option to use the pissoir. Maybe a balanced solution would be to have a toilet to be shared by both genders, with a separate pissoir to offload the men into, leaving more capacity for women.
So why was nobody upset enough to call the police? Maybe you should look into that. Perhaps the incident has some more details you did not describe.
Police and Judges are very much focussed on fact. They would tend to have 'feelings' that they should apply indecency laws that are on the books if the fact is relayed to them that a man undressed in front of young girls.
To state what should be obvious - if a guy wearing a dress goes into the wrong mens room at the wrong time they will get the utter shit beaten out of them. That's the sad situation that seems to be deliberately ignored in this thread and others.
It's not really about gender here but whether people should be forced to take that sort of risk or not.
That didn't work with the Olympics. One athlete who failed a female sex test in the 1970s later went on to give birth to three children.
This is a weird dog whistle bigot law anyway so there is no point overthinking it. They just want the men in dresses they don't like to get beaten up when they go out in public.
Other laws are still on the books so if intent can be shown they can still be charged with those other laws. Not cracking down on those who are not perverts doesn't mean giving up on the perverts.
That reeks incredibly strongly of bullshit.
You can be ejected from commercial premises if the staff do not want you there, they do not have to justify it by citing a law. No shoes no service. Nobody has a "right" to walk into any shop and not be asked to leave if they annoy the people responsible for running the place.
But if you were born a man, then you need to go in the men's room
Christ alive you're an idiot. You would not be able to tell the difference between a post-op transgender person and a person born with that gender. So now by your own idiotic hard and fast rules, people who look more or less indistinguishable from men (with beards, baldness, testosterone fueled muscles and everything) have to go into the woman's changing room.
And how do you deal with people who were just flat out misidentified on their birth certificate? Rare but it's not unknown.
The world is subteler than your silly black and white view.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
THAT is why we have separate bathrooms
As a European living in a country where it's normal for strange men and women to join each other completely naked in heated rooms you Americans provide us with no end of amusement.
At this point why not make all restrooms communal or unisex?
This is the only remotely interesting or relevant part of your post.
My wife *just* found out about this.
Her exact words 'Oh that will take about 1 second for some pervo to take advantage of that'
Basically stalker pervos (and they exist) will just go into the wrong bathrooms to get their jollies. Then claim 'oh I dont identify that way' and get off scott free. THAT is why we have separate bathrooms.
'no no honey its ok there is a 40 year old man in that bathroom watching you'.
C'mon, she should know better. What's with the idea women's toilets are a utopia where women run naked in the fields or something? They're marginally less grotty than ours, they go in, do their business in a stall then wash their hands (probably) and leave. There could be an woman, man or alien taking a dump in the stall next to them and they would be oblivious.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I'm cool with gay marriage and LBGTWTF rights and all, but I think that this is ridiculous. If you have a penis, use the boys room. If you don't you'll make everyone else in the womens room uncomfortable. Once you get your penis chopped off and a vagina installed, you can use the girls room.
Why? If you look like a woman but still have your male junk and go in the women's, you'd go into a stall before getting anything out and no one else in there would be any the wiser. It's not like they come in, piss in the sink, flip everyone off and walk out squeezing tits and ass on the way.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Turns out, you can. The magic is medicine, surgery and money. Are you advocating he TSA or whoever take over public restrooms too and you have to submit your birth certificate and to a junk check before you can take a piss?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So Young Children Should be exposed to naked Adults. You are Familiar with out puritan forefathers?
But it is Not The Issue. In Fact it is Not a Pre-Op Transgender issue. It is the Non-Transgender people (and Teens on a dare) That will Abuse the law for a free peek.
Do you see many guys hanging out naked in the toilets flapping their junk around for all to see? No? What makes you think women do that then?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Actually, that is exactly what the law does, It criminalizes policies against discrimination.
Yes? The Seattle case was done as a stunt by a guy specifically protesting the law.
The Toronto case, as you say, happened even before the law existed... so not having the law offers women no protection whatsoever.
OK, now please tell us: In that time period, how many women were assaulted or harassed by "normal" guys who didn't claim to be trans? Hint: In Canada alone, over 400,000 per year.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
When I go to the ladies' room, I'm not trampling anyone's rights. What the hell are you talking about?
I've had precisely one comment from a woman in a public washroom. And her comment was: "I really like your necklace."
And secondly: You and your ilk do not have the right to force me to risk my safety. You do not have the right to make it legal to deny LGBT people housing or employment.
A man walking into a woman's restroom is doing just that.
Yes, except I'm not a man. Do you agree, then, with the NC law that will force this guy to use the ladies' room? Oh? You forgot there are female-to-male trans people?
You conveniently ignore the fact that that incident took place before Toby's bill was passed giving trans people protection. So lack of a law offer no protection at all.
or we could euthanize all transexuals.
I just wish everywhere would get rid of urinals, I prefer to pee in private, thanks. My ideal scenario is one where - instead of pairs of restrooms with stalls/sinks/urinals - places just had a row of individual rooms each containing a sink and a toilet.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH.
Ever heard of 'born again'? Hallelujah! Praise the lewd!
FTFY
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-rules-abercrombie-fitch-discriminated-against-muslim-woman-over-338191
So I must be a bad parent then. I don't really care who my children shower with in a group setting, it's healthy for children to see the different anatomies and it's actually a bad parent that would want to shape their children in any particular religious connotations of sexuality. Your kids will find out eventually what the bits are for and in your world view they won't be educated or ready for it when their body and hormones are ready for it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I thought "the core of PayPal's mission and culture" was to make money?
NC is practically begging the Federal government to intervene. It's Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States all over again.
Announces in: Mar 18, 2016 we are opening a call center, about same time bill gets introduced.
Paypal, now says they are not opening it, odd the timing on this whole thing. 400 callcenter jobs at 10-12 bucks an hour? Call centers are crap jobs. Double crap announcements and attempts to manipulate.
But there is no way, whatsoever, that I will now or ever support a law that allows a [...]former man to be allowed in a public bathroom with my daughter when she's old enough to go into the ladies room alone.
Why on earth not?
I support LGBT but I'm no more trusting of a transgender than a perverted uncle.
In other words you don't support transgender people because you think they're untrustworthy scum.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Really I can't believe there are so few of these in the first world. Nobody wants to hear you taking a dump and you don't want to hear them. Just do it, it would solve all the problems. About locker rooms, if you want to use one in public it's your call. Go where you want and know that anyone else can do the same, it's up to you if you want to use it or not. They have stalls in there. I don't see the problem, changing rooms are all close to each other in clothes stores, anyone could be in there, no big deal.
Twinstiq, game news
wrong, any pervert can now claim "he's feeling like a woman and soon to undergo various stages of transition"
This is ultimately why we have a legal system which puts tricky cases in front of actual real humans (judge and jury) rather than blindily sticking to ill fitting rules.
these LGBT-nazis are trampling on women's rights in this and other matters
Yeah well those race equalities nazis are trampling on women's rights to keep black women out of their bathrooms. /sarcasm
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So maybe people could just learn to not get freaked out by other humans and the problem will go away?
Hasn't happened in the past million years. Biology is a harsh mistress
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
found the bigot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
because pervs were just waiting for permission from law to be pervs?
idiot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
there is little anyone can do about it
About what? Someone minding their own business in a change room? Or did the person actually do something wrong other than have a penis?
Bigger question is, who is going to check for my dick when I enter the ladies room? Who's going to test me? Who is going to know wtf gender I am. The whole pecker check thing wouldn't work either because well, some females have them which makes the male...I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of transgender, but I also do not give a flying shit about what bathroom people use.
Unisex bathrooms. We must get out of this cultural mind set that males/females (traditional view) use separate restrooms. If you want to watch me push shit out of my body and get off on it, you have bigger issues than worrying about if the person next to you was born a man or a woman.
Yes, the judge is allowed to test a defendant's claims. You're just trying to invoke spurious objections.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
NC is a very "purple" state and not homogeneous by any measure. Not just the RTP triangle, but Charlotte, Asheville, and Wilmington are huge areas where people are quite socially liberal, and those 4 alone make up over half the population of the state. I live in Charlotte, and people in Charlotte tend to be particularly annoyed when Raleigh craps on things Charlotte wants to do, particularly in terms of funding and policy, as Charlotte is the largest metropolitan area in the state.
I'm confident that this legislation will eventually be overturned, but it makes me angry because it does scare away open-minded people and businesses who might want to live in this state. Charlotte is currently undergoing a real estate boom and things are going great, it would suck for our economy to struggle because of politicians.
So your argument boils down to that you think this person should be forced to use the female bathroom because they were "born female": https://metrouk2.files.wordpre...
It may surprise you to learn that you completely and totally miss the point.
You are missing the point because you are focusing on such a specific scenario because it's the only one that supports your argument. A rapist could easily hide in a bathroom and wait for someone to show up - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily enter a bathroom after someone has already gone in - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily do a dozen other things that aren't made any less difficult by allowing transgender people to fully be their gender in society.
Also, here's an unintended consequence of the laws you are defending (look at the tweet after the first two paragraphs).
your ignorance is astounding.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Did I say they were scum or were those your words?
You said they were no more trustworthy than a perverted uncle. In other words, scum, unless you have unusually high opinions of perverted uncles.
Lack of trust does not equate to scum and no, I wasn't try to make an association fallacy argument.
Except you were associating them with sucmmy people. You could have said "no more trustworthy than any random other person", except you didn't. You said no more trustworthy than skeezy scummy people who one generally keeps away from one's kids.
Because I'm not interested in taking away a woman's right to privacy
Ah so you're happy violating the transgendered person's right to privacy by forcing them to identify their birth gender when to all appearances they are not of it.
And how does, for example, a post op MTF using a private stall with a locked door violate the right of privacy of some woman in another stall?
providing perverted uncles with a loophole to enter a woman's bathroom anytime they want
This alleged "loophole" has existed since forever and yet has not proven a problem. So basically, you're inventing problems and then mdemanding that a minority has a harder time of it to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
That makes you a bad person.
Man up, hike up your skirt, and piss in the urinal like God meant for you to.
If you believe in Jesus, then love thy neighbour, motherfucker and stop being a dick about it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And how often do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it is irrational to punish all legal gun owners because very infrequently, some asshole takes advantage of the changed rules? All liberties can be abused, and to some point they can be abused in such a way that there is precious little anyone can do about them. That's hardly an argument for revoking liberties for everyone. Punishing every legal gun owner because some asshole wants to show off doesn't strike me as a very wise or desirable use of state power.
Your argument fraudulently conflates "child molester" with "pedophile", and then uses that argue that LGBT positions are all immoral.
There is simply no argument in support of the currently popular pervs that does not equally apply to all other pervs, as long as somebody can claim consent was involved.
Yes, and? You may see it as a slippery slope into hell, but I see it as a positive progression towards liberty for all.
Unisex bathrooms immediately fix this problem. No law needed. I agree with you.
why is it not surprising that youre sexist too?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
Too bad you don't follow your own advice and insist on denying a minority equal rights under law.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"Myths vs Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren't saying about common-sense privacy law"
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/myths-vs-facts-what-new-york-times-huffington-post-and-other-media-outlets-arent-0
Of course, the validity of it's assertions is still in question, but it seems relevant to your statement. Particularly the part that says, "this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government’s." It will be interesting to see how things play out over time.
So you mean the law is wrong and the majority agree?
http://abc7.com/archive/9102790/
This article is from 2013 and the perpetrator was using a disguised camera. Legalizing such behaviour, in the absence of a camera, doesn't seem to be likely to decrease the chance of such abuses. Additionally, a campus is an unlikely place for such things to occur as students are typically governed by a code of conduct. Just as corporate bathrooms are unlikely to suffer such abuse. Truly public bathrooms however wouldn't have that issue for the would-be pervert abusing society's good will.
Overall I think this could be remedied by moving to single occupant rest rooms and doing away with gender designations on them. While that last bit is unnecessary it would make the subject of gender in regards to rest rooms moot.
Haha! A bad person? Seriously? Are you shivering with anger in a cubicle somewhere? I love how you have lost control of your ability to control your emotions on this one. Hit a sore spot? An angry inch? I also love how you've ignored everything else that I've written...sorry if my support of LGBT rights not including taking a dump anywhere they isn't quite enough for you =) But then again, you are just trolling because you've made no effort to change my opinion.
Want equality? Promote the creation of unisex bathrooms. Someone else posted about the great effort made in Hollywood. Want to lose momentum on the fantastic strides we've made over the past few years with marriage equality, benefits, and similar advancements? Keep on trucking with letting men in the women's room. You don't have to like my opinion but you sure aren't making a positive effort on changing my mind...though you have provided me with a good laugh to start the day.
Clearly, you are unaware of 'judicial activism.'
Well, heck there weren't really indoor toilets until the early 20th century, so that makes perfect sense. I don't understand your logic.
I'm not a Genetics-Denier like you. A man who undergoes a transgender operation is still a man. I call him a transgendered man because he's had the operation to become a genetic male mutilated to look like a woman.
We could just call most of them extreme eunuchs. It would more accurately describe the situation.
..after the state passed a controversial law targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens. As opposed to addressing the concerns of the other 98% of the public ?? lol This is why I hate the media. It's like there's a bunch of legislators sitting in a room trying to figure out how to screw over a section of the public. Yeah Right ! If I see the wrong person in a bathroom I'd just leave. No biggie. Now if there was only another internet pay co I could switch to...
Too bad you don't follow your own advice and insist on denying a minority equal rights under law.
When that minority wants rights that will trample on the majority, then they aren't asking for equal rights, they are asking for special rights that only apply to them and ignore everyone else.
> every one of their customers and make sure their values aligned with PayPal's and seize their funds if not?
Paypal already did that, in 2003. They didn't bother to interrogate the customers, though, they just seized your account based on suspicion and wouldn't talk to you about it, wouldn't tell you what they suspected you of or why. The secondary effects caused problems for a significant portion of all online businesses.
In 2003, Facebook and Netflix didn't exist yet, Yahoo got more traffic than Google, and the web commerce wasn't yet ubiquitous, except for porn sites. In fact, 70% of the money in online commerce was related to adult sites. Paypal had just been purchased by eBay.
First, Paypal decided to change their written policy and not allow Paypal to be used for any adult products or services (aka porn sites). That was a bit disruptive, but they would certainly within their rights to do that. They then ran "dirty word" searches through all of the transaction comments and email addresses for all payments and seized the accounts of anyone who had payments which included suspect words. So if you were selling Wordpress themes plugins or plugins and someone bought your theme for use on nakedcheerleaders.com, they might use their support@nakedcheerleaders.com email address for payment, or they might put "For installation on nakedcheerleaders.com" in the comment box. Paypal's database query would see naked cheerleaders, mark you as "suspected porn" and lock down your account. Funds for withheld for six months, as I recall.
Remember at the time not everyone and their dog had an e-commerce site at the time. About 70% of all the money flowing on the internet was porn related, so almost everyone selling hosting, CGI and PHP scripts, themes, SEO, graphic design, clipart, etc all had adult sites as customers. Suppose you're selling clip art; not only does your Paypal account get with your funds get snatched, the same thing happens to your customers, so they don't have access to their funds and can't pay you. Therefore you can't pay your web host. He would like to be patient and understanding, but the same thing happened to 40% of his customers and he has to pay his bill for datacenter space - he needs some of his customers to pay him or he'll be in deep shit. The funny / tragic thing was sometimes the web host (Zing Hosting) owes the marketing guy, the marketing guy owes the graphics guy and the graphics guy needs to pay his hosting bill, where he's hosted with Zing Hosting. A can't pay B until he's paid by C, and C can't pay A until he's paid by B. It was a real problem for a month or two. In some cases, people managed follow the trial of who owed who, unwinding the 'net economy, and resolve unpaid bills with nothing but an email, like this one:
Anna owes Bob
Bob owes Charlie
Charlie owes Dan.
Dan owes Anna.
Please deduct $100 from all of the above bills - Anna is sending the $100 IOU to Dan, who is sending it to Charlie, who is sending it Bob, who is sending it back to Anna.
Come to think of it, I could have helped a lot of people made some money by doing so at the time. I should have either spent a couple hours putting together an account reconciliation database which would find cycles as above and issue "paid" notices, or issued digital payment IOUs/"poker chips" as I did once before.
In an earlier life I issued physical poker chips which I guaranteed that I would exchange for cash within 24 hours of demand. Because of my reputation in the community/clique, my chips circulated as payment for a occasionally. I could have done the same online in 2003, possibly stating I would pay the recipient of the chip 7 days after they got that chip. That would give them incentive to try to pass the chip along as payment to someone else right away, rather than waiting 7 days for me to pay them, before they could pay whomever.
* Wordpress plugins wouldn't actually exist until 6 months later, but you get the idea.
You are missing the point because you are focusing on such a specific scenario because it's the only one that supports your argument. A rapist could easily hide in a bathroom and wait for someone to show up - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily enter a bathroom after someone has already gone in - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily do a dozen other things that aren't made any less difficult by allowing transgender people to fully be their gender in society.
Yes, a rapist can do all those things, and right now, if my wife walks in and finds such a man, she can safely assume they are either REALLY lost, or a "bad person".
But if you add transgender to that list, if a man walks in and claims to be one, is he? How does she know? Does she have to wait until it is too late to find out?
The trans person's desire to have access to the ladies room does not trump her right to be secure and safe in there.
You're trying to give him special privilege at the cost of hers.
Yes, except I'm not a man.
Were you born with a penis and YX chromosomes? If yes, then you're a man and always will be.
Were you born with a vagina and XX cromosomes? If yes, then you're a woman and always will be.
You're free to "feel" anything you like, but the rest of us don't have to create a safe space for you to do so.
Do you agree, then, with the NC law that will force this guy to use the ladies' room? Oh? You forgot there are female-to-male trans people?
People who do that have to be willing to accept that the world will forever be a challenge for them. Extreme minorities of all types are always in that place, doesn't matter what it is.
The problem for that guy is that if he walks into the ladies room, he'll have the same problem as real men would. If he walks into the men's room, likely no one will know or care.
Likewise, men who have changed into women like Caytlin Jenner likely can use the woman's room unnoticed, law or no law. Frankly she could pass me on the street and I'd probably take no notice, since I don't actually care about such things in general.
I would notice if she walked into the men's room, but since I am a man, I'm not remotely threatened by that. The reverse is not true.
It is simply women that need protecting, they are the fairer sex and a man's job is to create a world safe for women.
And that isn't sexist, I'm physically much stronger than my wife, so my job is to always treat her gently and with respect as the mother of my children and to stand between her and anything that might hurt her.
Some will call that old fashioned, but frankly it worked well for thousands of years, shame so many of you are in a hurry to give that up.
In the technical terminology that's more than twice as old as you (turning 66 this year!), "man" and "woman" are the names of social categories, while "male" and "female" are the names of biological categories. I myself have some disagreements about naming things this way (I would have coined New Latin terms-of-art instead or repurposing common English) precisely because it breeds this exact confusion (and for other reasons related to nonbinary genders), but that's how they got named and there's not much to be done about it by now.
And the need for two sets of terms is very real, and originally had nothing to do with transgender issues. Rather, the distinction was coined because there are some people, intersex people, who are not biologically male or female, but somewhere in between, and yet still get put into one of the social categories of "man" or "woman". In some cases, they are biologically much closer to the sex opposite their gender, but because they were ambiguous at birth and people feel compelled to put them into one of those two boxes they picked one, and picked wrong, and someone who's biologically much closer to female was raised as and identified as and is identified by everyone else as a man, etc.
Technically, your gender per se is that social box that other people put you into; a social property of you, a social status, like a rank or title. By that super pedantic technical standard, only passing transwomen are truly "women" (and likewise transmen); if society sees you as a gender, you are that gender, because gender is nothing but the state of how society sees you. Your gender identity on the other hand is a mental property of you, a mental state, about or regarding that social status: it's what box you would like other people to put you into, relative to the box you were put into at birth. Super pedantically technically, nobody (who knows what they're talking about) claims that "wanting to be a gender makes you that gender"; rather, being seen as a gender makes you that gender, because gender is all about how people see you. But in an effort to not be massive assholes to people, it's generally considered polite to consider people to be in the social category they would like to be considered as, even if that wouldn't be your first assumption.
Which is all a long way of saying: no, a trangendered man is not a woman who wishes she was a man. A transgendered man is a man -- someone considered by society to go in that social category -- who was not considered a boy when he was born. And if you're not an asshole, you'll put people into the imaginary social boxes that they want to be in instead of the imaginary social boxes you want them to be in, and consider a biological female who wants to be considered a man as a man, at which point he is a man... to you. He was already a man to himself. And any argument between you and him over which imaginary social box he belongs in is literally a matter of baseless social opinion, like arguing over whether the new kid is cool or not; it's entirely about nothing more than either accepting or shunning someone, so the only question is whether to be an asshole or not.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I someone sees a man going into a woman's restroom it at least draws attention. The rapists and perverts want it to become so commonplace that it doesn't attract attention and the rapist can express indignation and claim discrimination if anyone questions him.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
found the pervert
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Haha! A bad person?
Yes, you wish to use the force of law to oppress people.
Are you shivering with anger in a cubicle somewhere
Nope.
I love how you have lost control of your ability to control your emotions on this one.
I haven't lost control of anything, but I still think you are a bad person, because you wish to oppress others to make yourself feel better.
Hit a sore spot?
Nope.
An angry inch?
u wot m8?
I also love how you've ignored everything else that I've written
I read what you wrote in this chain. I'm not going to go diggring round slashdot because you're too lazy to write what you mean where it's relevant.
orry if my support of LGBT rights not including taking a dump anywhere they isn't quite enough for you
Right, you support transgender people except because of unfounded fears you want to destroy their right to privacy and force them into very difficult situations. That's called "not supporting them".
But then again, you are just trolling because you've made no effort to change my opinion.
Nope, not trolling. I don't expect you to change your opinion either, because frankly that rarely happens. Doubly so since your position is based on an emotional response to unfounded fears. My replies are more for the benefit of anyone who else might be reading.
Want equality?
Sure.
Keep on trucking with letting men in the women's room.
Right you support transgender people, but you refer to someone who's post op, dresses and otherwise appears female as a "man" even if you could not identify one if you met them.
That's called "not supporting them".
You don't have to like my opinion
Well no, because your opinion is painfully stupid, and your ideas of supporting trasgender people involves using the force of law to oppress them.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You just cherry picked a fragment to argue instead of reading a statement IN CONTEXT. Read the paragraph just prior to the sentence you plucked to complain about and then read it as a generalization as written. If you have a 7th grade English reading level there is no confusion and you understand simple language flow. You just performed more mental gymnastics this to avoid the facts which disprove your believe.
Do the work, or you are a Troll. Rational and Logical is hard, I doubt you have the fortitude to make it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
LMOL yeah that will teach them...
Still laughing! Where did the The conversation about oppression come up from? Are you trying to compare racism experienced by black Americans with being transgendered? That's hilarious. Besides, I thought we were talking about untrustworthy pervs like you and your friends wanting to use the ladies room.
Popular public opinion will not allow this to happen and black and white "rednecks" that everyone has been ripping on will never support it. People will however support unisex bathrooms.
I'll be waiting patiently for your next punchline and laughing to myself about how much time you must've spent writing it without ever reading what was written before.
It's honestly none of their business.
They're a payment method, not a surrogate PC enforcer.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Does she have to wait until it is too late to find out?
In the grand scheme of things, it makes zero difference. Your fixation on the specific scenario where your wife has an extra couple seconds to ask the rapist why they're in the washroom is really ridiculous.
You're trying to give him special privilege at the cost of hers.
Your wife's irrational (and I suspect wholly made up by you) fear of being raped by someone in a dress is the only reason she can't feel safe.
Super pedantically, gender, being a social status, is known at birth; when someone say "it's a boy/girl!" they are gendering that baby. Gender identity, which is a psychological state regarding that social status, is something that doesn't develop until later and can't be known until it's expressed.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Where did the The conversation about oppression come up from?
The bit where you're forcing them to reveal private information about themselves and put them in awkward positioons where they're much more likely to be the victims of violence just to satisfy your purient interests. That's pretty much a textbook case of oppression.
Are you trying to compare racism
Why on earth would you think that? Can you even read?
Besides, I thought we were talking about untrustworthy pervs like you and your friends wanting to use the ladies room.
Were we? I've never made a claim to want to use the ladies room. I see, having run out of any arguments, you've moved straight into making up lies. If an observer wasn't convinced that yoou're a bad person before, the point where you start ust making up lies would be pretty convincing.
It's also interesting that you've automatically categorised transgender people as "untrustworthy pervs" merely because they want to use the toilet in peace. You know, most people don't go to the toilet to eye up other people's genitals. Perhaps you're projecting...
Popular public opinion will not allow this to happen
Except it has because transgender women can use women's bathrooms in very many places. In fact it's never been the case that they can't. So, uh... you're demonstrably wrong about that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
ROFL!!!! Are you still taking this seriously? Ok, fine, I'll apologize for flamebaiting you...you obviously have an invested interest in the topic. I'll call the gov of NC and get the law law recalled immediately to stop the oppression that I've caused.
I'm also sorry for not taking grown men in dresses and rich people who can get a sex change seriously...and don't get me started about their fashion sense! I'll also invite transgendered truckers to take my daughter to the bathroom with them. Haha! Just can't help myself! As you noted, I'm just such a bad person!
ROFL!!!! Are you still taking this seriously?
You are literally the embodiment of http://lol.i.trollyou.com/
Lurching from ill thought out, ill informed opinions to simply flat-out making up lies about someone does not make you great troll, or a master flame-bater. Drop the "flame", and the description fits perfectly, though.
invested interest in the topic.
It's curious that despite your claims of trolling
and rich people who can get a sex change seriously
Civilised countries make sex change availble to all regardless of wealth.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What's life like in your decade?
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
So maybe people could just learn to not get freaked out by other humans and the problem will go away?
Hasn't happened in the past million years. Biology is a harsh mistress
Not completely true. It is a normal initial reaction, just like violence and rape, but most of us have developed the cognitive power to over-ride those natural irrational thoughts.
Racism is a good example, while still a problem, it's nowhere near the level it was 50 years ago. And working in IT I've spent a career with mostly different races, so find the whole concept ludicrous now. Tranny is the new black.
Tranny is a mental illness, not a race. Being around someone with a psychosis makes me nervous (psychosis: a mistaken belief about reality that significantly interferes with day-to-day activities).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm skulking, not lurching...lurching is a physical movement...unless you are referring to me lurching over in laughter! You've called me out for lying about people (who?), oppressing people (a hipster lumberjack in a dress or dirty old uncles?), and poorly formed arguments (duh...) based off of one misunderstood sentence, perhaps that I could have phrased better, that you chose to rant on at me about. You seem to have an invested interest transgendered individuals but somehow am unaware of a reference to Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Go watch it, you'll love it. Same goes for The Birdcage. Go spend sometime in the village in NYC or Boys Town in Chicago and you'll meet some pretty awesome transgendered folks.
A civilized country helps individuals come to accept and love themselves as who they are, not help them further down a path of self-loathing through sex change, botox, and other efforts to get themselves on the cover of Vogue; you don't have to agree but I'm not aware of anyone being happy at the end of that tunnel. And besides, it should be very clear to you that America is hardly the definition of civilized after watching recent political events.
...why they still do business in Malaysia after their Prime Minister compared gays to ISIS....
Hypocrisy much, PayPal?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
or euthanize all the bigots...
You've called me out for lying about people (who?)
Me. You claimed outright that I wanted to use use ladies toilets. I have mad no such statement, therefore you are simply lying about it.
oppressing people (a hipster lumberjack in a dress or dirty old uncles?)
Yes I am accusing you of wanting ot use the force of law to oppress people. Does it matter that you don't like hipsters or lumberjacks? Does that make them less deserving than you of equality under the law?
based off of one misunderstood sentence, perhaps that I could have phrased better,
And that sentance would be? At this point it, frankly, seems rather unlikely. You've tried straigforward argument. You've tried "trolling", but like the lil.i.trol.u chap, your actualy personality shines through.
You seem to have an invested interest transgendered individuals
I have as much invested interest in transgender people, as I do in women, gay people, black people and so on. I recognise that widespread discrimination, and doubly so with the force of law behind it, is morally reprehensible.
A civilized country helps individuals come to accept and love themselves as who they are,
And sometimes, people are simply born with the wrong set of genitals. A civilised country helps with that too.
you don't have to agree but I'm not aware of anyone being happy at the end of that tunnel.
I am.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's nice.
Citation required - this incident of someone stripping in front of kids, being asked to leave and then nobody doing anything sounds like a total work of badly written fiction. Real people take responsibility and take a duty of care seriously instead of being cartoon strawmen.
Took my wife to a club in Japan, drinks etc.
Went to the bathroom - saw a row of open urinals and across from there a row of sitdown stalls - with men and women using them. They had doors.
Wife proceeded to bathroom - came back instantly, she could not deal with it, so we had to leave ASAP to go to the hotel.
So it seems to be very unisex. This was in 1982, so things may have changed?
Seriously, this is a completely a what the f*ck moment! I personally think this is just an attempt by some women to have unisex restrooms. There are so many pervs out there that make this entire thing point mute. I believe they are just sick and tired of those long ass lines to a women's restroom and want to use ours by making them all unisex. (hey, I don't blame them, I sure as hell would too if I had to go really bad and kept looking at the "no-lines" to the men's restrooms). Just a logical way to see things from another's perspective. I mean come on how in the hell is this even enforceable? If a transgendered person looks like the gender they feel they identify with, is there going to be a designated gender inspector at the door going "Show me the goods, or you're going to jail!"
Do Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously?
I'm heartened you find what I wrote nice. It's good to see that you finally agree with my point of view.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Considering that most people that respond will go with the "political correct" response what do we truly know what people think. Censorship is so strong now days you will only see what the media wants you to see... So basically follow along with whatever they want you to think, how dare you think for yourself! Yeah, you misogynist racist bastard! If you want to love and have sex with ath a rock then go for it, how dare us for thinking you odd!
Do Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously?
not watching the mainstream news?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
I could go on with the dozen other famous cases since start of year but you lose already
> The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth,
So, intersex folk need to avoid using any restroom at all in North Carolina. >_>
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Mental gender = Men creeped out by bodybuilder trannies, women creeped out by shemale trannies
Why would they be? How would they even be able to tell, post-transition?
Why would they be? How would they even be able to tell, post-transition?
I can only assume you have never seen one in real life. A dude wearing a dress and makeup is quite obvious to most people.
I can only assume you have no idea what "post-transition" means (much less seeing one in real life consciously), because it's certainly not "a dude wearing a dress and makeup".
Just because you can't it see doesn't mean no-one else can.
So possibility of trial months later with uncertain outcome is supposed to make the women being peeped by a pervert in the present feel much better, and make him stop?
haha, you really are clueless.
WTF! Why is society, in this day and age, still hung up on sexuality?! Get over it already! I don't care who sees me in any state, and I am no longer the young-and-beautiful me. If you cannot handle your natural state, you need serious help. Do NOT include me in your hangups!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The Supreme Court held that a law (specifically, a state constitutional amendment) preventing protected status from being granted based on homosexuality or bisexuality was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
While of course you can attempt to distinguish the case, there's no way this survives the appeals process.
The same people who voted these idiots into state legislature also vote for the judges....so, I have my doubts in some cases, not that a judge could not tell the difference, more than in their radical conservative pseudoreligious views they do not want to see a difference, especially with law on their side.