#1 reason I will be voting straight Republican

Not one person has even hinted at "punishing" transwomen or transmen.

Requiring people use the bathroom that matches their sex is not "punishment." That is an absurd claim.

 

Not one statute or law of such natures has that or ANY requirement, other than boys in school must sign a statement under Obama's DOJ directive. The statement can not be questioned and it is prohibited to tell the boys parents he signed it. With that, he's with the naked girls in the shower and - under DOJ orders sleeping alone in a motel room with a girl on an overnight school outing - for which neither the girl nor parents may be given any notice of this being required of that girl.

Other than for schools and boys signing as statement that he wants to be with the girls, there is no standard, no confirmation, no legal measure and absolutely no safeguard or definition of who is and isn't trans.

 

You don't really know any females or have any family members who very violently assaulted and raped, do you?

When you read of how ISIS and the Taliban treat girls do you laugh?

 

No it doesn't contradict it. Explain to me how Hillary supporting every war of any kind, every drone strike, every bombing, even wanting to attack Russian aircraft over Syria, her support of NAFTA and now the Asia deal, the millions and billions Wall Street, big banks and international corporations have poured on her makes her "Democrat?"

Why did it totally reverse and Democrats supporting American jobs lost by the millions to the cheap immigrant labor those corporations pouring money on BOTH Clintons wanted?

Does Hillary and Bill Clinton paying women more than 1/3rd less to women in there largely secret MEGA BILLION dollar slush fund they launder thru Sweden make her a champion of women's rights? Or is it her calling the women that Bill had sex with and affairs with "bimbos," "floozies," "looney tunes," and "$100 trailer park prostitutes" what makes her the women's rights activist?

I could go on and on. Now? The most anti-women laws being passed by Democrats - the most horrific anti-women rights laws I've seen in my lifetime by a factor of 1000.

Back when people were discussing potential contested conventions I explained how conventions actually worked - having been at them - and many member thanked me. I have also given detailed explanation how easy voter fraud is to commit by election precinct workers in detail, because I've run a Democratic voting precinct as the election judge. I could have cast 5000 votes if I wanted to, no possibility of prosecution, and explained how easy it would be.

You watch who you decided are your ideological masters, totally detached from reality as you do, and like some zombie in a religious cult chant anything they tell you to chant. They control your emotions, thoughts and beliefs. They tell you who to like and who to hate. You're a non-player, such one of a herd of millions to them - but they are EVERYTHING to you. You probably actually think those people give a damn about you, don't you?

Here's a clue. Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Rubio, Cruz... you are exactly NOTHING to them, nothing at all. But you have picked your master, blind loyalty.

 

Will your "Straight Republican" vote tip the scales in Ohio or Pennsylvania?

Sounds like it is going to really matter.

 

That is the singularly most hilarious thing I've read here in at least a month.

Thanks!

 

Have they been living as their preferred gender in the past? Have they taken steps towards gender reassignment? Do they look like they're trying to be the gender they prefer? Have they ever attempted to assault somebody in the bathroom?

Frankly a transgendered person who looks like a manly woman or a womanly man (most you wouldn't notice unless you looked closely), but minds their own business isn't going to get a lot of attention in the bathroom. If they do get bad attention, the answers to the questions above will help the police determine whether they are a sexual predator or just a transgendered person who received negative attention and had a misunderstanding. "Identify as a woman" means more than just stating it, you have to actually be living it.

 

Very true.

 

Good questions.

 

No kidding.

Dems "anti-women"? That is hilarious.

I haven't read anything that hilarious at this forum since I read delusional posts (directed at me) who think I am capable of being trolled.

Funny stuff, Bruno.

Dems, "anti-women"?

 

OMG! They're promoting "horrific" anti-women laws! SOMEONE CALL PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY!

 

nice post


i have a concurrent theme expressed in a different way.


Freedom of Choice

Near and dear to the hearts of many Americans is the notion of equal protection under the laws. This sentiment is reinforced by the prospect of liberty and justice for all. This concept of equal justice is a foundation of our modern ethos. We can just look to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, we are aware that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give equal protection to those that took up arms against the United States. In fact, those leaders were prohibited from running for office in the United States. It is conceivable that certain portions of the amendment were to establish and maintain political power. Perhaps this was also motivation for the Fifteenth Amendment in some significant way.
Given this history, reasonable people may have cause to be suspicious of the intent of those that champion laws they claim are about civil rights. A cursory understanding of history may teach us that crusaders are not always transparent in their motives.

Moving along to the Civil rights act of 1964. This legislation outlawed discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title IX of the 1972 education amendments says specifically that;
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

This is the basis of the transgender accommodations recently ordained by the Obama administration for public schools. This new doctrine appears to be in line with the spirit if not the letter of previous civil rights protections. Certainly, we all agree that we are better off as a people without race and gender biases dominating our culture. Separate but equal was not a viable path towards integration and harmony.

Is the transgender issue a logical extension of race and gender equality? Let’s examine from the beginning of legal status. Keep in mind a fetus does not have legal status. Although the science seems conclusive that life begins at inception, at least more conclusive than man made climate change, the fetus has no rights of choice in whether they live or die. Given this, we can say that equal protection is sometimes a matter of convenience.
Back on subject now. A child does not choose their race, or gender, or country of birth. These choices are outside of their control and perhaps in the hands of their creator. Therefore, these can be considered endowments from their creator. Their religion on the other hand is a conscious choice. This choice to freely exercise their faith is not protected by civil rights legislation. in fact, prayer is prohibited in public schools. Many believe this a violation of the First Amendment which says the government shall not restrict the free exercise of religion.

Correction, prayer is not banned in public schools. Students are allowed to pray as long as it does not disrupt the school day or interfere with the rights of others. The Supreme court did however ban school led prayer in 1962 and reading from the bible in 1963. Some argue that students that were not part of the majority belief pattern felt persecuted or at least estranged. This is somewhat easy to understand as there is some incongruity between Catholicism and Judaism. Do we want those children that are not part of majority belief systems to feel excluded?

Could this be solved by all faiths having different versus of scripture read over the loudspeaker system? If the government promoted many faiths is that the same as establishing a religion, or is it respecting a variety of perspectives and promoting tolerance? Regardless of the chosen solution it is important to respect the rights of minority groups. But what if protecting minorities makes the majority uncomfortable? Does being in the majority mean that your feelings do not need to be considered because you agree with many of your peers? What if minority behavior makes the majority feel estranged? Is the majority entitled to equal protection?

Given this peculiar reality of civil rights legislation there seems to be an existing precedent. How does this impact gender identification? Well, one cannot choose their ethnicity so it is protected. One cannot choose their sexual category at birth or their place of birth so they are protected from discrimination. What about religion and gender identification? Apparently gender identity is a choice that allows one to choose a different biological identity. This may not be exactly the same as Cassius Clay becoming Muhammad Ali but it is a choice. Ironically a change in religion is enough to avoid going to war unless you are a Christian. If a child grows up in a strictly religious environment are his or her choices limited by their surroundings? In such a case some may say they are indoctrinated and do not have a choice. Of course, different people always have different points of view.

Who goes to what bathroom? This is now a civil rights issue. It is not a privacy issue. It is a right of a person to identify as they wish in case their creator made a mistake and gave them the wrong biological identity. Simple enough. If we do not let them choose, then they are forced to share facilities with people whom they may consider the opposite sex. That in itself is not something we would wish on our children. So why is it an issue?
What if a white person grew up in a black culture? Could they then claim they had a black identity and file to be a minority owned business? Say that a white male identified as a black female can he then be a minority and woman-owned business. Say that a black person grew up in a white environment and displayed white behavior is he now to be removed from the minority preferences we know as affirmative action. Given all the laws and preferences that have been established to move towards a more equal society. Which of the standards do we apply by given circumstances versus chosen circumstances?

What transformative procedures can a person who is deficient in melanin undergo to be perceived as an racially changed person. If a white person pretends to be black and work for the NAACP can they claim they understand racism and prejudice? Can a person born biologically different than their chosen identity actually change their DNA? Is the objective here really to say there are no absolutes and everything is open to interpretation? Let’s all join together in a spirit of cooperation and open mindedness? In this spirit, what is this whole issue really about?

We have restricted the use of religion to emphasize cultural norms in our public schools. Now we are moving towards the removal of the creator’s intent in terms of gender identity and are imposing humanist values on our children in school. The question we need to consider is what do the principles of humanism constitute in terms of religion?

Finally, as the secularists and humanists trumpet the virtues of diversity, is it not clearly time for school choice where parents can select the cultural norms and values their children are indoctrinated by. Or is it against the collective good for individuals to make choices that may be divergent from those imposed upon us?

 

Of course cops haven't been camping out toilets inspecting genitals (and that isn't going to change), but I suspect that if the 1950s police were made aware that a man dressed as a woman was using the bathroom through whatever avenue (complaint from a female toilet-user, etc), that those police would take action if able.

Personally I simply do not see the issue with completely unisex bathrooms. Let's just do it already, I'm sick of having separate-but-not-equal status as a male, having to put up with intolerably dirty male bathrooms. I pay taxes too, desegregate the toilets!

 

Don't VOTE
it only encourages the CRIMINALS

 

It seems to me the majority of the people complaining about this are males, upset they have to take a leak at a urinal, or shower, potentially next to another male.

Frankly, I'm doubting even the most ardent butch lesbian wants to take a leak in a public mens room stall or shower with other males. They still prefer the ladies room I'm sure.

So really it's the males who wish they were females we're talking about, they are the problem, they are the one's rocking the boat, stirring the (*)(*)(*)(*)...so to speak.

Therefore, it's the females who are going to have to deal with this, since it's the males who will want to use their facilities.

If women are ok with a man taking a leak in the stall next to them, or showering next to them, I'm fine with this.

If women are not ok with this, we have a problem. I'm guessing most women don't want a man they don't know next to them in the restroom or shower,

By not wanting to offend the man who identifies as a female, we are offending females who identify as females.

In this case, a simple majority should rule.
As females who identify as females make up 51% of the population compared to males who identify as females with less than 1/2 of 1%

Tough cookies for the males, you will use the mens room and use the stall if you prefer to urinate sitting like a female.

Case closed, what's next on the docket.

 

BREAKING NEWS...........It is STILL illegal for a Man to be in a Womens restroom peeking at Women & Children. It is STILL illegal for a Man to rape Women & Children.

So I ask again........What exactly changed by allowing trans-gendered people from using the restroom of their choice, which I might add, they have been doing now their entire lives??

 

Are you really trying to equate trans-gendered folks with ISIS & the Taliban??

You better hurry up and invoke Godwin's Law before someone else beats ya to it.

 

And I will be voting gay democrat. Haha, get it?! It's late, but I thought it was funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Some female to male transgender people have beards and mustaches due to hormone therapy. They dress as men in public. Would you rather have them using women's public restrooms? Many man to woman transsexual people wear dresses, have breasts and look like women. Do you want them to be forced to use men's public facilities? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

No see that's not true. In fact none of it is. All an individual has to say is that they identify as a woman. How can you prove any different? Just because they don't dress like one or live like one doesn't mean they don't identify as one. They'll simply argue they don't do all the things you mentioned out of fear from retribution against them for being transgender by the people in their lives.

How do you prove they're not? And how do you prove they're not then just lying to you?

 

I'm sure this has been pointed out, but I wanted to make sure.

Here is the part that makes your comment pointless. From the original post "After reading these laws and regulations - and now the edicts of the White House's DOJ to schools and universities - exactly NONE of which give ANY standard for what constitutes being transgender"

He's say that there will not be "transgender cards" assigned to people to verify if they are or aren't so there is nothing to prevent a predator from "pretending" to be one.

 

No that's not true. If I simply say I'm a police officer when I'm not, I've committed a crime. If I pretend to work at a movie theater to sneak in for free and am discovered then I'm in trouble. If someone fakes being trans, hides in a bathroom and rapes me, he will get in trouble. His claim of being trans will go no were because he raped me. If he hides in the bathroom simply to peep, I'll report and he'll get in trouble. It doesn't matter if he's really trans or not, you can't peep on other people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, that is incredibly false.
First, there is absolutely no way to prove someone is "faking" being transgender.
Second, it seems clear you don't care if anyone is raped, since you have exactly zero concern about preventing it in the first place.
Third, "peeping" in a bathroom if legally in the bathroom is an impossible case to prove. The question is whether that person can legally be in the bathroom in the first place.

Every time you post about transgender raping people it is a deliberate distortion on your part and you know it.

 

No, this is not the 1950s. It is 2016. The most recent time I know of a man arrested for being in a public women's bathroom was last week.

I don't think you want to use the women's bathroom instead of the smelly men's room so men can pee on the floor in the women's bathroom too isn't a compelling case, is it?