AG Lynch: G Identity More Important Than Sexual Privacy, Opponents Are Like Racists

Then let the teensy number of folks this would apply to carry their birth certificate to show they are entitled to use the ladies' or mens' room if they are challenged. Again, we don't have to make this harder than it has to be.

 

I would be very uncomfortable if any guy was in the public ladies' room. I would want the right to ask such a person to leave. I don't care if they are transgendered or not. I want the guys to use the guys facilities and the ladies to use the ladies facilities. Otherwise make the facilities unisex so people know what they might be in for and can choose to go elsewhere. I don't want anybody who looks like a guy in there with me if I need to change clothes or otherwise do things that I prefer to do with only women present.

All I am asking for is common sense. If you must make a choice of who will be made uncomfortable then you should go with the majority and not with the person who chooses to be a gender other than the one on their birth certificate.

 

But you just said that - and I quote, "Nobody is going to have to produce a birth certificate ..." Post #39.

 

Put that into the full context of what I said dear. It's not nice to hold up a sentence as evidence when the full context obvious changes the intent. I was simply arguing that ordinary normal people would not be affected in any way by the NC law. The few who might be suspected of violating the law would need to carry a birth certificate to show that they were not violating the law.

 

You're right - you contradicted yourself later in your post ... "nobody" means a few - I get it. I apologize for not putting up the full quote.

 

It's a real problem now, because of government intrusion due to the overreach of the trans movement.

In your wife's situation, everyone knows everyone else; no real problem with that.

The problem comes in when unknown people start using the law to gain "legal" access to unsupervised kids in public rest rooms, whether they are really trans or not.

The trans movement should understand the victimization possibilities this opens up, both to children and themselves, and back off on trying to codify this. Any trans that discreetly uses the gendered facility of their choice is not going to have a problem. Those that flaunt it will, but that is not a victimization issue, it is a conscious political act of incitement.

Some sort of regulation in situations where everyone really does know everyone else might be called for, just to clear up that *locally known* trans people discreetly using the gendered facility they prefer should be allowed to do so--but no public place should be expected to allow an obvious male into a female rest room. If a trans cannot pull it off convincingly in such locations, they need to be in a safe travel mode and use wherever they will most convincingly belong.

 

The issue is not mainly what trans people might do, but what perpetrators posing as trans people might do.

Try not to oversimplify.

 

This is SO simple.Lynch ,a Hack,was installed by Obama for a reason.
To complete Obama's objective as a Troublemaker.Like Eric Holder.
Holder wasn't causing any problems for Blacks.But his had a mission to
diminish the role of Whites { whitey }. What else explains his behavior
in the Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman fracus.Or Insisitng on
constant F.B.I. investigation of his civil rights division AFTER Zimmerman
was found not guilty.Pure adulterated Racist harassment.Like the way Holder
couldn't be bothered with jailing the Philly Polling Thugs { 2 black panthers
using nightstick to intimidate and harass Voters }.
Or any - Knockout Game - or - Polar bear Hunting - activity.
Lynch was practically mentored by Holder for her role.
Again ... Not a lick of concern by her,like Holder over Rioting as in
Ferguson or Baltimore.She's as Big a hack as Holder.Maybe more so.

 

Lynch is a racist.

Trump is going to fire her, and throw her out on the sidewalk in January 2017

 

So then why don't these laws call for increased penalties against perpetrators? Instead they call for the arrest or fine of trans people not using the facilities of their birth gender, regardless of their physical nature. Is "other people might abuse the law so we are going to arrest you" really a sound legal argument?

 

No they don't call for the arrest of transgender people. There is no way to currently separate the wheat from the chaff. The laws mearly limit by biological gender.

Cheers
Labour

 

Irrelevant. Obama and his hand picked flunky are giving sexual predators permission now to enter women's rest rooms by virtue of merely being male. And if they get caught pulling out their "johnson" there...oh, well. They have a right to be there and they are their to urinate.
How gallant of you to let the ladies know they are worrying over nothing...easy for you to say.

More irrelevance. Different issue.

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

Or just let everybody set whatever policy they prefer and have the law state that those policies regarding gender specific public restrooms will be enforced upon request. Simple. No fuss, muss, bother, or complications. If the sign on the door says men, then all the guys, transgendered or not, are expected to use that restroom. If the sign on the door states female gender preference (or some such), then everybody knows a transgendered guy might be in there. Etc.

But if the state prefers to make the law separating men and women according to what their birth certificate says they are, I don't have a problem with that either. So very few would be at all inconvenienced that I can't imagine it would be much of a problem. If it is a problem for somebody somebody wants to accommodate, simply designate one restroom unisex and problem is solved.

 

What a load of bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! This has nothing to with protecting children as I pointed out. If this were remotely true Republicans would want to ban football coaches, wrestling coaches, priest, Republican male members from public bathrooms. There have been 99.9 more cases of molestation of children or adults committed by those groups than a transgendered man or woman. You do understand what female hormones do to a male body....>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

Someone explain what "Civil Rights Act" statute was violated. This is in regards to discrimination against people on the basis of race, sex, or country of origin. This clearly states that people of the same sex MUST be treated the same. You can't discriminate and grant special rights based on how you dress for example.

The AG can't make her own laws. Just get congress to pass a law, and then you can enforce it. Until then let's hold up the "boycott" talks. I do believe congress has the power to impeach the AG.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ution-to-impeach-attorney-general-holder.html

 

Try to think of what is necessary in terms of prevention.

The idea is to prevent victimization in the first place, not to entice more perpetrators into committing more crimes so we can have more victims.

We have enough victims already, and more than enough people already in jail. We don't need stupid laws and regulations that trigger more stupid laws and regulations that create more of these.

 

Ditto.

 

This whole damn controversy is just silly. Put in unisex bathrooms and shut the hell up.

 

`
Think 'cost.'

 

How about no retroactive assignment. Only going forward, unisex.

 

`
What I will say is anecdotal, you can take it or leave it. - In new construction, the unisex, single occupancy lav, has been going on for years. However, in existing structures, it gets expensive, especially the plumbing. Still, the old Mens/Womans rooms, with stalls and stuff, is on its way out. This issue has actually been a boon for remodeling and plumbing contractors. I side with those who have an "Expectation of privacy" when it comes to ones matters of ones own personal hygiene.

 

I feel the same way about public bathrooms. I'd rather have the experience to myself. Concerts or sporting events are the worst. It's hard to even go sometimes.

 

Holder in drag..... and we thought it couldn't get worse....

 

The Republican House should hold her in contempt for abusing her powers as Attorney General. This is twice that she has tried to extort others, into agreeing with what she would have them do. She's no honorable representative of American views of justice.

 

Are you really attempting to pass this off on "conservatives"???? Hardly. Do you really think it's only "conservatives" who oppose allowing males access to female restrooms & showers?