North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

[Talanis Collective]

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.

Again, you've pointed to employment and education. Public bathrooms are neither.

[Neutraligon]

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.

You are aware that being forced to hold it for extended periods of time can cause serious medical conditions, right?

[Vassenor]

Could it also be argued that discrimination in this manner is a violation of people's 14th Amendment rights?

[Linux and the X]

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

Again, you've pointed to employment and education. Public bathrooms are neither.

Public bathrooms, sure, but HB2 mandates that schools and public agencies (which includes schools, but I guess that's what happens when you copypasta various right-wing model legislation together while trying to be done before anyone notices) discriminate against trans students and employees, and purports to allow private employers to discriminate against trans employees. Will you agree that those parts of the law, at least, are subject to federal preemption?

[Talanis Collective]

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.

I wouldn't say I protest it, just the double standard attitude behind it. I fully acknowledge that the negative tone may be all in my head, but nearly every time I've seen the word, it was being flung about by someone vehemently, often hatefully, defending LGBT stances or attacking the "cisgender straight white male" privilege or some variation. That kind of thing always set me on edge, even when I agreed with the meat of what was being said. Also, I would bet my left dangler that a trans person came up with it. Heterosexual has been around for over a century, but I've only started seeing cisgender in the last 5-10 years, when it became a socially accepted thing to talk about identifying as a different gender. The thing is, if even a minority of the affected group feels upset or offended by a term, do you think it should be taboo to use? That is the way terms for sexual and racial groups have been going for decades, so does the "majority" group have special rules? Meh, as I said, it doesn't exactly throw me into a rage, it just feels like a double standard and an indication of the "special" status so many people seem to want these days. I've seen people argue that not offering vegan or gluten-free options at a restaurant is a violation of their civil rights, and that kind of inane crap irks me. The bathroom thing is just a slightly less blatant manifestation as I see it. If I actually believed that this would cause physical, or heck, significant emotional trauma, I would be against this law instead of in the "meh" group. I just don't see evidence for it.

[Neutraligon]

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.

I wouldn't say I protest it, just the double standard attitude behind it. I fully acknowledge that the negative tone may be all in my head, but nearly every time I've seen the word, it was being flung about by someone vehemently, often hatefully, defending LGBT stances or attacking the "cisgender straight white male" privilege or some variation. That kind of thing always set me on edge, even when I agreed with the meat of what was being said. Also, I would bet my left dangler that a trans person came up with it. Heterosexual has been around for over a century, but I've only started seeing cisgender in the last 5-10 years, when it became a socially accepted thing to talk about identifying as a different gender. The thing is, if even a minority of the affected group feels upset or offended by a term, do you think it should be taboo to use? That is the way terms for sexual and racial groups have been going for decades, so does the "majority" group have special rules? Meh, as I said, it doesn't exactly throw me into a rage, it just feels like a double standard and an indication of the "special" status so many people seem to want these days. I've seen people argue that not offering vegan or gluten-free options at a restaurant is a violation of their civil rights, and that kind of inane crap irks me. The bathroom thing is just a slightly less blatant manifestation as I see it. If I actually believed that this would cause physical, or heck, significant emotional trauma, I would be against this law instead of in the "meh" group. I just don't see evidence for it.

So what work would you use to talk about someone whose gender identity matches with that assigned at birth? Trans is used for anyone whose gender identity does not match that assigned at birth.

[Talanis Collective]

Again, you've pointed to employment and education. Public bathrooms are neither.

Public bathrooms, sure, but HB2 mandates that schools and public agencies (which includes schools, but I guess that's what happens when you copypasta various right-wing model legislation together while trying to be done before anyone notices) discriminate against trans students and employees, and purports to allow private employers to discriminate against trans employees. Will you agree that those parts of the law, at least, are subject to federal preemption?

I will 100% agree that these rulings apply to: educational institutions, employers, and federal institutions. Likely even state institutions. Public or private entities not under this umbrella, I feel are exempt for as long as it takes for a federal ruling to say otherwise. I still think unisex bathrooms or at least one single-occupant restroom per facility would be the best way to solve things, but no one has voiced an opinion on this except me so far.

[Talanis Collective]

So what work would you use to talk about someone whose gender identity matches with that assigned at birth? Trans is used for anyone whose gender identity does not match that assigned at birth.

Hmm... Well, "heterogendered" seems like a bit of a mouthful, but then so is heterosexual. "Normal" would just draw way too much fire. "Default" sounds kind of stupid Maybe just "gendered" would work? Like I said, I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

[Neutraligon]

So what work would you use to talk about someone whose gender identity matches with that assigned at birth? Trans is used for anyone whose gender identity does not match that assigned at birth.

Hmm... Well, "heterogendered" seems like a bit of a mouthful, but then so is heterosexual. "Normal" would just draw way too much fire. "Default" sounds kind of stupid Maybe just "gendered" would work? Like I said, I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

gendered would not work, since most trans individuals have a gender, as do all cisgendered (for lack of a better term) individuals. There are people in the trans community who are agender (they do not have a gender identity).

[Linux and the X]

Public bathrooms, sure, but HB2 mandates that schools and public agencies (which includes schools, but I guess that's what happens when you copypasta various right-wing model legislation together while trying to be done before anyone notices) discriminate against trans students and employees, and purports to allow private employers to discriminate against trans employees. Will you agree that those parts of the law, at least, are subject to federal preemption?

I will 100% agree that these rulings apply to: educational institutions, employers, and federal institutions. Likely even state institutions. Public or private entities not under this umbrella, I feel are exempt for as long as it takes for a federal ruling to say otherwise. I still think unisex bathrooms or at least one single-occupant restroom per facility would be the best way to solve things, but no one has voiced an opinion on this except me so far.

Yes, state (and local) governments are employers for Title VII purposes.

I would support single-occupant restrooms, but I'd be opposed to requiring that trans people use them instead of gender-appropriate multi-occupant facilities.

[Talanis Collective]

Yes, state (and local) governments are employers for Title VII purposes.

I would support single-occupant restrooms, but I'd be opposed to requiring that trans people use them instead of gender-appropriate multi-occupant facilities.

I'm glad, after what seems like a long string of the opposite, we find something to agree on. The only thing that I would point out is that, depending on your general "side" in the realm of transgender rights, the definition of "gender appropriate" would differ radically. Correct me if I overstep, but I'd say that by your definition, the appropriate one would be their chosen identity. Conversely, supporters of this bill and others like it, would say that the birth-gender was appropriate. Personally, I can't really for 100% certainty say where my opinion would fall. I suppose it would hinge on appearance. If your average Joe would be able to identify the discrepancy between birth and chosen identities in passing, then birth would be appropriate. That doesn't feel discriminatory to me, but others might not agree.

[Ethel mermania]

Count the NFL, as one of the companies that is still doing business in North carolina.


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports ... 79612.html

[SaintB]

Could it also be argued that discrimination in this manner is a violation of people's 14th Amendment rights?

Yes. It can easily be argued that way. They have intentionally written a law that takes the same legal protections given to heteronormal people away from trans and LBGT people.

[Grenartia]

Because getting a rise out of people on this forum by holding an opposing viewpoint to the majority is fun, I'm guessing.

yes all blatant opposition to the nsg mainstream is edgyness and none of it is because they actually disagree with us. theyre all just here for the lulz

r-right guys????

Obviously, but fucking why?

because 'bathroom rights' concerning lgbt dont matter to me and shouldnt matter at all, im more concerned about the safety of women from men who would otherwise take advantage of 'anti-discrimination' laws to sexually assault them

Except, that has literally never happened, and there are multiple jurisdictions that have had these protections for years, in some cases, over a decade. If it were going to happen, it would have already happened.

So, instead of worrying about things that won't happen, why not concern yourself with the safety of the transwomen who are forced to use the men's room. If any woman is going to be raped by a man in the bathroom, its them.

[Grenartia]

Something almost identical to this bill just passed in Mississippi.

The South. The South never changes.

Unless you're the Governor of Georgia and bought out by the big corporations who literally threaten the jobs of your constituents.

Or you're the newly-elected Governor of Louisiana, and you work tirelessly to undo all of the damage (including a "religious freedom" executive order) the previous governor/one-time GOP presidential candidate did to your state.

I fucking love our new governor. So glad I voted for him.

[Thermodolia]

Unless you're the Governor of Georgia and bought out by the big corporations who literally threaten the jobs of your constituents.

Or you're the newly-elected Governor of Louisiana, and you work tirelessly to undo all of the damage (including a "religious freedom" executive order) the previous governor/one-time GOP presidential candidate did to your state.

I fucking love our new governor. So glad I voted for him.

Could Louisiana share some of that blue with Georgia?

[Grenartia]

Speaking as someone outside the US, I find it strange that you expect youths to get naked and shower together at all.

Speaking as someone inside the US, I've never taken a shower at school. Ever. Never knew anyone who did. And just for reference, I graduated in 2013. So I'm immediately skeptical of this girl (well, also the fact that she's going to a Christian school). I think she's being spoonfed what to say.

[Veceria]

Speaking as someone outside the US, I find it strange that you expect youths to get naked and shower together at all.

Speaking as someone outside the US, showering naked in "public bathrooms" is quite common after visiting public swimming pools/natatoria.

[Grenartia]

Time for a new three-fifths compromise? My gay neighbors should only be paying 3/5 the amount of taxes I pay, because they're only 3/5 the person I am.

Homosexual people are people nonetheless, and of all people, Gim, I would expect you to know what the Bible says about judgment. It is neither your place or mine to judge anybody, that's not our job. We're meant to be accepting and kind to all of God's people, and those homosexuals that you're trying to distance yourself from are God's people too. What would Jesus say about you saying rude things about part of God's creation?

I don't think I'm judging a specific individual or individuals of sin, as 1. which homosexuality is stated in the Bible. If I point to someone and judge if he or she is homosexual by some kind of an action, that would be judgment. However, if I am talking about a set of individuals who are deemed homosexual, not in my own sight, but those of God, then I'm not judging. Moreover, can you say that homosexual people are entirely obedient of God? I mean, people are not altogether righteous. Some are sinners, although some are righteous people. We all know there are sinners in this world.

Except, its not a sin. Also, irregardless, of what consequence does that bear on civil rights? Am I supposed to be treated as a second-class citizen because somebody misreading the Bible says I'm a sinner due to who I am and who I love?

[Gatito]

Speaking as someone outside the US, I find it strange that you expect youths to get naked and shower together at all.

Speaking as someone outside the US, showering naked in "public bathrooms" is quite common after visiting public swimming pools/natatoria.

Showering naked before/after going to a pool is very common in the US.

[Thermodolia]

Speaking as someone outside the US, showering naked in "public bathrooms" is quite common after visiting public swimming pools/natatoria.

Uh, showering naked before/after going to a pool is very common in the US.

Where? Because I have never seen it happen where I live.

[Grenartia]

No, that would not be less bigoted or fairer to all sides, because the south would jump on the first chances to oppress the rights of LGBT people. That is why the rest of us cannot sit around and allow that to happen, because if you stay neutral in times of oppression, you've chosen the side of the oppressor. It is simply unconstitutional to allow discrimination against LGBT people or to bar same sex couples from marrying or to bar transgender people from using their proper identified restroom. Why do you insist on supporting laws that are unconstitutional?

As a southerner, I'm not a fan of the generalization. If it were directed at a racial or sexual group, people would jump down the poster's throat. As far as the neutral thing, I disagree. I neither support nor oppose the bill because it really won't change much either way. Seriously, what does it matter where people pop a squat? I'd actually prefer if all bathrooms were unisex, mainly because then more men might bother to aim or wipe of the seats if they thought a woman might use it next. I've supported gay rights since middle school, way before it was "cool" anywhere, especially the south. I even support the rights of people to get sex changes to make them happier and more comfortable. That said, I don't give a wet fart if they get to use the bathroom with the stick figure they find most fitting on the door. 1. I will always support equal rights, but never "special" rights. 2. Suck it up and either hold it until you get home or find a place with one of those single-person locking bathrooms. Crisis averted.

1. Good thing we're demanding equal rights, and not special rights, then.

2. There's an inherent problem here. First, many trans people actually are forced to hold it. And there's many health complications that have arisen out of that. Second, single-stall gender-neutral restrooms are a rarity. Multi-stall gender-neutral restrooms even more so. I don't even know of a single gender-neutral public restroom in my state.

[Vassenor]

Time for a new three-fifths compromise? My gay neighbors should only be paying 3/5 the amount of taxes I pay, because they're only 3/5 the person I am.

Homosexual people are people nonetheless, and of all people, Gim, I would expect you to know what the Bible says about judgment. It is neither your place or mine to judge anybody, that's not our job. We're meant to be accepting and kind to all of God's people, and those homosexuals that you're trying to distance yourself from are God's people too. What would Jesus say about you saying rude things about part of God's creation?

I don't think I'm judging a specific individual or individuals of sin, as which homosexuality is stated in the Bible. If I point to someone and judge if he or she is homosexual by some kind of an action, that would be judgment. However, if I am talking about a set of individuals who are deemed homosexual, not in my own sight, but those of God, then I'm not judging. Moreover, can you say that homosexual people are entirely obedient of God? I mean, people are not altogether righteous. Some are sinners, although some are righteous people. We all know there are sinners in this world.

Why should what the Bible says influence law?

[Khadgar]

I don't think I'm judging a specific individual or individuals of sin, as which homosexuality is stated in the Bible. If I point to someone and judge if he or she is homosexual by some kind of an action, that would be judgment. However, if I am talking about a set of individuals who are deemed homosexual, not in my own sight, but those of God, then I'm not judging. Moreover, can you say that homosexual people are entirely obedient of God? I mean, people are not altogether righteous. Some are sinners, although some are righteous people. We all know there are sinners in this world.

Why should what the Bible says influence law?

Because gay people are icky. No one gets shamed for tattoos, or eating shellfish, or not selling their daughters in slavery.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Speaking as someone outside the US, I find it strange that you expect youths to get naked and shower together at all.

Speaking as someone inside the US, I've never taken a shower at school. Ever. Never knew anyone who did. And just for reference, I graduated in 2013. So I'm immediately skeptical of this girl (well, also the fact that she's going to a Christian school). I think she's being spoonfed what to say.

I graduated in 2007.

As far as I knew showers were closed on my gym. And not because they were locked. They literally had closed the water valve to the showers.