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.
bigsexywzp
the unproven
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:08 pm

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

Either way, the law is stupid.

How many times do we use public restrooms in our lives? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? More?

Rough estimates place around 700,000 transgender people in the US, on the low end. There could be more than a million.

Chances are, especially if you've ever traveled, that you have been in the restroom with a transgender person at least once in your life. And you never knew it.

Because unless we are intentionally going into the bathroom with someone, like trying to get in a bathroom quickie, we don't generally investigate and observe people's genitalia while we're in restrooms.
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Mon May 02, 2016 2:05 pm

Economic terrorism is the coordinated actions of a non-state group to destabilize the economy of a state (usually a notion, but in this case an actual state) for the purpose of achieving political goals. Traditional terrorism as it is commonly referred is the use of violence to achieve political goals. This is why it has the economic identifier, to separate it from the traditional form of terrorism. The state is placed in a fearful condition of its economic stability unless some form of political change is instituted. This is why I use the term as it accurately depicts the actions of those in question.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
bigsexywzp
the unproven
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:08 pm

Postby bigsexywzp » Mon May 02, 2016 4:18 pm

This is distinctly different from terrorism. This is simply how markets work.

Organizations and individuals who support the law? Have just as much opportunity to come to North Carolina and invest their time and money in the state to make a political statement that they support what the government is doing.

Actual terrorism does no such thing.
User avatar
Rivoc
8 Bit Wonder
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Vegas
Contact:

Postby Rivoc » Tue May 03, 2016 3:28 am

Neon Samurai wrote:Economic terrorism is the coordinated actions of a non-state group to destabilize the economy of a state (usually a notion, but in this case an actual state) for the purpose of achieving political goals. Traditional terrorism as it is commonly referred is the use of violence to achieve political goals. This is why it has the economic identifier, to separate it from the traditional form of terrorism. The state is placed in a fearful condition of its economic stability unless some form of political change is instituted. This is why I use the term as it accurately depicts the actions of those in question.


This sounds like very similar to basic capitalism to me - If you don't like a product, don't buy it. If you dont like a state's law, dont go there. if you dont like what is on the radio or tv, dont watch that channel, if you dont like what a store does or sells, dont shop there and support it.

I fail to see the difference of choosing where to do your business crosses the line between economic terrorism and regular freedom of where to choose to take your business that every common man and business has.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Tue May 03, 2016 3:40 am

Neon Samurai wrote:This is why it has the economic identifier, to separate it from the traditional form of terrorism.


Legally, terrorism requires the violation of a law. Thus, legally speaking, it doesn't matter what qualifying word you throw in front of it- terrorism (violent or non-violent) still requires the violation of a law.

Fraud, piracy, different types of computer hacking, if used in a specific manner, could qualify as non-violent economic terrorism. Nothing of this sort is the case in NC. What is happening in NC is Capitalism at work.
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
Rivoc
8 Bit Wonder
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Vegas
Contact:

Postby Rivoc » Tue May 03, 2016 4:10 am

Skywalker wrote: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?



No offense meant here, but im glad you cant use the men's room when the ladies room is full, IN MOST BASIC CIRCUMSTANCES.

ie I was at a bar the other night. the womens room FULL LINE like most really busy bars. the mens room line was pretty big, but moving more quickly because we dont take as long. three annoying younger girls got in front of me, IN MY FACE and put their hands in my face and said "you just got cut broooooo" another went "yeeeee-ah that just happened!".

I have developed an anti bullying complex as I got older. I replied very loudly and sternly with a deep menacing voice "It is NOT okay to get in my face and start yelling like a 10 year old. DO NOT ever fucking let that happen again, EVER!" as I cut them off in line. they got real quiet and let me ahead as I just caused a scene and got a pat on the back from a fellow bro, lol. the Mens room attendant quickly came over and told them they are not allowed to use the mens room and that they had to use the women's room or leave the bar. Score +1 for Riv!!!


I dont think you or any female should have the right to come in our gender's bathroom just because yours has a long queue, now bringing the originial problem of the womens bathroom line to the mens room and affecting all the men that need to use their designated mens room. Clearly, you can see the absurdity of that.

Now I can understand if there is a pregnant woman, or if a place isnt busy and no one is in the mens room, you using the mens room if there is a long line in the womens room, because now youre not affecting anyone else trying to use their designated room. I just dont think its cool at all to bring that problem of the long wait to affect all the men when theres a bunch of men that need to do their thing in the mens room.

the way i look at this issue: if you have a penis, come on in to the men's room! and mind the smell. All i ask is that if there is a long line of men and women for their respected facilities, dont go bringing your long female line problem to our room, thus making your problem now all of our (men waiting in line) problem. Its not right and it shouldnt be accteptable behavior anywhere.

If one female gets in the mens lione to avoid the wait of the female bathroom, eventually more and more females would start lining up in our line, now making your original problem now all of our problem as well. under no circumstance should that ever be okay or acceptable in a crowded bathroom line.

EDIT: Im making this mini debatetopic its own thread because it is different enough and needs to be addressed.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Tue May 03, 2016 1:11 pm

The difference is that is the goal of the use of capitalism. If, as you say, I do not like a good or service I choose to not do business with them, that is the market at work, if enough people do not like the good or service, the business has to change or go out of business. This is the free market at play. The difference here is the attempt to use that same tactic to elicit political change by way of destabilizing an economy to force that change. That is where it moves from free market to terrorism. Those displaying this behavior are attempting to cause hardship on the population so as to dictate the actions of the government. There is a distinct difference between the two concepts. It creates a fear in the population over their continued livelihood, this creation of fear in a population to extract political change is, at its core, terrorism. While the traditional model uses violence to crate the fear, if you use another method of generating the fear it is still the act of creation of fear which is what defines the word. Terrorism is the act of creating fear. There is nothing that denotes it must have a criminal component to it.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Tue May 03, 2016 6:19 pm

Since it is the job of the FBI to protect America from terrorist actions...What We Investigate...I go by their definitions of terrorism:

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
FBI wrote:
Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).


Each definition used by the FBI involves the violation of a state or federal statute. While no universal definition exists outside of law enforcement, it is generally agreed upon by scholars of terrorism that terrorism must involve the violation of a law. If it truly is terrorism, then shouldn't the FBI be investigating it?
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Wed May 04, 2016 2:02 pm

Because it does not use the violent or criminal act, but can you deny that it is a tactic of producing fear in a population for the purpose of political change? While it does not have a criminal component, it certainly falls under the description "Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;" Though it is non-violent in its actions, it still seeks the same goals as terrorism, to circumvent the political process through use of intimidation and fear.

The Geneva Center for Security Policy held a two day roundtable addressing this very issue, though more from a global dynamic rather than an internal one. Here is how the international security analysts defined it in their schedule.

"What is “economic terrorism” and why should it be addressed? Contrary to “economic warfare” which is undertaken by states against other states, “economic terrorism” would be undertaken by transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives.
These actions, if undertaken, may be violent or not. They could have either immediate effects or carry psychological effects which in turn have economic consequences.
Massive threats against infrastructures have already been addressed, as have threats against populations (CBRN). Conversely, potential massive actions against economic systems have not yet been given the attention they deserve."

The lack of public policy on the issue does not eliminate the fact that it is being looked at by a select few as a potential danger f implemented on a large scale. That is entirely my point, if this tactic were to fully realize its goals, then it sets a precedent for more massive campaigns in the future. That is what scares me.
"It is difficult to fight against anger, for a man will buy revenge with his soul"--Heraclites
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Wed May 04, 2016 10:03 pm

I simply deny that what you are describing as "economic terrorism" is not "economic terrorism."

Neon Samurai wrote:it certainly falls under the description "Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;"


Yah, while I think that part can be debated by some, I do agree it can easily be argued to fit the definition. However, I think the argument/definition falls apart due to the lack of any violation of law. You can violate the law without violence, and thus have a crime be a terrorist action if it fits the part of the definition i quoted from you. (criminologists investigate crimes of fraud/money laundering/embezzlement etc. as potential forms of economic terrorism).

Your last post seemed focused on violent vs. non-violent acts, but the laws don't make that distinction (but I'm sure we can agree most terrorism investigated is of the violent variety). It is easy to argue that violence is terrorism, i doubt we'd disagree on that because most forms of violence are illegal/violate a federal or state statute. the real distinction is illegal vs. legal. Yes, I can buy into an argument that corporations and organizations are trying to intimidate/coerce North Carolina into changing their law, but I can't buy into an argument that this is "terrorism" because nothing illegal is happening.

in case I'm not being clear, let me use what you quoted from the Geneva Center for Security Policy:

Neon Samurai wrote:"What is “economic terrorism” and why should it be addressed? Contrary to “economic warfare” which is undertaken by states against other states, “economic terrorism” would be undertaken by transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives.
These actions, if undertaken, may be violent or not. They could have either immediate effects or carry psychological effects which in turn have economic consequences.
Massive threats against infrastructures have already been addressed, as have threats against populations (CBRN). Conversely, potential massive actions against economic systems have not yet been given the attention they deserve."


I don't see one mention of legality, so they clearly must assume these non-violent acts of economic destabilization are ILLEGAL acts. I am familiar with the scholarly literature on economic terrorism (primarily done in the fields of criminology/sociology/political science/economists), and they all focus on actual crimes (things like fraud, embezzlement, money laundering).
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
Rivoc
8 Bit Wonder
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Vegas
Contact:

Postby Rivoc » Thu May 05, 2016 6:30 am

Neon Samurai wrote:Because it does not use the violent or criminal act, but can you deny that it is a tactic of producing fear in a population for the purpose of political change? While it does not have a criminal component, it certainly falls under the description "Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;" Though it is non-violent in its actions, it still seeks the same goals as terrorism, to circumvent the political process through use of intimidation and fear.

The Geneva Center for Security Policy held a two day roundtable addressing this very issue, though more from a global dynamic rather than an internal one. Here is how the international security analysts defined it in their schedule.

"What is “economic terrorism” and why should it be addressed? Contrary to “economic warfare” which is undertaken by states against other states, “economic terrorism” would be undertaken by transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives.
These actions, if undertaken, may be violent or not. They could have either immediate effects or carry psychological effects which in turn have economic consequences.
Massive threats against infrastructures have already been addressed, as have threats against populations (CBRN). Conversely, potential massive actions against economic systems have not yet been given the attention they deserve."

The lack of public policy on the issue does not eliminate the fact that it is being looked at by a select few as a potential danger f implemented on a large scale. That is entirely my point, if this tactic were to fully realize its goals, then it sets a precedent for more massive campaigns in the future. That is what scares me.


The reason I cannot agree with your labeling of economic terrorism is that you state it as
Neon Samurai wrote:"What is “economic terrorism” and why should it be addressed? Contrary to “economic warfare” which is undertaken by states against other states, “economic terrorism” would be undertaken by transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives.
These actions, if undertaken, may be violent or not. They could have either immediate effects or carry psychological effects which in turn have economic consequences.
Massive threats against infrastructures have already been addressed, as have threats against populations (CBRN). Conversely, potential massive actions against economic systems have not yet been given the attention they deserve."


Clearly, this is not an economy that is being targeted. The group of people choosing not to do business in the state, and the state share the same economy. Therefore I cant agree with you that this is economic terrorism, as you define it. In no way is the economy of the state being targeted here. A group is choosing not to do business somewhere where they dont like how the practice is dealing with a social issue.

If your arguement is that economic terrorism doesnt need to target an economy specifically, and any group that chooses not to do business somewhere for an ideological or religious motive, then you are saying anyone who has ever participated in a boycott or protest against a business is an economic terrorist, which I think we can all agree is bullshit. People have the right to choose where to do their business for any reason. UNLESS THAT REASON is specifically targeting a separate economy, I cant agree with your justification of labeling the term economic terrorism.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
PhlawlessPhelon
phrankly phenomenal
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:20 am
Location: Krynn

Postby PhlawlessPhelon » Thu May 05, 2016 6:41 am

Rivoc wrote:The group of people choosing not to do business in the state, and the state share the same economy.


Wow, I actually didn't even think about it like that. I'm always too focused on criminal justice/sociological aspects of issues.
Image
-Master of all things pherret related
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Thu May 05, 2016 11:08 am

Rivoc wrote: A group is choosing not to do business somewhere where they don't like how the practice is dealing with a social issue.

.



Sounds more like Economic Activism. I can accept that manipulating the stock (in some legal way) of say the state's top 20 employers could. depending on motives, be seen as terrorism but the big element missing here is attack

While withdrawal of companies does have a negative impact on the state there is no element of aggression. Withdrawal is a strategy closer to pacifism than terrorism.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
Rivoc
8 Bit Wonder
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Vegas
Contact:

Postby Rivoc » Fri May 06, 2016 5:00 am

^agreed!

Withdrawing and terrorism dont really associate well. As I said though, my biggest problem with labeling it "Economic Terrorism" is that's it's not specifically targeting the economy. Hell, you just showed me I don't agree with the terrorism part either.

That woman that refused to give a gay couple their marriage license, Neon, you would absolutely have to call every person that refused to buy a marriage license from that specific center an economic terrorist as well by how you're labeling it.

I have to agree with the folks who are chalking this up to free market and capitalism just doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Ic really never heard the term economic terrorism before. I'd be curious to start another thread just citing examples of it from history. Are all boycotts done by economic terrorists? Is the minute you choose to not do business somewhere based on something that doesn't have to do with their product making you an economic terrorist? Or is it only when you are part of a group aiming to put a place out of business for any reason?

I dunno. I'll have to do more research. But I'm judging by current definition, then it is only when you are disrupting an entire economy of AN ENTIRE STATE OR OTHER SOCIETY for some ideological OR religious purpose only.

Such unique stipulations.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
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 » Mon May 09, 2016 7:51 pm

Update about this crazy law.. from a North Carolina person ..

So far the good Gov of NC has decided to SUE the federal government. The feds are wanting to take away federal funding. This federal funding is for schools, it pays the 1500 dollars a month in my mom's medication, there is a lot of federal funds that pay for stuff in this state. The loss of the money can be an issue. There are several counties that their local school districts get more money just because they are poor, the feds pay them extra because the tax base is missing. Without that federal money, many school districts would not have the funds to operate.

Here is a news story: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article75601912.html

Here is some CNN stuff:

CNN wrote:
[Breaking news update published at 3:34 p.m. ET]
The U.S. government filed a lawsuit Monday against North Carolina saying that state entities were in violation of provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX the Education Acts Amendment of 1972 and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sex. The lawsuit comes hours after Gov. Pat McCrory sued the Justice Department, asking a federal court to rule whether the state's so-called bathroom bill violated U.S. law.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/north-carolina-hb2-justice-department-deadline/


So now this takes on a new level of stupid .. that is the state of North Carolina is stupid. Everyone calls it the Bathroom Bill, minus the other stuff.. even still fuck.

I am really hoping that federal funds are not taken from the state. I am unsure of what will happen to NC if the funds are taken.. I wonder if Food Stamps and Medicaid will still be funded..
Image
User avatar
Rivoc
8 Bit Wonder
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Vegas
Contact:

Postby Rivoc » Tue May 10, 2016 2:09 am

It's very dumb that they couldn't just come to terms on a compromise of some sort. Fuck, one bathroom of stalls for poopers or people that sit to pee, one bathroom with urinals for a quick pee. There! We could've done that and split bathrooms by what business you need to do and saved thousands or millions in court costs, time, and labor. It wasn't very hard.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
villan
yet remains in darkness..
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:37 am
Location: nyc
Contact:

Postby villan » Tue May 10, 2016 1:57 pm

Oops, I didnt see this thread before I posted the video of Loretta Lynch's speech. It's INCREDIBLE http://ninjaevolution.net/forums/viewtopic.php?id=926
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Wed May 11, 2016 9:26 pm

Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
Rivoc
8 Bit Wonder
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Vegas
Contact:

Postby Rivoc » Thu May 12, 2016 4:48 am

Loretta Lynch sounds like someone I would vote for to be President. I don't know where she stands on a lot of issues, but one big quality I love to see in any candidate is their passion and earnest caring about people's basic rights. She stated her point very intelligently and referenced examples of where these behaviors have got us in the past.

I like a lot about this woman. I hope she keeps on making important impacts on our country. That's girl power, reason, intelligence, and raw emotion and determination all rolled into one excellent person. I can't imagine what she must have gone through to get where she is today. That alone is grounds for admiration of this woman.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Postby Corgimom » Sat May 14, 2016 12:20 pm

Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
bigsexywzp
the unproven
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:08 pm

Postby bigsexywzp » Wed May 18, 2016 7:04 am

I think the President may be stretching things too far with this most recent executive order.

I do believe that the Civil Rights Act Title IX should include transgender people, but it should be included by an act of Congress rather than executive fiat. Since the text doesn't include transgender people, it could easily be overturned by the next person seeking executive office.

Plus, the text of the executive order explicitly states that students do not have to seek counseling or diagnosis before requesting acceptance/accommodation. Counseling and diagnosis should be a definite requirement.

Simply for the fact that many of the symptoms of gender dysphoria are shared with other mental conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Giving them accommodations won't alleviate the suffering of these people. In fact, it could just put people at risk in the event that an undiagnosed issue is allowed to continue untreated or mistreated.

Some people may have a transvestic fetish, and are not suffering from gender dysphoria. Some of the behaviors are similar, such as wearing clothing that matches that of the opposing gender, but someone with a transvestic fetish does it for sexual release and stimulation. Someone with gender dysphoria, on the other hand, is convinced they are born into the wrong sex or body, and wear clothes of the opposing gender to simply live a basic life and feel comfortable in their own body.

They may even simply be normal teens that are going through an awkward phase or who find themselves unsure about their sexuality and don't know what it means. They need counseling and advice.

Without a requirement for diagnosis? We are setting ourselves up for a bad situation for everyone, transgender and non-transgender alike.
Neon Samurai
the unproven
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Postby Neon Samurai » Thu May 19, 2016 1:23 pm

The problem with using Title IX is that here is the wording "§ 106.33 Comparable facilities.
A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex." Thus the section itself is binary in its description. So unless congress changes the definition, there is little power under Title IX. But here is something I brought up in another thread, the focus is on bathrooms. I get it, if you are using a stall with a door it makes no sense or difference in the overall scheme of things. (although I also get the not removing an obvious social clue as a clearly male walking into a female bathroom is a cause for concern, lets face it not all trans look like Laverne Cox, a lot look like Terry Crews in a wig.) But where the problem comes in, and what is not addressed by calling it the "bathroom bill" is that it also includes locker rooms, changing facilities, and showers. Many parents may not want their children (and by children that can include up to 18 years old) exposed to nudity of the opposite biological sex. I don't have kids, but I am pretty sure if I had a 10 year old daughter who was taking swim lessons at the Y, I wouldn't want dingle dangles exposed to her when she showers (even in a non-sexual way). I am not worried about sexual assault or any of that, but just they don't need to see that. I think the verdict is still out on the impact of opposite gender nudity on children, but it is the parents right to not want exposure, and that is the part that no one is talking about in framing it as "Bathroom". Thoughts?
"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 May 19, 2016 6:01 pm

I think the reason the title IX will be successfully applied is that the federal government recognizes a legal process for gender reassignment and the state's bill, among other things, chooses to ignore or at least disregard those simple facts.

I have known literally hundreds of transgender. Pre-op genital exposure is more terrifying to them that it is to you. The only way a person who is a woman in every way, except genitals, would be exposed in a public shower is after life threatening chemical exposure and even that might be a fight.

As far as exposure in a women's bathroom- we have stalls with doors. AN actual trans never wants the incorrect genitals exposed.

All the bathroom bill has done is give actual perverts something to claim.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


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

Postby Neon Samurai » Fri May 20, 2016 12:38 pm

I think deep down we are in agreement. The problem wasn't trans to begin with, but a poorly worded ordinance that allowed loopholes for non-trans perpetrators and just people wanting to prove a point to abuse it. Thus to stop them, they had to negatively affect the trans community. I still say there is no easy answer because one way or another there is going to be a problem. This is always the case with laws beyond the common law. Don't steal, kill, lie, and rape. Those don't need elaborate laws as they are pretty straight forward. But when you start getting into the minutia of everyday life, that is when all sorts of problems start to arise. But the government meddled in something that is far too complex for just a few paragraphs and that is where the problem comes in. Even saying you can't discriminate becomes a problem as that becomes a de facto quota because you haven't hired any or enough of a particular protected class and you don't want your company to be labeled bigoted. When you try to micromanage every little detail, that is when everything falls apart. But then that is what career politicians do, all the big stuff has already been done before they got into office, so they have to do something once the budget is passed. Then you get crap like this. I get it, Charlotte's heart was in the right place, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"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 » Sat May 21, 2016 11:32 pm

I can not stop being amused at the newest punishment to NC Xhamster- yes the porn site- is blocking NC. How far on the wrong side of history do you have to be for pornographers to not do business with you?
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image

Return to “C&D”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests