#1 reason I will be voting straight Republican

The Obama Administration issued a directive to schools for allowing transgenders to use opposite sex bathrooms and shower facilities. I was also noted that schools may risk a loss of Federal funding if they fail to follow Administration guidelines. Obama MADE it an issue in the first place! The NC law certainly was NOT a reaction to wedding cakes.

Another libbie false comparison trying to bring up racial unrest and somehow trying to make it applicable to transgenders. Where do you get your news anyway? The Daily Kos?

 

Actually, when you look at places where transgender bathroom laws have been enacted, there has been no increase in sexual assaults or people attempting to hide behind the law.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533

 

Anyone who can use Google can see that this became an issue in April of this year. Obama didn't issue his directive until mid May. Guess when the NC Bathroom Law was passed?

 

Everyone knew what was coming down...unless they were living under a rock that is. NC should be lauded for trying to cut it off at the pass. The administration was citing it's own (Obama's) expansion of title IX a long time before his official proclamation and bribery.

 

But you realize that's not what they're talking about doing right? They're attempting to allow people to choose their bathroom by their gender identity. An attribute which could change daily and is subjective to the individual and cannot be proven or disproven.

Restricting people to the bathrooms of their birth certificate only comes into play when illegal activity has occurred. Nobody is going to be checking anyone's genitals. So trannies can continue to use the bathroom that they identify with. The law only comes into play if someone does something illegal. If something illegal occurs and the person says they were just in there using the bathroom and it can be shown that they're not actually a female then it can be safely assumed that their intentions were more nefarious than simply using the bathroom.

 

Google is either your friend or enemy..be careful.

 

No actually that link is extremely dishonest. The link asserts that the incidents didn't increase BECAUSE of the law. They're essentially making the same argument that some liberals on here have attempted to make. They're only counting the assaults that occur BY transgenders in bathrooms. Perfect example is snopes. Snopes took an incident of sexual assault by someone who claimed to be transgender and was cross dressing and asserted that his sexual assault wasn't CAUSED by the new rules at target. This guy would have done this regardless. So they remove blame from the transgender policies. But that's not a legitimate position to take.

 

Medical research shows that gender identity is established at a very young age and does not change. Transgender people also take great measures to express their gender identity, from they way they cut their hair and dress, to taking hormone treatments and even surgery. Anyone who changes their gender daily or doesn't even try to present themselves as the opposite sex may be confused but they're not transgender.

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/opus/issues/2011/spring/gender_identity_development

If someone does something illegal like taking photos or stalking someone, then whether they were transgender or not wouldn't be a factor.

 

You're argument is that allowing transgender bathrooms will make people less safe. The link asserts that incidents didn't increase DESPITE the law, which directly refutes your argument.

 

Oh, then how do you expect your law to be enforced? Let's walk through that once again for your edification. A woman who looks like a man walks into the female restroom. Someone gets concerned and calls the police. So the police show up. The ask the accused woman why she is in the female restroom. She tells them because she is a woman. What's the cop suppose to do? The accused woman looks like a man and talks like a man. Is the cop supposed to just accept the woman's word that she is a female? Well, that could have happened without calling the cops. The only way to be certain is to physically check. Now if you think that is ridiculous, then why are you proposing it? .

Well, as I just described, you check to see if they have a pecker. The transgendered biological males will look like females. Because that's kinda the whole point about being transgendered. Biologically male transgendered folks will appear like women, they will speak like, act like and look like females. You probably won't even notice them.

Again, you don't have any evidence this is a problem. We have rules to protect everyone, not just women and children. It's part of that Constitution thingy so called conservatives like to pound on when it suits them and then quickly forget when it doesn't.

Well, we folks want the rules which have been in place for decades to remain in place. The problem you have, is you cannot find any evidence that the existing rules are somehow deficient or ineffective. You have a solution in search of a problem...a problem which doesn't exist. And I don't know about you, but I never let my young children go unescorted into public restrooms period. What you are advocating doesn't prevent the scenario you just described. In fact it makes it worse for reasons previously and repeatedly enunciated.

 

The law would be enforced if they did something illegal. They're not going to be removed from the bathroom just for going in. However if he's actually a pervert and commits a sexual assault we can then show that he's not actually a female. But no, cops aren't going to go around checking genitals.

Second not all transgenders have gone through the "transition". So no, not all of them are going to look like the gender that they identify as

And yes we have rules to protect everyone but what they're doing now is essentially taking away one of the protections by providing them legal access to opposite sex bathrooms.

Last, and most importantly, I agree the rules should just stay the same as it has been. But you do realize it's not the conservatives who initiated this problem. The Charlotte city council voted to enact a city ordinance which would allow any man into any public women's facility including bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, saunas and shower facilities. In response to this dumb ass ordinance put in place by Charlotte, the state of NC passed HB2 which attempted to stop them from allowing men into opposite sex facilities. It did this by requiring people to use the facilities of the sex on their birth certificate.

We were happy to keep things the way they were. It's the liberals and their pet project homosexuals/transsexuals that initiated this problem.

 

As usual I argue based upon how things should work, but when they leave it as ill-defined as "identify as," somebody has to fill in the blanks and cops have discretion where there is ambiguity.

 

That is what courts are for, should there be any dispute. Then again it's not okay for trans people to harass others in the bathroom either so in most cases it would not be necessary to prove somebody is not living with a trans identity. All of what I said is exactly how it should work. If I claim to identify as a mormon, but I follow none of its teachings, do not go to a mormon church, and otherwise do not live as a mormon, well me claiming to identify as a mormon would simply be a lie. Same with trans. Saying something doesn't make it true, when it comes to identity living in accordance to that identity is what gives you that identity.

 

If you are not going to have pecker checkers, then your additional regulations are silly and meaningless other than to stir up so called conservatives.

Well, the good news is you don't have to have gone through "transition" in order to appear as the opposite sex.

What "they" are doing is essentially doing things they way they have always been done. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, what you and your fellow so called "conservatives" are doing is increasing the risk of allowing rapists into female restrooms. Because if what you are trying to do was actually implemented, it would require women who look like men to use the female restroom. The appearance of men entering female restrooms would become the norm. So when a real rapist enters the restroom, it would go unnoticed. So you are in effect making it easier for male rapist to enter female restrooms.

Except, that isn't true. Charlotte passed a broad LGBT anti-discrimination law which specifically exempted restrooms.

"Forest was wrong about private bathrooms, but what about public bathrooms? Would the Charlotte law have opened them to "all genders at all times?"

Here, the question gets a little more complex since Charlotte did eliminate the existing ordinance that had singled out bathrooms and locker rooms for exemptions.

In February, Rep. Dan Bishop – the Mecklenburg County Republican who ultimately sponsored HB2 – sent out an email with claims similar to the ones Forest is making now.

City officials replied in a memo that such claims were "incorrect" and "counter to common sense."

City Attorney Robert Hagemann said the right to have separate bathrooms is implied in society and doesn’t need a local ordinance to confirm it. He added that no other city or state with similar anti-discrimination rules has argued that anyone could go into any bathroom, and that Charlotte officials never wanted to argue that, either.

Forest’s press secretary Jamey Falkenbury said the argument for an implied right might be true for some places, but Charlotte would’ve been different because it specifically removed that right from its laws." - Politifact

http://www.politifact.com/north-car...gov-dan-forest-says-new-state-law-hb2-preven/

Well, if you were happy with the way things were, then why did you change things? The issue isn't restrooms. State Republicans didn't like the Charlotte ordinance which prevented discrimination against transgendered people. Even though restrooms were specifically exempted in the anti-discrimination ordinance, that didn't stop Republicans from saying they weren't. .Republican leaders thought the ordinance was a good excuse to rattle the cage and get the Republican base stirred up, and it did.

 

You're wrong and so is politifact. Which is why they didn't quote the ordinance passed by the Charlotte city council.

Section 3. Article III of Chapter 2 of the Charlotte City Code is amended as follows: “Sec. 12-58. - Prohibited acts.
(a) It shall be unlawful to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.

This means that NO male can be denied access to ANY woman's facility based upon his sex or gender identity.

And why don't you provide the piece of the ordinance that specifically exempts bathrooms? Or any other facility for that matter.

 

Except, I am right and so is Politicfact.. You ignore the exemption for restrooms which Politifact and I both pointed out and was very much a part of the ordinance.

 

What exception??

Here is the text of the ordinance.

Where is the exemption??

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/CityClerk/Documents/NDOrdinance.pdf

When you find it you let me know. Don't worry. I'll wait.

 

As previously brought to your attention, using your link:

Sec. 12-59. - Prohibited sex discrimination.

(a) It shall be unlawful to deny a person, because of sex, the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a restaurant, hotel, or
motel.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities which are in their nature
distinctly private.
(2) YMCA, YWCA and similar types of dormitory lodging facilities.
(3) A private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public.”

And then you have the statements made by the City Council and their legal counsel which have been previously referenced to back it up.

 

Do you understand what the strike throughs mean? It means they struck it from the ordinance so it no longer applies.

And no offense to mr forest or any city council member but their words in an interview don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) when they struck out the provisions which would exempt bathrooms and other facilities. There was NO reason to remove that portion of the ordinance unless they were unexempting" those facilities.

 

Well, here is the thing, they aren't struck through on the record of reference documents. The previously referenced exemptions are on the books and are enforceable law and are part of the city's anti discrimination law, Below is a link to the city's web site which posts all of its ordinances. Section 12-59

https://www2.municode.com/library/n...ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH12HURE_ARTIVDIPR

The bottom line is they didn't remove that section from the law.

The unfortunate fact is your party has played you and those like you for a sap once again.

 

Let's put in a way that will make sense to a conservative. There are two kinds of people who buy guns. People who are responsible, have no evil intent, and just want to enjoy a 2nd amendment right while protecting their families; and people who have the intent to kill and harm others with their guns. Now, there are two approaches to laws regarding gun sales. Punish everyone who wants to buy a gun because a few people who buy them might want to hurt someone, or let everyone buy them and work to protect everyone from those crazies in another way.

So there are two kinds of people who "might" use transgender laws. The majority of them are innocent, responsible, transgender people who have no intention or desire to cause harm to anyone and simply have a gender identity different than yours; and a very, very rare evil person who might use such a loophole to cause harm they are going to cause anyway.

So, do you use your 2nd amendment logic to protect gun owners the same way we should protect innocent transgender people, or do you want to fully punish everyone for the actions a few? Keep in mind, 30,000 people die by gun violence by the actions of a "few", while I still have only seen less than a half dozen instances of a sex predator dressing up as the opposite sex in order to abuse someone. So, How do we differentiate between the gun owner who genuinely wants to protect his family and the nutjob predator who is abusing the rules to find his next victim?

 

That's irrelevant lol. What you just quoted me was removed from the ordinance. 12.59 no longer applies. Just because they haven't updated this form doesn't change the fact that they struck down that provision. You do understand that right?

Even the politifact story you quoted says that. It simply tries to assuage concern by quoting a city council member. But the FACT remains that they removed that part of the ordinance and it no longer applies.

 

Oh, so they just haven't updated the code, is that it"? It doesn't take that long to update code on a website. You and your Republican fellows have been played for saps once again by your party leaders. Now you can admit it or excuse it and rationalize it as is your custom. I suggest you admit it, else you will be doomed to and endless cycle of frustration and disappointment.

 

That's not a reasonable way to view this issue.

First of all we DO punish all gun owners (or potential gun owners) because of the actions of a minority. Gun owners are not allowed to purchase certain types of firearms, certain types of ammunition or certain types of clips. We also require many gun owners to have a permit to purchase or carry their firearms. So we DO punish the law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a small minority. Your argument is predicated on a falsehood.

Also I'd like to point out that we as a society do this all the time. We punish or lay consequences on the large group because of a subset of that population. We punish all people who drink and drive even though the vast majority of them don't get in a wreck. We punish all drug users because some drug users engage in activity which are detrimental to society. We punish all incestuous participants by denying them marriage because of the actions of a few.

And to the point of this argument we punish all men by segregating them from the women's bathrooms because of the small minority of men who might engage in illegal activity.

Your argument simply isn't based in reality.

Oh and one last thing. We have an EXPLICIT right to bear arms under the constitution. There is no right to choose which bathroom you want to use.

 

Wtf are you talking about? Are you HONESTLY going to sit here with a straight face and say they didn't strike it out?

Even the politifacts article you sourced said they did.