North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

[Thermodolia]

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

Your image doesn't work.

[Liriena]

Oh?

I wonder, what do the trans people of NSG have to say about that?

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

Well, let's entertain your idea that public bathroom availability is not vital to our human rights... Does that mean this law is in the right? Does that make it okay to ban trans people from entering the restroom corresponding with their gender? Does that make it okay to legally force, say, a trans woman, who is struggling with gender dysphoria, to use the men's restrooms, thereby possibly being outed as a trans woman to complete strangers without her actually wanting to be outed, in a social context in which cis men harrassing, abusing and assaulting trans women is something that happens on a depressingly and disproportionately regular basis?

Even if it is not a huge, life-threatening problem... is it justified?

[Linux and the X]

Your image doesn't work.

Fixed.

[Talanis Collective]

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

Of course, they can just go in the street. Nobody needs a bathroom for them to use. It's not like when you've got to go, you've got to go

I point to my longer response to your other post. Public bathrooms are in no constitution, anywhere. Many countries lack indoor plumbing. Gender-matched bathrooms is near the bottom of the rights totem pole. Like, underground low, if you catch my drift. I still think unisex is the way to go, but that isn't the issue in question

[Luepola]

if anything i'd argue that the laws for either side are ineffectual because of property rights. since you're defecating on someone elses property (a pretty shitty thing to think about ), a land owner would logically get to decide who is allowed to shit where. but i suppose most people here think lgbt legislation trumps property rights so i wont go down that rabbit hole

cause im pretty damn sure the constitution does not list lack of bathroom choice as one

Not directly, but the Supremacy Clause applies.

but surely if someone is that opposed to gays to the point where they would assault one then they would come do it regardless of the bathroom segregation laws

Except that she wouldn't be in the men's bathroom if not for the law you support.

but is it constitutionally discrimination? last i checked it isnt. pretty silly to again equate bathroom rights with the right to vote, which is what seems to be happening here given how seriously everyone is taking this (then again this could just be the natural reaction to any non-pro-lgbt action in '2016!!!')

given the fact that gays are being punched in bars, in the street, at airports (in one incident which garnered a lot of attention here on NSG a while ago, which is where i get the 'redneck at the airport' trope from) id wager that bathroom assaults are a minor fraction of the violence against lgbt

See, bathroom availability is not a human right. Unless local, state, or federal health regulations demand it, public bathrooms aren't even required for businesses. I have deeper, more complex opinions on certain aspects of this issue, but they aren't essential to this situation. The fact is, wanting special recognition to use a certain bathroom is not protected by the constitution and not vital to one's ability to live as their desired gender. The impact of this law is more spiritual rather than practical, and no one's life is ruined by either its existence or non-existence.

my essential point on bathroom rights laws, worded far better than i could ever do so myself

in case you didnt get the memo, tolerance =/= support

intolerance would be me actively shunning, insulting, or attacking gays for being gay, none of which i do

If you are not intolerant towards LGBT+ people, then why do you oppose them having the same rights as you? If you are not trying to actively shun them, why do you support laws that enable the shunning? If you are not intolerant towards LGBT+ people, and wish no harm upon them, by support laws that may put LGBT+ people at a greater risk of being hurt?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim to be tolerant while supporting laws that sanction intolerance. You can't claim you are not bigoted just because you are not personally abusing LGBT+ people, while at the same time supporting laws that legalize the marginalization of LGBT+ people. You can't claim you are tolerant of LGBT+ people if you don't want them to have equal rights, much in the same way I could not honestly claim to be tolerant towards Jews while opposing any attempts at giving them the same rights as Christians.

Tolerance. And. Agreement. Are. Not. The. Same.

I tolerate lgbt, i do not agree with it. For me to support something because i tolerate it is a blatant oxymoron because why on earth would i 'tolerate' something that i agree with??? Tolerance, as shown above, inherently implies *prior *disagreement. I do not agree with the LGBT movement. this isn't that hard to understand

and no i will not vote in favor of lgbt just because a few gays got punched by a few anti-lgbt

go on, answer the question

tell me why im so evil for being a bigot

Because being a bigot means you perceive and treat others unfairly on the basis of unreasonable prejudices. Asking why bigotry is evil is like asking why being racist or sexist is evil. If you are not an unabashed racist or sexist yourself, you should be able to understand why without my help.

there are things that arent fair in life

im not a racist or a sexist but i frankly see absolutely nothing objectively wrong with either, or with bigotry in general

i guess limiting ones bathroom usage is apparently tantamount to stripping someone of their right to vote

That is not a proper response to my question.

Unfairly restricting trans people's access to restrooms may not be as horrible as depriving them of the right to vote, but it is a problem. It's a problem that could have very harmful consequences, and all for nothing.

If your only excuse for supporting this nonsensical legislation is that it's not as bad as stripping trans people of the right to vote, then I think it's fair to say you've ran out of excuses.

addressed earlier in my post

*edited

[Liriena]

Many countries lack indoor plumbing. Gender-matched bathrooms is near the bottom of the rights totem pole.

Ah, the fallacy of relative privation.

Because if there's someone, somewhere in the world, who is just slightly more miserable than you, or whose human rights are violated in a slightly more gruesome fashion, your problems are just not worth addressing.

So shut up and wait for your turn, trans people in the United States. You may face a plethora of long neglected problems and be constantly subjected to attempts to backdoor criminalize your very identity, but thousands of miles away, on the other side of the ocean, there might be some starving children living under a corrupt military dictatorship, and human civilization is basically a McDonald's with just one cashier.

[Talanis Collective]

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

Well, let's entertain your idea that public bathroom availability is not vital to our human rights... Does that mean this law is in the right? Does that make it okay to ban trans people from entering the restroom corresponding with their gender? Does that make it okay to legally force, say, a trans woman, who is struggling with gender dysphoria, to use the men's restrooms, thereby possibly being outed as a trans woman to complete strangers without her actually wanting to be outed, in a social context in which cis men harrassing, abusing and assaulting trans women is something that happens on a depressingly and disproportionately regular basis?

Even if it is not a huge, life-threatening problem... is it justified?

A thoughtful, valid point. Let's assume a situation where a trans person desperately needs to use a multi-occupant public restroom. The thing is, I don't really see a situation with anyone standing and checking equipment on the way in. If they would "pass" as their desired identity, then there is no reason they would be outed. If not, then their presented outward appearance is likely corresponding to their born gender, therefore they would likely still be using that restroom to start with. Like I said, this is mostly a spiritual law, not an enforceable edict. As far as morality, it might fall in a gray area, but laws aren't based in morality, not strictly so at least. I think the state can pass this law, that it is in their authority to do so. I think that it can be overruled at a federal level by the supreme court. That said, I don't see this ruining anyone's life either way. Its passage is meh. Its repeal will be meh. A lot of shouting on both sides, and no real harm done in the interim.

[Talanis Collective]

Many countries lack indoor plumbing. Gender-matched bathrooms is near the bottom of the rights totem pole.

Ah, the fallacy of relative privation.

Because if there's someone, somewhere in the world, who is just slightly more miserable than you, or whose human rights are violated in a slightly more gruesome fashion, your problems are just not worth addressing.

So shut up and wait for your turn, trans people in the United States. You may face a plethora of long neglected problems and be constantly subjected to attempts to backdoor criminalize your very identity, but thousands of miles away, on the other side of the ocean, there might be some starving children living under a corrupt military dictatorship, and human civilization is basically a McDonald's with just one cashier.

Sorry, if I knew I was your straw man, I'd have worn a floppy hat. My point was simple- this is a non-event. No one anywhere on Earth is guaranteed the right to gender-identity matched restrooms. It is not a human right. It may be one day, but I doubt it. It isn't a human rights violation, it is a joke law that will cause real harm to roughly zero people. I wouldn't have voted for it, but I won't rail against it either.

[Talanis Collective]

I'm totally open to hearing from them, but I will postulate that public bathroom availability isn't vital to anyone's basic human rights, much less gender-matching bathrooms.

Ah, shiny graphics. For when you don't have anything to say, but want the attention anyway. Cute. I might actually make it my flag.

[Liriena]

but i suppose most people here think lgbt legislation trumps property rights so i wont go down that rabbit hole

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand how business regulations, particularly on discrimination, work.

Tolerance. And. Agreement. Are. Not. The. Same.

(Image)

I tolerate lgbt, i do not agree with it. For me to support something because i tolerate it is a blatant oxymoron because why on earth would i 'tolerate' something that i agree with??? Tolerance, as shown above, inherently implies *prior *disagreement. I do not agree with the LGBT movement. this isn't that hard to understand

and no i will not vote in favor of lgbt just because a few gays got punched by a few anti-lgbt

In other words you just don't care about the issues affecting LGBT+ people, and the harm they have suffered... but it's not because you feel any animosity towards them. Of course.

Be honest here. Do you think homosexuality, or bisexuality, or being trans, is immoral?

there are things that arent fair in life

Thanks for the cheap cynical pseudo-philosophy. It doesn't help your argument in the least, but it's always nice to see people resort to thought terminating clichés.

im not a racist or a sexist but i frankly see absolutely nothing objectively wrong with either, or with bigotry in general

And therein lies your problem... and you just confirmed one of my previous assertions. That, to support this particular legislation, one would have to be ignorant, irresponsible, uncaring or malicious.

[Linux and the X]

but is it constitutionally discrimination? last i checked it isnt.

Per the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot contradict federal law. This law contradicts Title IX and Title VII, and therefore is unconstitutional.

[The Alexanderians]

but is it constitutionally discrimination? last i checked it isnt.

Per the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot contradict federal law. This law contradicts Title IX and Title VII, and therefore is unconstitutional.

For all of our benefits (includes those user that are overseas and have no idea how American laws work) mind elaborating?

[Luepola]

And for fuck's sake, LGBT persons have equal rights in the United States. They can vote, freely assemble, own firearms, voice grievances, hold petitions, adhere to any religion or a lack thereof, are entitled to due process and a fair trial, and every other constitutionally guaranteed right. Right to a choice of bathroom is not a fundamental human right, especially when in some countries, people literally shit in fields because they have no bathroom to use, and they're certainly not a constitutionally guaranteed right. I somewhat admired the fact that gays campaigned so vigorously to be able to marry who they consider to be the love of their life (though i disagree with their sexual alignment, and to a lesser extent their goals); this 'bathroom rights' business is absolutely petty by comparison. As pointed out earlier, these are special rights, as much as you may like to think otherwise.

Tolerance. And. Agreement. Are. Not. The. Same.

(Image)

I tolerate lgbt, i do not agree with it. For me to support something because i tolerate it is a blatant oxymoron because why on earth would i 'tolerate' something that i agree with??? Tolerance, as shown above, inherently implies *prior *disagreement. I do not agree with the LGBT movement. this isn't that hard to understand

and no i will not vote in favor of lgbt just because a few gays got punched by a few anti-lgbt

In other words you just don't care about the issues affecting LGBT+ people, and the harm they have suffered... but it's not because you feel any animosity towards them. Of course.

Be honest here. Do you think homosexuality, or bisexuality, or being trans, is immoral?

i dont care about their issues

yes i do think its immoral. i dont expect them to follow my standards of morality much as i would vainly hope they wouldnt apply their standards of morality (unfettered acceptance of their ideology) to me

there are things that arent fair in life

Thanks for the cheap cynical pseudo-philosophy. It doesn't help your argument in the least, but it's always nice to see people resort to thought terminating clichés.

ok

im not a racist or a sexist but i frankly see absolutely nothing objectively wrong with either, or with bigotry in general

And therein lies your problem... and you just confirmed one of my previous assertions. That, to support this particular legislation, one would have to be ignorant, irresponsible, uncaring or malicious.

Pointed it out for you.

You still haven't proven to me why its objectively wrong, and without doing so it's your preferred morals versus mine. endless circle with no results

---

To quote Traditionalism, I'm going to bed. Not going to squander my remaining four hours of sleep running circles with you lot.

[Liriena]

Ah, the fallacy of relative privation.

Because if there's someone, somewhere in the world, who is just slightly more miserable than you, or whose human rights are violated in a slightly more gruesome fashion, your problems are just not worth addressing.

So shut up and wait for your turn, trans people in the United States. You may face a plethora of long neglected problems and be constantly subjected to attempts to backdoor criminalize your very identity, but thousands of miles away, on the other side of the ocean, there might be some starving children living under a corrupt military dictatorship, and human civilization is basically a McDonald's with just one cashier.

Sorry, if I knew I was your straw man, I'd have worn a floppy hat.

I do what I can.

My point was simple- this is a non-event.

Said the cisgender person, while the people actually affected by this law protested it.

No one anywhere on Earth is guaranteed the right to gender-identity matched restrooms.

You mean other than all those jurisdictions with anti-discrimination legislation that includes protections for trans people?

it is a joke law that will cause real harm to roughly zero people.

Other than the trans people who are now forced to choose between breaking a nonsensical law and outing themselves to complete strangers, you mean? The same trans people who, on top of that, can have no protection from workplace or housing discrimination?

The bathroom issue is only the most hotly debated one because the politicians who supported this law used it as a weapon of fearmongering, so as to justify the banning of all anti-discrimination protections for trans people. It's the same reason why so many people debated the issue of LGBT+ parenting during the marriage equality debate: because opponents of LGBT+ rights resorted to "Think of the children!" scaremongering to justify their stance to the public.

[Linux and the X]

Per the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot contradict federal law. This law contradicts Title IX and Title VII, and therefore is unconstitutional.

For all of our benefits (includes those user that are overseas and have no idea how American laws work) mind elaborating?

The Supremacy Clause says that state laws are subordinate to federal laws. Title IX and Title VII are anti-discrimination laws (prohibiting discrimination in education and employment, respectively). HB2 requires schools in North Carolina to discriminate against trans students (violating Title IX) and requires public agencies (which are employers within the purview of Title VII) to similarly discriminate against trans people.

[Liriena]

And for fuck's sake, LGBT persons have equal rights in the United States. They can vote, freely assemble, own firearms, voice grievances, hold petitions, adhere to any religion or a lack thereof, are entitled to due process and a fair trial, and every other constitutionally guaranteed right.

First of all... language, please. Also, funny how you left out marriage.

If I can be refused a job because of my gender, regardless of my qualifications, then I don't actually have equal rights.
If I can be refused housing just because of my gender, I don't actually have equal rights.
If I can be kicked out of a hospital while my lifelong partner is dying because we had the gall to be dating someone of the same gender, then I don't actually have equal rights.
If I can't use the public facilities designated for my gender, because some bastard in the local legislature doesn't believe my gender is real, then I don't actually have equal rights.
If I can't adopt, regardless of my qualifications, because that same bastard in the local legislature doesn't like my sexual orientation, then I don't actually have equal rights.
If can't have sex education that addresses my sexual orientation without that same bastard in the local legislature throwing a hissy fit, because he's afraid that sort of sex education would magically turn all kids gay, then I don't actually have equal rights.

Right to a choice of bathroom is not a fundamental human right, especially when in some countries, people literally shit in fields because they have no bathroom to use, and they're certainly not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

See my previous post on the fallacy of relative privation.

I somewhat admired the fact that gays campaigned so vigorously to be able to marry who they consider to be the love of their life (though i disagree with their sexual alignment, and to a lesser extent their goals); this 'bathroom rights' business is absolutely petty by comparison. As pointed out earlier, these are special rights, as much as you may like to think otherwise.

They are only "special rights" because anti-LGBT+ people made them special. Trans people have been using restrooms in accordance with their gender for years with nobody batting an eye, probably because anti-LGBT+ fearmongerers had bigger fish to catch. It's only recently that anti-LGBT+ groups and personalities have gone into a moral panic, and started whole campaigns to refuse LGBT+ anti-discrimination protections because those protections might include trans people being protected from being refused access to restrooms in accordance with their gender.

It wasn't Jane Doe who started a nationwide campaign for the right to use the women's restrooms in her school. Rather, it was the Pacific Justice Institute that started a nationwide defamation campaign against her and all trans women so they could get state governments to ban trans people from using restrooms in accordance with their gender.

i dont care about their issues

Except that's complete and utter bollocks. You do care. You oppose those issues. You just don't want to come across as a rabid homophobe or transphobe, probably out of fear. You are feigning civility.

yes i do think its immoral. i dont expect them to follow my standards of morality

But you sure expect them to be forced to follow your standards by legislation you support.

Pointed it out for you.

Actually, I have my doubts.

To quote Traditionalism, I'm going to bed. Not going to squander my remaining four hours of sleep running circles with you lot.

Goodnight.

[Talanis Collective]

I do what I can.

My point was simple- this is a non-event.

Said the cisgender person, while the people actually affected by this law protested it.

Now, this is one of the double standard special things that irks me. The trans community adopted that moniker and demand to be called by their chosen pronouns. They, or their "allies" then decided to co-opt a chemistry term and call people whose gender identity matches the one they were born with "cis" without any input. But that's ok, because trans people are the "oppressed" group, so they get a pass. Kind of a peeve of mine, but I don't like it.

You mean other than all those jurisdictions with anti-discrimination legislation that includes protections for trans people?

Kinda hurt yourself there. Those jurisdictions passed those laws by city or state. That makes it a state issue, meaning cities can pass their laws, but states can override them. Until a federal law or ruling is made, neither side is "right" on the issue.

Other than the trans people who are now forced to choose between breaking a nonsensical law and outing themselves to complete strangers, you mean? The same trans people who, on top of that, can have no protection from workplace or housing discrimination?

The bathroom issue is only the most hotly debated one because the politicians who supported this law used it as a weapon of fearmongering, so as to justify the banning of all anti-discrimination protections for trans people. It's the same reason why so many people debated the issue of LGBT+ parenting during the marriage equality debate: because opponents of LGBT+ rights resorted to "Think of the children!" scaremongering to justify their stance to the public.

First off, the bathroom part is the only thing I've weighed in on. I totally support workplace and housing anti-discrimination regulations. Those are things that affect people on a real level. The thing is, bathroom-matching just isn't on par. I pretty much agree about the fear-mongering, but I stand firm when I say the bathroom issue just isn't in the same league as others. I don't support, but I will never oppose it. Call me old fashioned, but I'm a states-rights kinda guy. If it doesn't contradict federal law, I see it as the state's prerogative, and I don't see this as contradicting Title IX or any other anti-discrimination ruling. Post a passage that directly contradicts that, and you might sway me, but emotional appeals aren't gonna cut it.

[Linux and the X]

Now, this is one of the double standard special things that irks me. The trans community adopted that moniker and demand to be called by their chosen pronouns. They, or their "allies" then decided to co-opt a chemistry term and call people whose gender identity matches the one they were born with "cis" without any input. But that's ok, because trans people are the "oppressed" group, so they get a pass. Kind of a peeve of mine, but I don't like it.

A Latin term, which happens to be used in chemistry, just like trans. If you don't like it, you're welcome to suggest an alternative.

I don't see this as contradicting Title IX or any other anti-discrimination ruling. Post a passage that directly contradicts that, and you might sway me, but emotional appeals aren't gonna cut it.

Macy v. Holder, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821

[Alimprad]

If I can't use the public facilities designated for my gender, because some bastard in the local legislature doesn't believe my gender is real, then I don't actually have equal rights.

I know your pain, as a non-transgender person, I'm still not allowed to use the girls toilets or changing rooms. WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS?

[Linux and the X]

If I can't use the public facilities designated for my gender, because some bastard in the local legislature doesn't believe my gender is real, then I don't actually have equal rights.

I know your pain, as a non-transgender person, I'm still not allowed to use the girls toilets or changing rooms. WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS?

Because you're not a girl, maybe?

[Talanis Collective]

A Latin term, which happens to be used in chemistry, just like trans. If you don't like it, you're welcome to suggest an alternative.

I don't claim to speak for my entire biological gender group, much less the whole of gender-dom, so I don't think it's my place. the whole double-standard just kind of rubs me the wrong way. If I called a trans person a "tranny" then I would be a horrible person for using a term that they feel poorly about, one that the community didn't "agree on" or something like that. That said, if a trans person calls me cis, even though my "community" never agreed on it, then it is just accepted as ok. Honestly, I don't see why the standard or norm should need special designation to start with, and it always just felt like a pot-shot to me. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I read cis-gendered, the cis part has a mentally-generated negative or sarcastic tone attached. Maybe I'm just imagining it or inferring from the negativity a lot of the users of that term specialize in. Since I don't see a lot of people protesting it, I just file it under pet peeves and generally move on.

Macy v. Holder, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821

Yeah, that is employment discrimination. I'm totally onboard. And if a trans person was applying for a job as a bathroom attendant, it would be relevant. Voiding one's bladder or bowels is not employment.

[Liriena]

If I can't use the public facilities designated for my gender, because some bastard in the local legislature doesn't believe my gender is real, then I don't actually have equal rights.

I know your pain, as a non-transgender person, I'm still not allowed to use the girls toilets or changing rooms. WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS?

Is that a joke? Because if it is... meh

[Vassenor]

I don't see this as contradicting Title IX or any other anti-discrimination ruling. Post a passage that directly contradicts that, and you might sway me, but emotional appeals aren't gonna cut it.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/o ... 201412.pdf

All students, including transgender students and students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. Under Title IX, a recipient generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes.

[Linux and the X]

Yeah, that is employment discrimination. I'm totally onboard. And if a trans person was applying for a job as a bathroom attendant, it would be relevant. Voiding one's bladder or bowels is not employment.

Restroom access is a right of employees. Hence, for example, employers not being allowed to have whites-only restrooms.

[Liriena]

snip

No offense, but protesting about the "cis-" in cisgender, at least to me, is like protesting about the "hetero-" in heterosexual. And as a cisgender person, I fail to see what the problem is. It's a technical term. In technical terms, I'm also pansexual, and I don't complain about the "pan-" part, despite all the "lol you have sex with kitchenware" jokes.

And since I'm pretty sure trans people did not invent the term, and neither did spiteful allies who hated their own gender, I don't see any double standard there, nor do I see the word cisgender as something even remotely similar to the t-slur.