North Carolina - Bill 2 - Transgender Bathrooms

Discuss Current Events, Politics, Theology, Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, etc. Please stay on-topic. Serious discussions/debates only. No personal attacks.
User avatar
Skywalker
I Feel Ya Sista... Not in that way
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:55 pm
Location: NC

Postby Skywalker » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:19 am

I live in the now Hell Hole that is North Carolina.

Here is an expert from the news article from WTVD Channel 11, Raleigh-Durham.

RALEIGH (WTVD) -- North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory has signed legislation designed to rein in local governments passing their own anti-discrimination rules.

McCrory's office confirmed he signed the law late Wednesday night, hours after the legislature finalized the bill in a one-day work session.

Here is what the beautiful Govoner of NC has said about the law on Twitter

Ordinance defied common sense, allowing men to use women’s bathroom/locker room for instance. That’s why I signed bipartisan bill to stop it - 10:16 PM - 23 Mar 2016

So at this point, I can no longer use the men's room when the ladies are now full because I was not born male.

The only thing that they have now done is every public school is now in violation of federal mandates and at risk of losing federal funds.

What are others thoughts on dumb shit laws such this lovely ass butt signed by surprise lawmaker in North Carolina?
Image
User avatar
cerrodepedro
Words. I kill them.
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Location: Intermountain West

Postby cerrodepedro » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:22 pm

I hope after a hopefully inevitable lawsuit that the district courts and possibly SCotUS rains down shame on NC lawmakers and your beautiful governor. Fuck fuck fuck gender essentialism and transphobia and trans antagonism and trans murder.
Once was lost and now am lost; was blind but now I smoke
Image
Image
Ron
grasshopper
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:32 am
Location: Bubbles just kind of stuck...

Postby Ron » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:21 am

Bathrooms are just bathrooms. I have no issues with unisex bathrooms like many parts of the world.


All I ask is that if you're shitting your guts out just please give me a courtesy flush.

I mean really, legislation on bathrooms? Why is that even needed?
Image
ImageImage
Ron
grasshopper
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:32 am
Location: Bubbles just kind of stuck...

Postby Ron » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:21 am

North Carolina just turned into the Hall Monitor State.
Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Brewtality
novice ninja
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Tanzania, East Africa

Postby Brewtality » Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:42 am

Image

Image
User avatar
Skywalker
I Feel Ya Sista... Not in that way
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:55 pm
Location: NC

Postby Skywalker » Sat Mar 26, 2016 2:46 am

cerrodepedro wrote:I hope after a hopefully inevitable lawsuit that the district courts and possibly SCotUS rains down shame on NC lawmakers and your beautiful governor. Fuck fuck fuck gender essentialism and transphobia and trans antagonism and trans murder.


Well, it is North Carolina, this state has never been known for their brains.

I mean to say beautiful governor in a sarcastic way. I am not a fan of the man; he was voted in when I lived in a different state. The amount of stuff that he has done, this so far is the worst. I think that they latched on this legislation because now cities and counties can not set their min. wage (that was not possible anyway before this bill was passed).

They are suggesting the reason for its fast passing was to ensure the safety of children. So that way pedophiles could not go into women's locker rooms and claim it was because they identified as a woman. It was a think of the children moment.

Personally, this does not affect me; I can see where this hurts others. Thus, I will do what I can by writing the dumbasses in Raleigh. I know right now that the powers that be are looking into ways to sue. If the Supreme Court does hear the case, if there is not change there could be an issue in that they may not strike down the law.
Image
User avatar
cerrodepedro
Words. I kill them.
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Location: Intermountain West

Postby cerrodepedro » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:49 am

I HAVE to get off of Facebook. I am seeing countless kids from high school who scored admittance into far more prestigious and challenging schools just throw out all their critical thinking and jump onto the "but cross-dressing men" bandwagon. They're cool putting trans people at a greater risk for sexual assault as the proverbial sacrificial goats because they value trans people and their happiness and body autonomy less than those of cis women and children.

By this thinking, marriage should be outlawed, because frankly it poses a higher risk to the woman of being sexually assaulted than permitting trans women to use the restrooms with cisgender women. In fact, let's also outlaw private meetings with male clergy. While we're at it, it should be illegal for fathers to be around their daughters alone. These are all things that pose a greater risk to women and children when it comes to sexual assault than trans inclusive restrooms.
Once was lost and now am lost; was blind but now I smoke
Image
Image
User avatar
BriarRose
Dark Erotic
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:07 pm
Location: Canada

Postby BriarRose » Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:51 am

This is a little off topic, but I think it works well in this post. How to NCians feel about artists cancelling gigs in protest? Personally I think it's more useful (and helpful) to use the enormous platforms these entertainers have to begin conversations about why this law is problematic and to have their ginormous audience (who you know can actually do something to change the status quo...like vote out the governor, etc.) be informed about these types of issues. Cancelling a gig gives less opportunity for the issue to be talked about and made into more than a 24 hr news cycle story...just saying!
Image

ImageImage
User avatar
Skywalker
I Feel Ya Sista... Not in that way
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:55 pm
Location: NC

Postby Skywalker » Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:36 am

BaiarRose,

Not really, they cancel locals are pissed for a few days, and nothing else is said on the matter at least in my part of the state.

What is hurting the state is the simple fact that people are not coming her to vacation, now beach houses and hotels are sitting unreserved. This is hurting some, and they are now looking at passing resolutions to denounce HB2. Even this is just a gesture of goodwill to those who are members of the LGBT community.

THIS JUST IN - A bill to repeal HB2. (Link Below)

https://twitter.com/DarrenJNC/status/724224318184497152/photo/1

As for the other topic, a large chunk of North Carolina is so Tea Party Republican; they would think reestablishing slavery would be a great idea. It would ensure that Mexicans can not take jobs (as it is usually illegals this or illegals that, but they pick the tobacco this state is known for, as well as other produce. I take no issue with them, as they do a job I would not personally like to, but I wish they had better-working conditions). They would also like to see an end to welfare as we know it, poor people deserve to die, Obama to be impeached, Affordable Healthcare Act to be struck down, a lowering of taxes (including the ones that fund schools), as well as a slew of other Republican ideas (which are not really republican, just the Tea Party way of thinking, even I do not think most regular Republicans wish for kids to not have something to eat).

North Carolina is an old state, had some old ass white guys float up here in the 1500s, and they have been raising hell since. We will overturn HB2, and hopefully put in a different Gov. but as for the rest of the government, gerrymandering to hell on that one. Who know what is going to happen in the next election, might surprised people.

North Carolina survived Jessie Helms who was elected from this fine state 1973-2003! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms)

I tend to ramble I am sorry for that.. also grammar please do not mind it, I lost mine somewhere between 9th and 10th grade and never found it again.
Image
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:49 pm

Ok, as someone from NC who has read the bill, listened to the legislators and those in opposition I will give my view after also talking to a good friend of mine who I happened to fly out to California for my first gay wedding (it was awesome, even if the AC wasn't cranked up during a hot period.)

One of the biggest problems of the bill is that it did not include sexual orientation as a protected class. This is not huge, as the vast majority of states do not have such protections either. Nevertheless, it should have been included, if for no other reasons as a political buffer for the backlash to come, (it is easier to refute it didn't do enough rather than it did worse.) However, as to the bathroom portion. There are two lines of reasoning that I have read from various legislators. The first is that it is to close loopholes in the ordinances of municipalities. There is an article I read of a man (non-trans) who has been daily changing in the female locker room, for no other reason than the broadness of the wording of the ordinance allows him to. This is the thing about laws, the les specific they are, the more room for problems exist. This is one aspect of the state change. The second is that NC has 100 Counties and even more municipalities. The bill prevents each one from enacting its own set of rules that provide wildly inconsistent rules throughout the state. It would be foreseeable to have Trans freedom in Charlotte (where this really started) and have biological sex restrooms twenty miles north in Davidson. Yet, another rule in place twenty miles north of there. This would cause a nightmare of inconsistency for people, businesses, but would help lawyers who would have a field day sorting it all out with billable hours. Both of these do have a rational argument to be made for a consistently applied state ruling.

As to the sexual predators argument. You are absolutely correct, there are already laws to discourage sexual assault on the books and those predatory individuals do not abide by them as it is. The argument that is made (rather poorly in my opinion) is that by eliminating obstacles to their behavior would increase the incidence. This has not been shown to have a corollary in the data, but these sorts of legislations are new on both sides and it is far too soon to be determined fully. I think one of the problems that exist is there is no way to visually differentiate between a Trans person and a fetishizing cross dresser. They are indistinguishable without surgical procedures. (and T-Girls, stop with the facial reconstruction, it is usually pretty obvious, which is not the goal.) I spoke to a friend’s niece who is 19 or 20, she said that if someone who was obviously a man, even wearing women's accessories such as clothing and makeup, walking into the restroom would make her uncomfortable (then I gave her the actual rape statistics and eased her mind that it is highly unlikely to happen in any scenario). The point is that even an irrational fear has the same physiologic response as a legitimate fear. Thus, a massively small minority are willing to affect physiologic responses in the majority for their own feelings. This is a lose-lose situation. It is far too complex an issue to be settled as rapidly as it has come to the forefront.

Acceptance is a long path to achieve. Blacks have been fighting 141 since the 13,14, and 15th amendments, women have been fighting almost 100 years since given the right to vote, and sexual orientation has been fighting 40 or so years. In each of these cases, it has been through recognition of individuals that has brought about the change. Oh, that black person isn't what I was led to believe. Oh, that woman wasn't what I was led to believe. Oh, that gay person isn't what I was led to believe. As people engage with the outside group, they gradually revise their opinions. The key word is gradually. We are getting better and faster, but society does not change overnight. Trans is an amazingly small minority, though higher concentrated in certain areas, and most people have no exposure beyond Bruce Jenner (I call him Bruce because I didn't respect him before he changed), Laverne Cox, and Rupaul. Most everyone knows a black person, a woman and a gay person these days, so there is a level of normality to it. Certainly each of those groups have those who live to portray the stereotype, but they are not most people's experiences. The problem is society does not respond well to abrupt and sudden changes. Society has to get there in stages, and the Trans movement is too much too soon. I liken it to Ginsburg saying she wishes that they hadn't heard Roe V Wade, not because it wasn't worthwhile, but that it was slowly gaining acceptance, but by thrusting it on the public it created a backlash that is still affecting things today. In her opinion, had it progressed organically it would have been a much smoother transition. I think this same mentality applies with this situation. Essentially, they haven't paid their political dues yet.

In response to what I call economic terrorism (Which is what is occurring, the attempt to destabilize an economy for political ends), I think it is far more dangerous than HB2 can ever be. Many rail against the influence of corporate money in Washington politics, but how is this any different other than it is at the state level. I think setting a precedent that this is an acceptable political tactic is abhorrent. The part that those applauding this tactic fail to consider is that if this does affect the change they want, what is to stop it from being used to affect legislation that they do not agree with. Let’s say the evil "Wal-Mart and Koch Brothers" (just looking for the typical scapegoats) decided that they were going to withhold products, services, and jobs from a state until they, I don't know outlaw marijuana? Now let's look at the consequences of this action. First, you are not hurting the politicians, as they are part of the oligarchy and are not concerned with their income, only the power. Second, you take these things away from those who already side with you, and thus make them suffer despite their alliance with your cause. Third, you deny the common citizen, who cannot affect any meaningful change until election time, despite their inability to affect the change themselves. I liken this to the embargo of Cuba; it never hurt the Castro regime, but brought severe hardship on the population. Not everyone is in a position to rise up for a cause. In fact, most people have an "if it doesn't affect me" attitude on most things. Even though I don't support the bill, if this tactic is the alternative, I see HB2 as far less harmful in the long run.

Lastly, in regards to the election in November. Here is what I want you to do. Go pull up a voting map of NC Amendment One. This was a statewide referendum on the subject of gay marriage. The overwhelming population of the state voted to not allow gay marriage. Do you really think this is going to be different for Trans issues? Again, I have a rather eclectic mix of people in my life, and I have travelled extensively. I try my damndest to judge the individual rather than any arbitrary characteristics. Even with that, when I see a guy who looks like Terry Cruz in a wig and a dress, my mind does go WTF! FtM are much more passible as I would assume it is easier to make a soft woman harder looking than the other way around (although there is a new medical study that is showing a massive upturn in ovarian cancer in Trans men, the likely culprit is the hormones affecting the body in a previously unsuspected way.) This is going to have a detrimental effect overall as if you are not passable, people will assume cross dresser before trans, because that is what they are familiar with. Now take this to NC, where I can say, other than the occasional drag show, I think I have seen one trans person (or may have just been a cross dresser, as I pointed out, without conversation who can know, and it would be rude to ask.) They are just not a fixture in the state. It all comes back to what I said before; unless it becomes a normal part of everyday life (as sexual orientation has) then it is going to be a hard fight. Honestly, I don't know a solution that is going to make everyone happy. Especially when it comes down to two people using a restroom where either way one of them is going to be uncomfortable. The question is which one has the right to make the other uncomfortable?
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:49 pm

Be that as it may- the first trans person arrested for bathroom used, or (a real danger) assaulted or killed in a bathroom the new law forces them to use will end up with the Supremes singing and dancing. Loads of taxpayer money spent between here and there. Lots of lost dollars by companies who wish to avoid a state run without separation of church and state.

I grew up between Florida and South Carolina in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s My family is full of old assed white guys who floated up here before 1776 and quite a few natives. I love the people and the country. I have cousins by the dozens in SC The first girl I ever kissed is still there but I know I can never go back there. Last time I was home was in the 80’s to bury my Granny. I promise I know the white southern bigots rage from the receiving end. Just about got killed more than once for being young naive dyke. I learned many things to hate myself for. In spite of all that I see no reason the laws can not be put into place for real equality to blossom there.

I actually think we are seeing republican or evangelical slight of hand. Why did they give us this shinny thing to play with? What is their other hand up to? I am staying tuned to see.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:01 pm

Well there is the rub isn't it. It only says that municipalities have to designate bathrooms for biological sex, there is absolutely no teeth that incurs any penalty for saying Nope, not gunna do it (That sounds like Dana Carvey impersonating Bush senior by the way.)

But let me ask another question. There is a trans man student in Glouster, VA. The school designated a single occupancy unisex bathroom for the student to use. He is suing to use the men's room. Apparently the lawyer thinks that section 106 of Title IX is grounds, even though that section states that schools can separate by gender and that if one gender has amenities the "other gender" must as well (the quotes are because they use specific binary language.) So this being the case, at what point does the concept of reasonable accommodations go out the window. Also, expanding on the economic terrorism I discussed, if the concept is thrown out, where does it stop. I get it that people what to be who they are, but I am also one who tries to look at the possible ramifications of action.

Lastly, if this is an issue, why has it not been addressed by the federal government when we had a democrat president and congress. Oh yeah, they were against gay marriage then. Funny how that changed when the republicans came to power. I agree, nothing is without motive when it comes to politicians.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
Skywalker
I Feel Ya Sista... Not in that way
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:55 pm
Location: NC

Postby Skywalker » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:43 pm

Neon Samurai wrote:Ok, as someone from NC who has read the bill, listened to the legislators and those in opposition I will give my view after also talking to a good friend of mine who I happened to fly out to California for my first gay wedding (it was awesome, even if the AC wasn't cranked up during a hot period.)


Hello, fellow NC'er. I was also born and raised here, but left at 17 due to the simple fact there are NO JOB's in North Carolina, at the time for my dad or mom.

I moved back, had no idea what in the hell I was walking back into. I have lived in Kentucky and Florida, and by far I wish I was in Kentucky right now, even with the dipshit Belvin, who was just voted in.

I agree, the people who are deciding not to do business with NC is not hurting those with money, but those who are trying to make it pay check to pay check. It hard to see someone else struggle, when you are not even sure where you are going to get food for dinner or pay your rent. The poorer class in North Carolina and may of them live in Eastern North Carolina NC. They have bigger issues to worry about, and truth be told many may not care. They are trying to make it, in a state that does not have expanded Medicaid, who puts the value on the businesses, not on the workers, and does everything possible to keep those in power, in power. Hell, the Sheriff of my city wants 1.7 million to fix the HAVAC system, so the inmates do not fry in the NC summer. Everything that people post on Facebook (which I view as an extension of someone's personality a lot of the time) is that who care, they are just inmates, why do they deserve A/C .., etc., etc. The same feeling is expressed to those who are Trans; they tend to place them in the touching little children category. Then again, I doubt if any Trans person wants to cause harm to anther (some people are just asshole, no matter their gender). I am more worried about the old dude who helped my nephew in the bathroom than I am about if a former male who now is female walked into a women's bathroom.

The issue is the way that people vote. There are a lot of individuals who do not vote because they can not get to the polls. This is due to many factors, some of them are that their name was there, but now is not there. There is also what people think is right, in Eastern NC, there are a lot of religious folks, a little more than most are used to. They have a hard-set belief system. As people grow old, and younger people mature hopefully there can be some change, but first young people might have to stick around in some parts of the state for that change to happen. Those old people vote, in a much larger number than their younger counterparts. So if anything, you want to change young folks, vote. It is the only way.

While this is the bathroom portion of the bill.. there is also this.


Part II: Minimum wage

What the law says: This section bars local governments from setting their own minimum wage ordinances. It also prohibits cities and counties from imposing anti-discrimination or other regulations on private companies that do business with them. This does not affect “living wage” policies that governments have for their own employees.

What people want: Local governments want the flexibility to adopt ordinances they believe they need. Charlotte’s city attorney cited the section in ending a 20-year-old program requiring contractors hired by the city to have anti-drug programs for employees.

“What’s important is local communities have the abilities to decide these kind of issues themselves,” said Scott Mooneyham, director of public affairs for the N.C. League of Municipalities.

What to expect: There is strong sentiment among the bill’s supporters to keep this provision, but some lawmakers could try to change it.

“We have to be considerate of the fact that the cost to live in Charlotte or Raleigh far exceeds the cost in Lumberton,” says Republican Rep. Charles Jeter of Huntersville. He says the law is a “one-size-fits-all” solution.

Part III: Discrimination protections

What the law says: It creates a statewide ban on discrimination “on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap.” It supersedes and pre-empts local ordinances that go beyond that. Charlotte’s overturned ordinance would have extended anti-discrimination protection to people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

What people want: Supporters say because discrimination is a statewide concern, there should be a state policy, not a patchwork of local policies. Critics say it limits the flexibility of communities to determine their own policies.

This month McCrory signed an executive order that expanded the state’s employment policy to cover sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees. It does not cover teachers and some other employees.

What to expect: Lawmakers are unlikely to change this provision. Many agree with McCrory, who said on “Meet the Press” that, “I don’t think the government ought to be the HR director for every business. … This is that fine line between how much does government tell the private sector in a regulatory way what to do.”

Part IV: The ability to sue in state court

What the law says: The language: “This Article does not create … or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy” in the law. It means the law takes away the ability to sue over discrimination in state court. It charges the state Human Relations Commission with investigating and resolving any claims.

What people want: Even some Republicans want to remove this provision, which caught many lawyers by surprise. McCrory’s executive order “encourages” the General Assembly to restore the ability to use state courts.

What to expect: The administration and others will lobby to change this.
“We will listen to the governor’s proposal,” Berger said last week. “I’m sure there will be many other proposals out there … I’m not ready to say we’ll make any changes. I just don’t see the need for it.”

Jim Morrill, "What Could Change in HB2? Not Much," Charlotte Observer, April 23, 2016, accessed April 25, 2016, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article73396807.html.




Like I said, it will take years for this to fix it self. It will not happen over night; desegregation did not occur over night, neither will this, schools were segregated in many areas and still are, look up desegregation orders for school districts. Sure there will be that business who chose not to do business with / in North Carolina over this law, and the only one that it will hurt is the little people of the state.

The great state has weathered far worse than HB2. Give it time; I am sure the legislators will try and out do themselves, with another equally shaming bill that will cause more "Restrooms for all" Facebook post than legally allowed, without understanding the law or the other laws that were tossed in.

I do wonder what would have happened if the Democrats would have kept their asses in their seats and voted on this bill. Sure the Republicans would have still had enough, but it would at least given a greater showing than walking out. It would have shown that Democrats will keep doing their damn jobs, even if they are not happy with it. This is not a show of support for the LGBT community, but a lack of civic duty that is entrusted to them by those who voted them into office.

About the walkout: https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/senate-democrats-walk-out-of-vote-overturning-bathroom-ordinance/

I think I have written enough here today. //sorry about spelling and grammar//
Image
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:51 pm

Reasonable accommodation is nothing more than separate but equal segregation. Trans gender is not a handicap nor does the transgender person require any special accommodation. Just normal right to go to the bathroom for the gender they are or are becoming.

A government backed refusal to accept that one can legally change gender and expect to be treated as the new gender in all ways is like a 1 year old who thinks you really disappear when they cover their eyes.

In a sort of sick way the law may end up doing good for trans and gay rights because it will force the gender issues into the courts.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Postby Feydakin » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:52 pm

Neon Samurai wrote:In response to what I call economic terrorism (Which is what is occurring, the attempt to destabilize an economy for political ends), I think it is far more dangerous than HB2 can ever be. Many rail against the influence of corporate money in Washington politics, but how is this any different other than it is at the state level. I think setting a precedent that this is an acceptable political tactic is abhorrent. The part that those applauding this tactic fail to consider is that if this does affect the change they want, what is to stop it from being used to affect legislation that they do not agree with....


I mentioned this in regard to a similar incidence of it and was summarily ripped to shreds by liberals (it was in favor of a liberal issue)... I find myself agreeing with much of what you say, logic and reason are so hard to come by and tends to not make you popular with people trying to follow a cause. :P
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:14 pm

So what part of NC, if you don't mind me asking. (I am from Elizabeth City, but moved to Greenville, looking to transfer to RDU, Charlotte or the mountain areas if I can find a job out that way.) I think you summed up my feelings on the economic terrorism rather well. I don't think people outside of the state understand how poor most of the state is. Further, how much the state caters to business interests in an attempt to increase employment opportunities in a state where they are few.

As to the quote you posted. I think this is a difficult balance to strike, the main platform of republicans is limited government interference, and yet they get lambasted when they don't interfere. It is a no-win situation. Either they regulate and face scrutiny from their supporters or fail to regulate and face scrutiny from the opposition. This, more than the graveyard of skeletons in my closet, is what has always kept me from pursuing anything in politics personally. My Jeffersonian ideals promote me that yes the Federal should let states decide, the state should let the county decide, the county should let the city decide, and the city should let the individual decide. Yet, the Federal gets involved when states do dumb things like segregation. The State gets involved when the counties do dumb things like the mandatory anti-drugs program. And the city gets involved when the individual does something stupid like discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics. The problem, and one that we haven't figured out is, where is the balance. In no case will everyone be happy, but where is the line where the most people are happy. Unfortunately, like situations such as HB2, making the majority happy makes a very vocal minority very loud. We limit freedoms all the time for the greater good, but in this case, people are wondering where the greater good is. Sure people should be free from feeling discriminated against, but by forcing a situation upon another who does not want it, they feel their being discriminated against because how they feel about it is ignored. I agree with you, this is going to take decades to finally sort out, and probably by the children of today.

And McCrory added the state employee protections (which align to the majority of states that have protections, as I said most have no protections of any kind) and is against the non-civil suit. It may not be popular, but I am for that provision, because I feel there is a severe need for torte reform. When you grant these tremendous punitive damages for such cases, it helps people to seek something, anything to claim discriminatory to garner their payday. These suits are the equivalent of slipping and falling in a store. It is not to say there is no discriminatory practices, but there are also unscrupulous lawyers out there as well. Yes it is terrible you were discriminated against, but really even the average settlement of $150,000 is excessive, let alone the small percentage that are in the millions. Not that most people win, because the moment that first complaint is logged, so to is the file scrutinizing ever bit of that persons work performance. This is why things seldom improve, that complaint is seen as evidence of a planned lawsuit and rather than address the problem, they are immediately on the defensive. As I said, even an irrational fear, still produces the same response as a rational one.

And I too have thought why the activists lambasting the legislature are not holding the democrats feet to the fire. I think it boils down to the same as my point of the economic terrorism, they are only proponents of it when they agree with the cause. Because the democrats were against it, they are still on the same side, because it always comes down to an us v. them mentality. Welcome to the generation of collectivism.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:35 pm

I like you bringing up separate but equal. I read a fascinating book called Along Freedom Road by David Cecelski. It was about the Hyde County school boycott here in NC. It seems the black community boycotted the school system for over a year because they didn't want to be integrated, they just wanted the equal part. They liked the separate as they could cater to the needs unique to their community and feared that it would be lost with integration. It changed my perspective that showing, once again, just because one belongs to a demographic it does not dictate their views.

I have seen many say that a unisex facility suits their needs, others demand equal access to whatever they identify with (And please, I don't even want to think about gender fluid or the other postmodernist bs that is associated. The point I am making here is some do not mind a reasonable accommodation and some view it like you do as some disability. (BTW I ony use that is that the business is being asked to make provisions for a specific class of people, that is why I used the language I did.) But let me ask you this, as NC is very religiously oriented, if a business were to grant full access and then saw severe revenue losses what is their course of action? Are they obligated to lose revenue to the point of job loss on the off chance they face the situation (I think I have seen two trans people here (and one was questionable if they were trans or a CD, again visual inspection does not allow for differentiation.) I will say I have tried to come up with a solution that would be amicable to all parties involved. As we can't wave a magic wand and change peoples minds (and I am glad we don't because, again, ramifications) there is little hope of a situation that can be put into place that does not make one group mad in some way.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:23 pm

Neither a business nor a state law gets to t rump legal medical gender change and those laws. For me it is just a human right that if you have gone through what a gender change involves the state can not just pretend you are your original sex.

As you said many will be and are happy with separate but equal and it does provide bathroom protection but the goal of gender equality is inclusion- not special treatment.

LOL Had to edit t rump is a censored word and becomes Drumpf.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Postby Feydakin » Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:58 pm

Curious to hear from someone that lives where they have unisex bathroom how that works out... Do they still have urinals? How separate/private is it if at all? I'm just curious... As sexually repressed as the US is I can never really see this happening on a wide scale, at least not for many years.
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:15 pm

I think if building codes had been altered that all newly constructed buildings having publically accessed restrooms be required to have a single occupancy unisex bathroom, over time it would not be an issue. The initial push would be for the excluded criteria of HB2, parents of children, special needs, assisted care, etc. But then once that was common the shift to the trans community would have happened more organically. Like I said, when you force the issue, you intensify the pushback. I get the we want it now mentality, but the reality is that mentality usually makes the entire process longer, and makes more people suffer because of it.

One thing I looked at, and I will admit I didn't read the report as the numbers estimated numbers are all I was looking for, is this page http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/estimates-of-transgender-populations-in-states-with-legislation-impacting-transgender-people/
While the NC estimates were not given, those for VA and SC were, and I think it is likely to have similar ratios in NC (our statistician can verify or debunk the veracity of their estimates, but for the sake of the point is that if we were to take the estimates as accurate, NC has a trans population that is .37%. There are more people who are physically incapable of seeing those old magic eye 3d pictures in the Sunday funnies than are trans. To be honest, if you are in NC you are more likely to know someone with a rare disease than a trans person. (I always add the quantifier that I am not comparing the two, but only using an easily recognizable situation that is also considered rare.) I get the egalitarianism concept of every single individual having equal rights, but the rational that we need a special condition for .37% of the population is the equivalent of special classifications for Pompe Disease (never heard of it, I am not surprised, it has the same rarity as the trans population in NC at 1 in 40,000) or childhood schizophrenia. I think this goes back to the earlier point that the trans community is stereotyped because the population is so small in the state that most communities do not have an openly trans person. It is a rarity and thus not out of bounds to expect the majority of citizens in the state to never come into contact with a trans person in their lifetime.

This is why the comparison to segregation is balderdash, as the black community here is anywhere from 1 in 4 to the dominant majority depending where you go (and the ratios become narrower the farther south you go as many slaves were sold out of the upper south as they moved to less labor intensive forms of agriculture while the lower south experienced the cotton boom). While he sentiment is certainly equivalent the practice is not. Do you know what else has the 1 in 40,000 ration, congenital heart defects, and that will keep you out of the military, but is there an activist group to change this discriminatory behavior? No, because it is such a limited population that exceptions are allowed. I think the thing is that it is not the NC residents who have the problem as they conclude that it really doesn't affect them or anyone they know, but those outside the state where a bill such as this would have a greater impact (I think I saw there are estimates between 3-5% Trans in areas of California and thus would have a greater impact.) I am not professing this to be my final judgment or a fully formed idea, but it is a direction of inquiry that would explain beyond the religiosity or as I found when I challenged people on gay marriage and determined for many it boiled down to "I think it is icky." I think it is just so rare people ask why so much bother against the desires of 99.63% of the population.

What I do have a beef with is after MCCrory added in the provision for sexual orientation anti-discrimination it should stop being called an LGBT issue as it is just a T issue as sexual orientation is no longer a component. The bill in no longer affects lesbians, gays, or bisexuals (who are not afforded the same acceptance as he other two unless they are women) as they do not have a bathroom issue to worry about in the first place.

BTW I tend to work through these issues in what a friend called a post-Freud pre-Jung kind of way, which essentially means as I am discussing it I am also rationalizing, accepting and rejecting new ideas. Generally if I am putting something out there, even if it makes me look like an ass, it isn't me being a bad person it is just my mind has to go through all the different approaches to come to the one that I am most comfortable with, and yes, sometimes that means describing staring into the abyss. Bear that in mind if I say something in a post that I am trying to work out a solution for. While I would have, in the end, rejected the Holocaust, it does not mean I would not have explored the feasibility and possible benefits before rejecting it.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
anynoise
novice ninja
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:42 am
Location: Oregon

Postby anynoise » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:24 pm

Feydakin wrote:Curious to hear from someone that lives where they have unisex bathroom how that works out... Do they still have urinals? How separate/private is it if at all? I'm just curious... As sexually repressed as the US is I can never really see this happening on a wide scale, at least not for many years.


I will never be pro-segregation. It doesn't matter the percent of the population. Prejudice is prejudice .The necessity for right and wrong is the same. So Female or Male - you choose your identity. It bothers me a great deal that parents use the argument "I don't want my little girl see a man in her bathroom." (even though they are all stalls, nothing can actually be seen, and they are dressed as a woman.) No one seems to care that their son will see a woman in their bathroom. Wouldn't it be easier for children to see that a person who looks, acts and possibly in transition physically to become the other sex, be more comfortable. Little to no shock. Children don't judge like adults do. They are very honest without any agenda or bias. It is the same as a child staring at someone in a wheel chair or with down syndrome for example. The adult should be the example of how to act in the situation. Be polite and excepting of others. Easy.

I live in Portland, Oregon. This sign was put on every bathroom in this theater. They are all single restrooms. All unisex. The bathrooms have both a urinal and a seated toilet and handicap railing.

Image

Not every bathroom in the city has this sign. It is the norm for trans individuals in Portland to use the bathroom they identify with in every public restroom. I have seen similar signs with just the symbol for man with the trans symbol and just the female symbol and the trans symbol in businesses who want to show their support for the trans community. I'm pretty proud of the tolerant atmosphere in this area.

If politicians waste money on an issue that is a no-brainer, due to the fact it is overtly prejudicial, it is not the fault of the people. Why is the community being held responsible for waste of funds? The amendment shouldn't be a political tool. The mentality of the South has always been difficult to change. Historically it seems as though the same mistakes happen repeatedly. No one seems to learn anything.
"I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later." [em]~Mitch Hedberg[/em]
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:54 pm

The sad thing is I saw a sign like that in San Diego and I commented that all I could think of is the old freak show act of the half-man/half-woman. I saw the one that had a triangle and the cross, arrow and another symbol coming off of it that was far less insulting than I think this symbol is. Just my two cents on that.

People self segregate all the time. Rich-moor, men-women, education segregates, political ideology segregates, religions views segregate, physical ability segregates, and lets not forget de facto racial segregation that willful on both sides. Well since race and nationally have also been described as social constructs I am now a black Chinese man. Oh wait, Rachel Dolezal tried that and we see how accepting the tolerant party was towards her. Either be consistent in your ideology or expect people to disparage that said ideology.

And I get your point, but as is illustrated by the case from Glouster Schools, while the majority on both sides of the issue would have no problem with a single-occupancy unisex bathroom, there will be those people who will push the limits beyond the norm for both sides. Further this theatre is not in question as it is, as you stated, single-occupancy. The problem comes into multi-occupancy of not only bathrooms, but locker rooms and changing facilities where there are no stalls or partitions to prevent a parent, who perhaps not even due to prejudice, does not want their small child exposed to adults of the opposite biological sex. This is not an unreasonable viewpoint in parenting and has nothing to do with your identity, but the belief that is not the proper viewing for their child.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:36 pm

The low trans pop in some states is based on the intelligence that most LGBT display by vacating their home state to avoid the nonsense and dangers it usually presents. .
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:45 am

Neon Samurai wrote:In response to what I call economic terrorism


Terrorism, as defined by law, involves the commission of a criminal act (Economic, violent, or otherwise).

Target's defiance, celebrities boycotting, NBA threats to move All-star game, etc. are NOT crimes.

Neon Samurai wrote:our statistician can verify or debunk the veracity of their estimates


While the report is not peer-reviewed, and the study they cite for the estimates is not peer-reviewed (and, in fact, comes from the same think tank as the report itself), I don't see why the numbers cant be viewed as decent estimates. They appear to thoroughly research certain LGBT issues.
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
bigsexywzp
the unproven
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:08 pm

Postby bigsexywzp » Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:18 am

Neon Samurai wrote:
There are two lines of reasoning that I have read from various legislators. The first is that it is to close loopholes in the ordinances of municipalities.................This would cause a nightmare of inconsistency for people, businesses, but would help lawyers who would have a field day sorting it all out with billable hours. Both of these do have a rational argument to be made for a consistently applied state ruling.


I agree. As horribly shortsighted as the law is, uniformity is needed. We travel all the time. For work. For personal reasons, like vacation or medical treatment. For economic necessities. Having uniformity across all the counties in a state prevents logistical headaches.


In response to what I call economic terrorism (Which is what is occurring, the attempt to destabilize an economy for political ends), I think it is far more dangerous than HB2 can ever be. Many rail against the influence of corporate money in Washington politics, but how is this any different other than it is at the state level. I think setting a precedent that this is an acceptable political tactic is abhorrent. The part that those applauding this tactic fail to consider is that if this does affect the change they want, what is to stop it from being used to affect legislation that they do not agree with. Let’s say the evil "Wal-Mart and Koch Brothers" (just looking for the typical scapegoats) decided that they were going to withhold products, services, and jobs from a state until they, I don't know outlaw marijuana? Now let's look at the consequences of this action. First, you are not hurting the politicians, as they are part of the oligarchy and are not concerned with their income, only the power. Second, you take these things away from those who already side with you, and thus make them suffer despite their alliance with your cause. Third, you deny the common citizen, who cannot affect any meaningful change until election time, despite their inability to affect the change themselves. I liken this to the embargo of Cuba; it never hurt the Castro regime, but brought severe hardship on the population. Not everyone is in a position to rise up for a cause. In fact, most people have an "if it doesn't affect me" attitude on most things. Even though I don't support the bill, if this tactic is the alternative, I see HB2 as far less harmful in the long run.



This isn't terrorism. Terrorism is a crime that destroys life or property in order to cause harm. It isn't criminal to decide that you don't want to do business with someone. If I go to Starbucks, and the barista is rude or disrespectful? I'm not going to want to do business with that location.

If a bank has really bad interest rate on savings accounts, or routinely fees customers in excess? People choose to take their business elsewhere that has better options. Sometimes, when you tell a business, like a bank, that you are taking your money elsewhere? It inspires them to revisit their policies and change them. The only thing that will make change happen is when there is negative pressure socially or economically. Boycotts are both social and economic pressure.

It isn't necessarily the fault of the workers at the bank, and it sucks that they may lose their jobs if the bank goes under. They are just collateral damage. They don't set terms or create fees out of nowhere. They just do their jobs.

This is the same concept, just taken to the state level.

Return to “C&D”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests