North Carolina to Limit Bathroom Use by Birth Gender

[LittleFlower378]

This is bigotry against Catholics and Christians and anyone else with common sense. Laws put in place that go against Catholic and natural common sense values.

 

[pensmama87]

Doesn’t he have a daughter going to college soon? Doesn’t he care about HER safety? The secret service agents won’t be in the shower WITH her, but she and others are at risk of voyeurism if you let delusional males use the female designated facility.

I don’t disagree, but I think we need to be careful about terms.

The “delusional males” were already using the bathroom. They just go by unnoticed.

The issue now is the non-delusional males who will find it easier to access a female bathroom/changing facility without being questioned. Voyeurism and attacks in bathrooms do already occur, but typically when a woman enters alone and there’s nobody else around.

 

[Emperor_Markus]

You know, these lower courts of the federal government have done the most in implementing the sexual revolution across the United States. It seems as though the federal courts should just be shut down.

 

[Muzhik]

I thought Justice Roberts said it was a tax, not a fine.

Jon

I was wondering if someone would bring that up. That being the case, Justice Roberts should have IMMEDIATELY declared it unconstitutional.

The Constitution clearly states that ALL TAXES MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The reason being that Representatives represented the interests of the people, while Senators originally represented the interests of the individual states. (This was why senators were originally elected by the state legislatures. This role went away when the 17th Amendment was passed in 1914, which provided for the direct election of senators by the people.)

The role of the House of Representatives remained, though, as Representatives are supposed to be closer to the people and thus more in tune with what taxes the people would be willing to pay. No taxation without representation, and all that.

Obamacare, however, originated in the Senate. If it is a tax, as the Supreme Court has declared, then it is an unconstitutional tax. Why a lawsuit asking to have the issue decided has not been brought up, or not allowed to proceed to the Supreme Court, is one reason why many Americans are losing faith in our judicial system. This loss of faith in the independence and fairness of the judicial system was one of the factors that led to the American Revolution.

 

[JimG]

If discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited, that means that any man has the right to use the women’s facilities, and any woman has the right to use the men’s facilities.

 

[JimG]

You know, these lower courts of the federal government have done the most in implementing the sexual revolution across the United States. It seems as though the federal courts should just be shut down.

Civil courts have done less damage than Title IX of the Department of Education, which issues rules about sexual harassment at colleges and universities. The Foundation fo Individual Rights in Education has noted that their rules essentially overturn students’ rights to free speech and to due process in many cases. See here for example.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

If discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited, that means that any man has the right to use the women’s facilities, and any woman has the right to use the men’s facilities.

I guess that means any father has the right to accompany his daughter into the restroom to make sure she is safe, and vice versa for mothers. They can say that at that moment, they identified as the opposite sex. What a crazy world the Left has created.

 

[Stephen_says]

This is bigotry against Catholics and Christians and anyone else with common sense. Laws put in place that go against Catholic and natural common sense values.

Is it really a Catholic value that men and women must have separate facilities? It might be a personal value, but I think that separated bathrooms is pretty arbitrary and cultural, not necessarily religious.

 

[JimG]

I guess that means any father has the right to accompany his daughter into the restroom to make sure she is safe, and vice versa for mothers. They can say that at that moment, they identified as the opposite sex. What a crazy world the Left has created.

Laws against sex discrimination would apply equally to showers and changing rooms as well. I suppose a man would be entitled to try on clothing at the women’s changing room at Victoria’s Secret.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Doesn’t he have a daughter going to college soon? Doesn’t he care about HER safety?

Has he had any involvement in the comment from the federal level?

If discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited, that means that any man has the right to use the women’s facilities, and any woman has the right to use the men’s facilities.

I already see this happen all the time. The men’s restrooms at several events tend to have more vacancies than the women’s restrooms. So some women elect to just use the men’s restrooms.

 

[rae317]

safety
perhaps more importantly, it is people putting a finger in the leaking dike of insanity.

My city has included gender identity in its non discrimination ordnance for over 4 years, it extends to not denying someone the use of appropriate bathrooms / facilities based on gender identity. In that time there have not been any issues of transgender people assaulting or otherwise harming others in the bathrooms, nor of people trying to impersonate transgender people to do so. There has not been an epidemic of men going into womens restrooms. So what is the issue of safety?

It is funny, so many people here are boycotting Target while being ignorant of the fact that every other store in the city is bound by basically the same policy.

It is not about safety at all. People should be honest about what it really is. It is being uncomfortable with transgender people. You dislike / disapprove of them, don’t believe in the validity of their identity and wish them not to be in public spaces with you. That is what this is about and always has been.

 

[Monkey1976]

My city has included gender identity in its non discrimination ordnance for over 4 years, it extends to not denying someone the use of appropriate bathrooms / facilities based on gender identity. In that time there have not been any issues of transgender people assaulting or otherwise harming others in the bathrooms, nor of people trying to impersonate transgender people to do so. There has not been an epidemic of men going into womens restrooms. So what is the issue of safety?

“No epidemic” except for those cases in Seattle, Toronto, Virginia, Los Angeles… The issue is NOT delusional people who actually believe they’re women going into the women’s restroom/locker room/shower, it’s people claiming they’re delusional so that they can enter these spaces - even a shelter for battered women - without being questioned. From what we’ve seen so far, this is a perfectly valid concern.

It is funny, so many people here are boycotting Target while being ignorant of the fact that every other store in the city is bound by basically the same policy.

Because Target is applying it nationally and trying to encourage this delusion as a Good Thing™

It is not about safety at all. People should be honest about what it really is. It is being uncomfortable with transgender people. You dislike / disapprove of them, don’t believe in the validity of their identity and wish them not to be in public spaces with you. That is what this is about and always has been.

Standard tactic #54: When you have no logical basis for your argument, claim that those opposing you are irrational and bigoted.

 

[exnihilo]

My city has included gender identity in its non discrimination ordnance for over 4 years, it extends to not denying someone the use of appropriate bathrooms / facilities based on gender identity. In that time there have not been any issues of transgender people assaulting or otherwise harming others in the bathrooms, nor of people trying to impersonate transgender people to do so. There has not been an epidemic of men going into womens restrooms. So what is the issue of safety?

It is funny, so many people here are boycotting Target while being ignorant of the fact that every other store in the city is bound by basically the same policy.

It is not about safety at all. People should be honest about what it really is. It is being uncomfortable with transgender people. You dislike / disapprove of them, don’t believe in the validity of their identity and wish them not to be in public spaces with you. That is what this is about and always has been.

Safety doesn’t need to be brought up with this. It is really about an expectation of privacy. If you put up signs segregating by sex then people need to adhere to that. The ‘transgender’ people who ignore the signs are violating the law. If the signs can be and are ignored they should come down. But the people promoting this madness don’t want that. They want to force people to say a man is really a woman.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Safety doesn’t need to be brought up with this. It is really about an expectation of privacy. If you put up signs segregating by sex then people need to adhere to that. The ‘transgender’ people who ignore the signs are violating the law. If the signs can be and are ignored they should come down. But the people promoting this madness don’t want that. They want to force people to say a man is really a woman.

Right, this is it exactly. We did not need these laws. I would have never said a word if Caitlyn Jenner walked into an airport bathroom private stall and I was also in the bathroom. I usually can tell a man who is changed into a woman (it amazes me how many cannot though; the neck is quite thick (Adam’s apple) and the face is still masculine); it would have made me uncomfortable and a little freaked out, but I would have minded my own business.

The problem arises with these sweeping laws when they result in shared dressing and locker rooms, shower rooms (violation of privacy); absurd claims of civil rights for someone to pee in an opposite sex restroom; charges of bigotry, legal action against people when they have natural, rational objections to this disturbed kind of ideology. This is precisely why we need to head off the Democrats in this election.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Has he had any involvement in the comment from the federal level?

I already see this happen all the time. The men’s restrooms at several events tend to have more vacancies than the women’s restrooms. So some women elect to just use the men’s restrooms.

I don’t think most men care a lot whether a woman enters their restroom or not. But I have never met a woman who wants men to come into a ladies’ room.

 

[rae317]

Seattle did not involve a transgender person or someone claiming to have a female identity. It was a guy that went in as protest against Washingtons non discrimination law. He was trying to make the point you are. He should have had the police called on him. He did not have the right to do what he did.

Virgiania, Los Angeles - they are rather old cases you know. And what they did was still not protected. They were not transgender, no get out of jail free card.

The only recent case you mention is Toronto, and he did not get out of going to jail either.

Statisticly there is very little backing up your argument, considering the number of states, cities, and businesses that have included gender identity in non discrimination laws and policy.

The bigot comment - I never said that. But from my perspective of how you and others wish to criminalize me because what you fear some one else may or may not do, well of course I don’t think favorably of you. I do think you are being unreasonable.

Your argument about it not being about those who truly feel they are women but others who would pretend to be - well lets apply that to clergy. How many cases of clergy sexually abusing minors have there been this year? Many more of those then there are of people pretending to be trans or women sexually assaulting people in the bathrooms. So should all clergy be criminalized? Lets talk safety.

rawstory.com/2016/04/nashville-da-anti-trans-bathroom-bills-are-wrong-sex-predators-are-overwhelmingly-straight-men/

“As long as I’ve been doing this job and the hundreds of cases I’ve reviewed, I’ve never once had a transgender person come across my desk as an offender,” he said.

Butler specializes in crimes against children, who are ostensibly the people the discriminatory laws are meant to protect. He told Channel 4 that the people parents need to be on guard against are the people they see every day.

“A majority of my cases are fathers, stepfathers, uncles, Boy Scout leaders, coaches, youth ministers, preachers,” Butler said. “People that are already close to the family that the family trusts.

”

I ams sure many other DA’s would concur with this.

 

[rae317]

Safety doesn’t need to be brought up with this. It is really about an expectation of privacy. If you put up signs segregating by sex then people need to adhere to that. The ‘transgender’ people who ignore the signs are violating the law. If the signs can be and are ignored they should come down. But the people promoting this madness don’t want that. They want to force people to say a man is really a woman.

I have expectations too. Not being harassed or arrested for going to the bathroom. Re privacy - I’ve never seen a naked woman in the womens room. Even in locker rooms women are very modest around each other (I do use those too).

Whether you think it is madness or not, Transgender people are here and have been for a long time. Generally not treated very well. I don’t want to force you to do anything except just let me live my life in the way that I think is best without being subject to your prejudice and without you interfering or trying to make my life more difficult. Believe whatever you want otherwise.

 

[exnihilo]

Seattle did not involve a transgender person or someone claiming to have a female identity. It was a guy that went in as protest against Washingtons non discrimination law. He was trying to make the point you are. He should have had the police called on him. He did not have the right to do what he did.

How do you know the man was not transgendered? Actually, how do you even know it was a man? Do you just assume it was a man because it looked like a man? According to transgender advocates this prejudice is just what they are worried about. They are worried that a man who looks like a woman will be harmed in a men’s bathroom. By the way, how many transgendered people have been assaulted in restrooms? As far as the law goes this person had every right to be there. The law recognizes sex not gender identity. That is only sex is recorded legally. Gender identity is like your favorite color. It can change at any time.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Is it really a Catholic value that men and women must have separate facilities? It might be a personal value, but I think that separated bathrooms is pretty arbitrary and cultural, not necessarily religious.

We are talking about the skewing of gender and the safety of people. Anything that is common sense morality is written in our hearts by God and thus is Catholic. This is a moral issue, dont be fooled.

 

[Muzhik]

How do you know the man was not transgendered? Actually, how do you even know it was a man? Do you just assume it was a man because it looked like a man? According to transgender advocates this prejudice is just what they are worried about. They are worried that a man who looks like a woman will be harmed in a men’s bathroom. By the way, how many transgendered people have been assaulted in restrooms? As far as the law goes this person had every right to be there. The law recognizes sex not gender identity. That is only sex is recorded legally. Gender identity is like your favorite color. It can change at any time.

I refer you to the recent case of a man using a shoe camera in a Florida Forever 21 changing room:
local10.com/news/peeping-tom-records-woman-undressing-in-forever-21-fitting-room-woman-says

If you watch the associated video, the reporter demonstrates a shoecam (a shoe with a camera in the toe) which are available on the web. He also points out that peeping tom cases in Florida have shot up in the past 5 years, mostly due to the ready availability of small inexpensive computer cameras. Thus I see that with the possibility comes the responsibility to act BEFORE it becomes an issue.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919 originated the phrase about “not falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater”. The example was used to show that freedom of speech has limits. Accordingly, other legal experts have noted that the Supreme Court no longer expands rights; it limits them base on how they bump into and interfere with other rights. In this case the right to privacy during a natural biological function, one that has been considered private for most of human history in most circumstances (it is in examples like prisons, where the point is to dehumanize the people, that you find most examples of non-private elimination) that is being abused on behalf of a group that constitutes less than a percent of the population, where the existence of private (aka “family”) restrooms is considered insufficient for the transgendered needs that is causing the most uproar.