Returning power to the states is a terrible idea

So...if a White person refuses to associate with, talk to, befriend, date, live with, or hire black people, I guess you cannot accuse him of being a racist, because that would be you "inferring" it, right? I mean the only time when someone is a racist is when he actually says out loud that he is a racist, right?

If I say that you are a man, you can't get offended because technically I didn't say outright that you are not a man, right?

 

I didn't say you couldn't. I said you'd probably pull an indecent exposure charge.

Whether they stick or not depends, in general, on whether you can convince a judge or jury you didn't behave in a "vulgar or indecent manner." So, the answer depends on your actions.

HEY...They depend on your actions not your gender.

Just like the laws we have now. If you get naked in the men's shower and start rubbing your doodle on the other guys you'd be arrested the same as if you did the same thing in the ladies restroom.

 

Wow. That is among the finest gibberish I've seen in many many years.

The only way you could improve on this conversation is to leave it.

 

I noticed that in addition to you insulting me (again!), you also fail to answer the questions I posed to you. I think I will post them again so that you cannot weasel out of it:

So...if a White person refuses to associate with, talk to, befriend, date, live with, or hire black people, I guess you cannot accuse him of being a racist, because that would be you "inferring" it, right? I mean the only time when someone is a racist is when he actually says out loud that he is a racist, right?

If I say that you are a human, you can't get offended because technically I didn't say outright that you are not a human, right?

 

Nobody is denying access to public facilities. There is a restroom for BOTH sexes. No one has a right to misuse public facilities, and transgenders don't gain that right (that nobody else has) just because they have mental problems.

 

We don't live off fantasies, we live off liberties. Trump sold you fantasies. Deal with it.

By the way, speaking of Trump and the Bill of Rights, doesn't seem Trump is a fan of the first amendment, now is he?

 

There is virtually no state 'sovereignty' since we became a federal republic. States signed it over centuries ago whether they realized it or not. If states want more independence in their lawmaking ability, they learn to use their power to run their elections and select electors to produce more loyalty for them than for parties, or ideologies. That means finding creative methods to enshrine some carrots and sticks to reward the Congressmen for defending 'states rights' as a principle. For example what is state legislatures thought of gerrymandering districts in favor of states rights candidates over federalists instead of Democratic or republican candidates. States need to assert their interests, rather than expect a court to do so.

 

Of course if you wish to throw over any pretense at respect for the dignity and safety of women. The whole concept of ell if I think I'm Woman even if I am physically a man thoroughly debases women. I'm thoroughly surprised that any one who considers them a feminist can support this insanity.

 

What about the freedom of women to feel safe in locker and restrooms? What the fed tried to do was make women and girls feel violated in order to avoid embarrassing a small group that has psychological issues. And I feel bad for the transgender folks. But allowing perverts to pretend to be trans, in order to prey on women and girls is abhorrent.

As far as the drivel about the constitution being out of date, if you think it needs updating, then do it. The mechanisms are there. The problem is the majority disagree with you.

 

Sure you do sweetie. Sure you do lol just as long as the all powerful government you side with gives you those liberties.

Government doesn't grant rights. Period.

 

Again, under the law, yes. BUT it would still probably get you an indecent exposure charge. This is a case where your mere presence with your doodle dangling in the wind will be considered by many to be an overt sexual act. Their proof? Your presence, your doodle. It will be up to you to prove that your actions are not "vulgar or indecent."

I'd advise you to lawyer up before trying this although, lawyering up in advance could be construed as intent so...Good luck with that.

 

If government denies access to a restroom based solely on the gender of the PERSON to whom access is denied it is a violation of that person's rights and the rights of every person who would be denied access under the same law.

It does not matter how many restrooms are available and how they are labeled.

How about a non-toilet example...

Put an ad in the paper to rent an apartment. Include in the ad "No Mexicans Please!"

What do you think will happen.

 

That is not a good characterization of the Trans gender EO by Obama. It was not just sex neutral bathroom additions, it was allowing men to use women's rooms and vice versa based on how they characterized themselves.
The Federal gov has so over reached it's authority and Constitutional mandate that we find our nation in 20 trillion dollar debt, race relations at there worst since I can remember, and an education system that brain washes our youth rather than teach them.
Power at the state level, for example education, means we have 50 states conducting education as they see fit. That is 50 test tubes of which a few will actually figure out the best approach that lifts our World competiveness and that other states can emulate. With the current one size fits all approach we have one method passed down from beurocrats on high that is failing.

 

Not dodging anything. Merely pointing out that comments and questions from you are best handled like one handles a particularly putrid fart. Waving the smell away and blaming it on the dog.

 

No, you don't have a point.

Perhaps if you could cite for me some real life examples of a transsexual person arrested or detained for taking a shower in the locker room of their choice we'd have some foundation for this discussion.

You want to do it, go for it. Get naked in the ladies locker room and join that common shower. It will be up to you to prove that your intent is not "vulgar or indecent" and unless your personal history shows you to be transgender, you will have a very difficult time proving that.

Whether you are a man or a woman. Whether you are in the mens or ladies room. If your purpose in being there is "vulgar or indecent" then you are committing a crime.

We didn't have these laws before Obergfell and we don't need them now.

 

Let me ask you this.

Restrooms that are simply labeled "Restroom" at gas stations don't bother you, do they? I don't know where you get the idea I throw out concern for the safety of women, that's simply absurd and I'm shrugging that assumption off. I consider myself a proud feminist (reason I support and applaud the women's marches). Simply designating a restroom as gender neutral is a common sense solution. Many businesses already house gender-neutral restrooms.

There is a disorder called Gender Identity Disorder (yes, this is actually a thing). It's also known as gender dysphoria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

 

I don't care about what your (worthless) opinion is on whether my posts are "putrid farts" or not. I just want my questions answered. Why is this so difficult? Do you always dodge and evade questions that you are unable to answer?

 

Dodge and evade? Not at all. I respond to all intelligent questions and statements.

I simply do not assign any value in discussing, with any sense of seriousness, anything of intellectual import with you. You've consistently demonstrated a complete lack of depth or, for the most part, even basic comprehension of the subjects into which you've inserted yourself.

Are we clear?

 

So....if you can't answer someone's questions, just accuse them of being "dumb" questions, thus absolving you of having to answer them. Is this how you "debate"?

Do you think I care whether you assign value to my posts? No, I don't. I do, however, notice you have REPEATEDLY avoided answering my straightforward questions. But I guess you do this with a clear conscience because all you need to do is declare that my questions are "dumb". Besides, you shouldn't just dismiss someone's questions (like what you just did) just because you think they (or their questions) are dumb. There are people of varying levels of understanding of political issues on this board and sometimes, maybe they need to ask questions in order for them to gain a better understanding of the issues for themselves. Just because you personally think these questions are "dumb" it does not mean they are not legitimate questions. After all, everybody started out ignorant of the world, and one major way for them to learn is to ask questions.

 

And, again...

There are already laws in place that punish people for behaviors that concern you whether they are male or female or whether the event occurs in a ladies room, mens room, dressing room, back seat of a car, etc., etc., etc.

We didn't need these laws before Obergfell, we don't need them now.

Any law barring equal access to public accommodations based solely on gender would, with Obergfell as a precedent be found unconstitutional.

If you're a woman. Look like a woman. Act like a woman. Dress like a woman. And you go into a mens room and drop your panties and stand at the urinal you will have exposed your sexual organs in public. If the ladies room was available at the time you'll have a hard time arguing that your actions were anything but a "vulgar" display.

Perhaps we should move from fantasy to reality.

Actual pre-op transsexuals are not going into open locker rooms to shower. Doesn't happen.
Transvestites go into the restroom representing their dressed gender to use the facilities. They don't go there to peek.

The thing you claim to worry about really doesn't exist. The laws you're supporting don't target criminals. They target people trying to peacefully deal with their lives. They are intended to humiliate people who already have enough problems dealing with acceptance or lack thereof in the world in which they live.

You're protecting no one while choosing to harm those who've never done you harm.

It really is that simple.

 

All of it. You cannot support any of the claims so noted.

Either way, you need an amendment.

You cannot show that your proposals will make people safer -- that is, your claim to that effect is unsupportable.

 

How is it "harming them" to make people with a penis use the men's room, instead of the women's?