North Carolina Bathroom Law

[Phatscotty]

I don't really understand the rationale for this law. What's the issue with someone who was born a man but is now a woman using the women's toilets? Are they worried that perverts will get sex changes in order to go and peek under the stalls in women's toilets or something?

That said I don't really care and feel like everyone (including transgender people) has bigger things to worry about than which bathroom a transgender person uses.

I believe the true worry still remains elusive to the unwashed masses. Lurking perverts do not have to go through with a sex change in order to be transgender to excuse themselves into bathrooms. Lurking perverts merely need to state that they 'feel' like the opposite sex, which unfortunately turns the bathroom into a place that is no longer selected based on an individual's sex but instead turns bathrooms into selections based on how one feels about their gender which can an no doubt WILL lead to bathrooms being selected by sexual preference.

[mrswdk]

[turning] bathrooms into selections based on how one feels about their gender... can an no doubt WILL lead to bathrooms being selected by sexual preference.

And that, people, is why gay men should not be allowed to serve in the armed forces.

[Phatscotty]

I don't really understand the rationale for this law. What's the issue with someone who was born a man but is now a woman using the women's toilets? Are they worried that perverts will get sex changes in order to go and peek under the stalls in women's toilets or something?

That said I don't really care and feel like everyone (including transgender people) has bigger things to worry about than which bathroom a transgender person uses.

I believe the true worry still remains elusive to the unwashed masses. Lurking perverts do not have to go through with a sex change in order to be transgender to excuse themselves into bathrooms. Lurking perverts merely need to state that they 'feel' like the opposite sex, which unfortunately turns the bathroom into a place that is no longer selected based on an individual's sex but instead turns bathrooms into selections based on how one feels about their gender which can an no doubt WILL lead to bathrooms being selected by sexual preference.

And that, people, is why gay men should not be allowed to serve in the armed forces.

Well, if you don't understand the rationale for the law, I might conclude you either aren't trying to understand the rationale or else your are easily distracted by glitter and raining men

[mrswdk]

The rationale for the law is that transgender people should not be allowed to use the bathroom which correlates with their gender identity because other perverts will hijack this freedom to try and spy on people.

The rationale for scrapping the law is that:
- (as tzor pointed out) perverts who wish to access the opposite sex's bathrooms will attempt to do either way
- the roughly 700,000 to 957,000 transgender people in the US probably don't deserve to be discriminated against just because of a handful of perverts

If you oppose transgender access to the opposite sex's bathrooms because perverts, then can I presume you also oppose men using the same bathrooms as male children (because pedophiles) and even each other (because predatory homosexuals)?

[Phatscotty]

The rationale for the law is that transgender people should not be allowed to use the bathroom which correlates with their gender identity because other perverts will hijack this freedom to try and spy on people.

The rationale for scrapping the law is that:
- (as tzor pointed out) perverts who wish to access the opposite sex's bathrooms will attempt to do either way
- the roughly 700,000 to 957,000 transgender people in the US probably don't deserve to be discriminated against just because of a handful of perverts

If you oppose transgender access to the opposite sex's bathrooms because perverts, then can I presume you also oppose men using the same bathrooms as male children (because pedophiles) and even each other (because predatory homosexuals)?

This is the kind of thinking that leads to replacing the words mother/father with parent1/parent2

What about the discrimination against a citizen's biological sex...... just because another citizen rejects their biological sex on an individual level???

Why does gender trump sex? I'll guess the same reason that whatever orifice makes an individuals genitals orgasm the hardest trumps religion...

[mrswdk]

The rationale for the law is that transgender people should not be allowed to use the bathroom which correlates with their gender identity because other perverts will hijack this freedom to try and spy on people.

The rationale for scrapping the law is that:
- (as tzor pointed out) perverts who wish to access the opposite sex's bathrooms will attempt to do either way
- the roughly 700,000 to 957,000 transgender people in the US probably don't deserve to be discriminated against just because of a handful of perverts

If you oppose transgender access to the opposite sex's bathrooms because perverts, then can I presume you also oppose men using the same bathrooms as male children (because pedophiles) and even each other (because predatory homosexuals)?

This is the kind of thinking that leads to replacing the words mother/father with parent1/parent2

What about the discrimination against a citizen's biological sex...... just because another citizen rejects their biological sex on an individual level???

[/quote]

Who is being discriminated against and why? I don't follow.

In any case, you can't 'reject your sex'. That's like saying someone rejects their eye color. 'Sex' and 'gender' are two different things - one if a fact of biology, one is a social construct.

[AndyDufresne]

I can't help but reintroduce the relationship to how this is going to impact boy scouts and girl's softball teams. We really did make the decision to steer America 2.0 directly into crazy town to the point where the answer is 'YES, nobody can have anything that might possibly discriminate against .1% of any certain population. I wouldn't doubt urinals get banned since someone in a wheelchair might get pissed off at the mere sight of one.

--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

People will break into houses all the time, but that doesn't mean you can't make it illegal to break into someone's house

This is a separate conversation. We are currently talking about a law that says you cannot enter a bathroom that does not correspond to your biological sex. You are talking about something else, a law that says that you cannot enter a bathroom that does not correspond to your gender identity. We could have both laws on the books if we really wanted to; they are not mutually exclusive. I am objecting to the first one, not the second one.

(the notion that you have to wait until the person actually attempts to rob the house once he is silly and stupid).

This is how it works in every other facet of the law: presumed innocent until proven guilty. We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

[mrswdk]

We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

Yeah, interesting claim given that the USA has the second highest incarceration rate in the world (vying with North Korea for second place).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ation_rate

[Metsfanmax]

We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

Yeah, interesting claim given that the USA has the second highest incarceration rate in the world (vying with North Korea for second place).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ation_rate

1) I think we should decriminalize many of the things that led to these people being in jail (notice how I added the words "that's how I think it should work" since I am not in fact a representative of the United States justice system), and
2) I included the word "innocent" in my post. You are referring mainly to people who have been convicted of crimes and are therefore not innocent in the eyes of the law. The discussion between tzor and I, correspondingly, was about people who had not yet been convicted of crimes. So next time, please post something relevant or kindly invite yourself out of the conversation. You could have at least came back at me with Gitmo if you had a modicum of brain power, and
3) So are you advocating that we should be incarcerating more people?

[mrswdk]

We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

Yeah, interesting claim given that the USA has the second highest incarceration rate in the world (vying with North Korea for second place).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ation_rate

1) I think we should decriminalize many of the things that led to these people being in jail (notice how I added the words "that's how I think it should work" since I am not in fact a representative of the United States justice system), and
2) I included the word "innocent" in my post. You are referring mainly to people who have been convicted of crimes and are therefore not innocent in the eyes of the law. The discussion between tzor and I, correspondingly, was about people who had not yet been convicted of crimes. So next time, please post something relevant or kindly invite yourself out of the conversation. You could have at least came back at me with Gitmo if you had a modicum of brain power, and
3) So are you advocating that we should be incarcerating more people?

My point is that for a country which values freedom above pretty much all else, America sure does criminalize and lock up an extraordinarily large number of people.

Nit-picking over use of the word 'innocent' is a complete red herring. "Yeah, we may lock up huge amounts of people, but I said 'innocent' people. And everyone we lock up has done something which is criminalized in the US, therefore we don't lock up any innocent people at all! Woo, freedom!"

If 'freedom' is your value, then 'number of people incarcerated' is a far more important benchmark than 'number of unconvicted people incarcerated'. A country which criminalizes so many activities that it locks up more people than any other country on the planet doesn't sound very free to me.

[Metsfanmax]

We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

Yeah, interesting claim given that the USA has the second highest incarceration rate in the world (vying with North Korea for second place).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ation_rate

1) I think we should decriminalize many of the things that led to these people being in jail (notice how I added the words "that's how I think it should work" since I am not in fact a representative of the United States justice system), and
2) I included the word "innocent" in my post. You are referring mainly to people who have been convicted of crimes and are therefore not innocent in the eyes of the law. The discussion between tzor and I, correspondingly, was about people who had not yet been convicted of crimes. So next time, please post something relevant or kindly invite yourself out of the conversation. You could have at least came back at me with Gitmo if you had a modicum of brain power, and
3) So are you advocating that we should be incarcerating more people?

My point is that for a country which values freedom above pretty much all else, America sure does criminalize and lock up an extraordinarily large number of people.

Nit-picking over use of the word 'innocent' is a complete red herring. "Yeah, we may lock up huge amounts of people, but I said 'innocent' people. And everyone we lock up has done something which is criminalized in the US, therefore we don't lock up any innocent people at all! Woo, freedom!"

If 'freedom' is your value, then 'number of people incarcerated' is a far more important benchmark than 'number of unconvicted people incarcerated'. A country which criminalizes so many activities that it locks up more people than any other country on the planet doesn't sound very free to me.

I'll pass your thoughts on to President Obama, to whom I have a direct line courtesy of my position as a citizen of the United States.

[mrswdk]

I am glad that you are big enough to acknowledge your mistake and retract your earlier statement, even if you are not gracious enough to admit that that is what you're doing.

[tzor]

One question. Why is this such a big deal in the US but not Canada, Europe, Australia or NZ?

Bathrooms have always been a problem in the US.

From the musical 1776 ...

Thomson: [calling for a vote] Where's Rhode Island?
McNair: Rhode Island's out visiting the necessary.
Hancock: Well, after what Rhode Island has consumed, I can't say I'm surprised. We'll come back to him, Mr. Thompson.
Thomson: Rhode Island passes.
[Roar of laughter from the Congress]

Of course that isn't exactly accurate history ...

[Metsfanmax]

I am glad that you are big enough to acknowledge your mistake and retract your earlier statement, even if you are not gracious enough to admit that that is what you're doing.

No, you're an idiot. My statement was plainly that we should aspire to this ideal, and the fact that sometimes we do not achieve it is certainly not a reason to stop aspiring to it.

Furthermore, you completely missed the point I made about the fact that we should only incarcerate people after they have committed a crime, not before that or in anticipation of it, and instead went on a tirade about how in your eyes some of those actions should not be considered criminal. In other words, you inserted irrelevant information. (Again, you had an opportunity to at least be amusing by pointing out people that the US detains without charge in Guantanamo Bay or related facilities, and you failed at what should have been an obvious retort, which is frankly embarrassing.) Kindly stop doing so.

[mrswdk]

I am glad that you are big enough to acknowledge your mistake and retract your earlier statement, even if you are not gracious enough to admit that that is what you're doing.

No, you're an idiot. My statement was plainly that we should aspire to this ideal, and the fact that sometimes we do not achieve it is certainly not a reason to stop aspiring to it.

You said:

We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work)

If you are accepting that the US has pretty much the highest incarceration rate in the world - on a level with North Korea - and that such mass incarceration is directly contradictory to the narrative of 'freedom', then your post was totally irrelevant. 'We love freedom, we don't lock innocent people up, we are so free (disclaimer: this is not true but I wish it was) is a totally pointless statement.

So what was your actual point? That America is not free, and doesn't really value freedom, but should strive to be?

you had an opportunity to at least be amusing by pointing out people that the US detains without charge in Guantanamo Bay or related facilities

Personally I find Guantanamo Bay to be a gross and hypocritical abuse of power by the American government and don't understand why using that in my response would have been funny.

[Metsfanmax]

...

Yet again, your post had nothing to do with the subject at hand: whether we should be arresting people before they have committed a crime, or passing laws to restrict actions that are not themselves crimes in anticipation of possible crimes that might be committed as a result of those actions. Do you have anything useful to say on that point?

[mrswdk]

...

Yet again, your post had nothing to do with the subject at hand: whether we should be arresting people before they have committed a crime

No one has mentioned arresting people before they commit crimes except you.

or passing laws to restrict actions that are not themselves crimes in anticipation of possible crimes that might be committed as a result of those actions.

If you pass a law making an action illegal, then by definition that action has become a crime.

And in any case, if you'd read almost any of this thread prior to getting involved you'd already be aware that I don't see the point in the North Carolina law and don't think it makes sense to limit the rights of the best part of 1 million transgender Americans on account of a few perverts.

All you gotta do is scroll up, Metsie baby.

[Dukasaur]

(the notion that you have to wait until the person actually attempts to rob the house once he is silly and stupid).

This is how it works in every other facet of the law: presumed innocent until proven guilty. We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

In many different ways the law acts pre-emptively.

Driving drunk is illegal under the assumption that you could cause harm by doing so. We don't wait to see if you actually do cause harm.

Felons cannot legally buy guns under the assumption that they could use them feloniously. We do not wait to see if they will actually do so.

There are limits to how much currency you can bring across the border, under the assumption that huge amounts of currency are associated with criminal enterprises. No proof that you are engaged in a criminal enterprise is required.

Don't know if there is evidence of the kind of harms that critics have been prophesying in the bathroom debate, but if there is then it's not outlandish for the law to act pre-emptively.

[mrswdk]

it's not outlandish for the law to act pre-emptively.

Exactly. And especially not in a country which incarcerates as many people as Kim Jong-Un's North Korea.

[Metsfanmax]

(the notion that you have to wait until the person actually attempts to rob the house once he is silly and stupid).

This is how it works in every other facet of the law: presumed innocent until proven guilty. We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

In many different ways the law acts pre-emptively.

Yes, and I put in "extraordinarily good reason for doing so" to indicate that there are exceptions to this rule. The exceptions can be justified when there is significant and very likely danger to the person involved or others around them. The proponents of the North Carolina offer no evidence that such danger commonly exists.

[mrswdk]

(the notion that you have to wait until the person actually attempts to rob the house once he is silly and stupid).

This is how it works in every other facet of the law: presumed innocent until proven guilty. We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so (or at least, that's how I think it should work).

In many different ways the law acts pre-emptively.

Yes, and I put in "extraordinarily good reason for doing so" to indicate that there are exceptions to this rule. The exceptions can be justified when there is significant and very likely danger to the person involved or others around them.

Such as carrying 'large amounts' (read: $10k+) of money across the border?

[mrswdk]

Yeah, exceptions such as attempting to board an airplane without subjecting oneself to invasive searches and body scans, carrying $10k+ into the country without expressly telling the government, or - one for our Canadian friends - attempting to enter the US while carrying a 30 year-old record for possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Plus, of course, failing to raise your hands and lie on the ground quickly enough when accosted in the street by a police officer (penalty: shot/tazered/beaten to death).

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah, exceptions such as moving quickly near a police officer (penalty： shot to death) or attempting to board an airplane (requirement: subject self to invasive search and body scan).

Yes, because clearly I endorse every single action taken by every single American law enforcement officer.

[mrswdk]

We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so

examples of pre-emptive restrictions of freedom in the US

Hey, my government has nothing to do with me!