NATION

PASSWORD

North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

bill?

yeh
217
29%
neh
431
58%
weh?
42
6%
eh
52
7%
 
Total votes : 742

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59419
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:27 am

Boineburg wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
So?


So, if you have a penis and were not born intersex, you're male and you use the male restroom. Simple as that.

Why do we want to keep segregation, though?

There doesn't seem to be any good reason for it.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Lady Scylla
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15411
Founded: Nov 22, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lady Scylla » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:29 am

Boineburg wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
So?


So, if you have a penis and were not born intersex, you're male and you use the male restroom. Simple as that.


How d'you propose we enforce that? Y'know, without intruding on someone's privacy, and getting slapped with a lawsuit. It's not enforceable, and the legislation doesn't make any sense. It's fallaciously dishonest.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:30 am

Ceres-Vesta wrote:TRANSGENDER people don't want to rape anyone. Well, statistically, some of them probably do. But no more than any other group. The problem is that anyone could claim to be transgender, and say that they haven't had a sex-change operation yet. Then go and do whatever they want in the bathroom of the opposite sex. Filming, eavesdropping, anything (Can't really see actual, foll-on rape happening in a crowded public restroom though). A better law would be to keep people who claim to have not yet had a sex-change operation to the restroom of their biological gender upon birth, and allow all other members of the transgender community to use the restroom of their own gender.

Anyways, I do sort of hate how they say the bill is to "Protect women". I'd feel violated if someone had taken pictures of me naked too. It also implies that FTM people don't exist, or that only men are capable of sexual assault. Which is an implication that manages to insult everyone at once.


Good law, it will stop all those rapists who have a moral objection to lying. Unless of course this is actually going to graduate into looking at people's genitals as they go in.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
The Shadow Republik
Envoy
 
Posts: 221
Founded: Feb 06, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Shadow Republik » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:31 am

Vassenor wrote:So here's my question to you: What makes it right to discriminate against transgender individuals?

There's no more discrimination involved in this bill than there are in boys being restricted from girls bathrooms and vice versa.[/quote]
i agree with the bill saying i mean you wouldn't let a straight man into the girl's bathroom and vise versa but i think it would freak someone out if a female looking person walks into the men's room and a male looking person walked in the the girls rooms so i'm neutral on the problem because i don't care. plus I think people fighting about this is kinda stupid. and i'm not a bigot i just wish people would realize that everyone is equal under the law but there are some laws that protect both genders.
]Full Member of the International Space Agency



NEWS: The shadow republik is currently embroiled in a cold war with other members of Yggdrasil over weather socialism is better than capitalism according to current info 2 battles have broken out 1 fought in the real world and one fought on a computer simulation stand by for more developments

User avatar
Lady Scylla
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15411
Founded: Nov 22, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lady Scylla » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:31 am

Ceres-Vesta wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Why does every debate on this always come down to THEY JUST WANT TO RAPE US?


TRANSGENDER people don't want to rape anyone. Well, statistically, some of them probably do. But no more than any other group. The problem is that anyone could claim to be transgender, and say that they haven't had a sex-change operation yet. Then go and do whatever they want in the bathroom of the opposite sex. Filming, eavesdropping, anything (Can't really see actual, foll-on rape happening in a crowded public restroom though). A better law would be to keep people who claim to have not yet had a sex-change operation to the restroom of their biological gender upon birth, and allow all other members of the transgender community to use the restroom of their own gender.

Anyways, I do sort of hate how they say the bill is to "Protect women". I'd feel violated if someone had taken pictures of me naked too. It also implies that FTM people don't exist, or that only men are capable of sexual assault. Which is an implication that manages to insult everyone at once.


Pretty much. That alone should make it abundantly clear what the legislation is actually targetting.

User avatar
Khadgar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10934
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Khadgar » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:31 am

So a bunch of perverts cause transgender people to no longer be able to use the correct bathrooms. Why do people keep electing pervs?

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:32 am

Lady Scylla wrote:
How d'you propose we enforce that? Y'know, without intruding on someone's privacy, and getting slapped with a lawsuit. It's not enforceable, and the legislation doesn't make any sense. It's fallaciously dishonest.


I imagine they'd enforce it the same way they enforce keeping men out of women's bathrooms.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Lady Scylla
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15411
Founded: Nov 22, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lady Scylla » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:33 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Lady Scylla wrote:
How d'you propose we enforce that? Y'know, without intruding on someone's privacy, and getting slapped with a lawsuit. It's not enforceable, and the legislation doesn't make any sense. It's fallaciously dishonest.


I imagine they'd enforce it the same way they enforce keeping men out of women's bathrooms.


Which, essentially means it's unenforceable. Trans peeps are extremely 'convincing', so unless you're walking around in a dress with a Paul Bunyan on your face, it's unlikely any eyebrows will be raised.

User avatar
New Chilokver
Minister
 
Posts: 2073
Founded: Oct 05, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Chilokver » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:34 am

Clearly the solution is to replace all segregated bathrooms with unisex stalls. *nods*
Last edited by New Chilokver on Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

About User
Hong Kong-Australian Male
Pro: Yeah
Neutral: Meh
Con: Nah
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
[HOI I - Peacetime conditions]
Head of Government: President Ada Luong
Population: 193.55 million
GDP (nominal): $8.77 trillion
Active Military: 1.2 million
Member of: IFC, UL
IIWiki
| There is no news. |
Other Stuff
Lingria wrote:Just realized I'm better at roleplaying then talking to another human being.
Fck.
WARNING: This nation represents my RL views.

User avatar
Friedensreich
Diplomat
 
Posts: 573
Founded: May 02, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Friedensreich » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:34 am

I guess I do not support nor reject this law. It doesn't really affect me in any way, or any people I know.
But it makes me wonder why North Carolina is passing it in the first place. Were they having problems with transgender people going into bathrooms that aren't the gender specified on their birth certificate? Or, did some random Republican in North Carolina's government just proposed it on a whim to start a controversy?
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." -Bakunin

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41107
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:35 am

New Chilokver wrote:Clearly the solution is to replace all segregated bathrooms with unisex stalls. *nods*


But the sexual predators will be everywhere :o

User avatar
Boineburg
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Nov 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Boineburg » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:35 am

Lady Scylla wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
I imagine they'd enforce it the same way they enforce keeping men out of women's bathrooms.


Which, essentially means it's unenforceable. Trans peeps are extremely 'convincing', so unless you're walking around in a dress with a Paul Bunyan on your face, it's unlikely any eyebrows will be raised.


I guess I'll just remind everyone that this bill nullifies anti-discrimination laws passed by local governments beneath the NC state government. It's not specifically trying to enforce any laws prohibiting transgenders from using whatever restroom they want.
B O I N E B U R G
★-               -★
★—               —★
★-               -★
ABSIT INIURIA

Myself | I don't give a damn. | SAVE
Class G17 nation according to the Civilization Index.
 N  PRO 
   C   HB2  

User avatar
Philjia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9457
Founded: Sep 15, 2014
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Philjia » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:36 am

New Chilokver wrote:Clearly the solution is to replace all segregated bathrooms with unisex stalls. *nods*


Makes more sense. Maybe throw in some urinals, but otherwise there's no particular good reason to keep segregated public bathrooms.
"Empathising with stupidity is halfway to thinking like an idiot" - Iain Banks
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
⚧ Gender and sex aren't the same thing. ⚧
Liberal social democrat. Keynesian. Egalitarian, pro LGBT rights and gay marriage, pro gay adoption, pro EU, atheist, pro free speech and expression, pro legalisation of prostitution and soft drugs, and pro choice. Anti authoritarian, anti bigotry, anti radfem, anti bullshit. White cishet male.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 131457
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:36 am

In addition to the content of the bill, I think the Republican Party, the party of freedom and small government, deserves a round of applause for dictating to municipalities what anti-discrimination and minimum wage laws they may pass.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27103
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:37 am

I love the implication that there is a sexual predator out there who is willing to do illegal harassment and assault but isn't willing to go into a bathroom their not allowed to. "Oh man, if I was just allowed in that bathroom I'd do sooooo much harassment...if only there was a loophole..."
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Philjia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9457
Founded: Sep 15, 2014
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Philjia » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:39 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:I love the implication that there is a sexual predator out there who is willing to do illegal harassment and assault but isn't willing to go into a bathroom their not allowed to. "Oh man, if I was just allowed in that bathroom I'd do sooooo much harassment...if only there was a loophole..."


Which is, arguably, why unisex bathrooms actually make more sense from a safety standpoint.
"Empathising with stupidity is halfway to thinking like an idiot" - Iain Banks
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
⚧ Gender and sex aren't the same thing. ⚧
Liberal social democrat. Keynesian. Egalitarian, pro LGBT rights and gay marriage, pro gay adoption, pro EU, atheist, pro free speech and expression, pro legalisation of prostitution and soft drugs, and pro choice. Anti authoritarian, anti bigotry, anti radfem, anti bullshit. White cishet male.

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44810
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:40 am

Boineburg wrote:
Lady Scylla wrote:
Which, essentially means it's unenforceable. Trans peeps are extremely 'convincing', so unless you're walking around in a dress with a Paul Bunyan on your face, it's unlikely any eyebrows will be raised.


I guess I'll just remind everyone that this bill nullifies anti-discrimination laws passed by local governments beneath the NC state government. It's not specifically trying to enforce any laws prohibiting transgenders from using whatever restroom they want.


So why is the governor saying exactly that? Going on and on about how it'll keep "sexual predators" out of women's bathrooms.
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:40 am

Lady Scylla wrote:
Which, essentially means it's unenforceable. Trans peeps are extremely 'convincing', so unless you're walking around in a dress with a Paul Bunyan on your face, it's unlikely any eyebrows will be raised.


They really aren't especially if they didn't partake in surgery or hormones at a young age. I am not convinced the policies would be impossible to enforce.
Last edited by Des-Bal on Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
New Chilokver
Minister
 
Posts: 2073
Founded: Oct 05, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Chilokver » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:40 am

Philjia wrote:
New Chilokver wrote:Clearly the solution is to replace all segregated bathrooms with unisex stalls. *nods*


Makes more sense. Maybe throw in some urinals, but otherwise there's no particular good reason to keep segregated public bathrooms.

Urinals would probably have to go in a seperate room though.

About User
Hong Kong-Australian Male
Pro: Yeah
Neutral: Meh
Con: Nah
| [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] |
[HOI I - Peacetime conditions]
Head of Government: President Ada Luong
Population: 193.55 million
GDP (nominal): $8.77 trillion
Active Military: 1.2 million
Member of: IFC, UL
IIWiki
| There is no news. |
Other Stuff
Lingria wrote:Just realized I'm better at roleplaying then talking to another human being.
Fck.
WARNING: This nation represents my RL views.

User avatar
New Benian Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1930
Founded: Aug 03, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby New Benian Republic » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:41 am

I can understand why they want the bill but I can also see it from the LQBTQA+ community.
~~~Support Sinn Féinn I guess~~~

~Like all true Irishmen I have no ancestors. I was birthed from Ireland's soil itself, fully formed, like a potato.~
Pro: United Ireland, IRA, Allan Ryan, Palestine, Malvinas, Ukraine, Hamas-Fatah cooperation, legalized Gay marriage, Tibetan Resistance, Basque Separatists, OPM.
Neutral: Bathroom segregation.

Anti: English Imperialism, Nazism, communism, Israel, Zionism, Margret thatcher, Martin McGuinness, good Friday agreement.
I am an Irish Atheist and Republican, Not a Dissident stop saying I am.
RIP Óglach Alan Ryan

~~Proud Gaelige Speaker~~

User avatar
Setgavarius
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1078
Founded: Mar 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Setgavarius » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:41 am

Khadgar wrote:So a bunch of perverts cause transgender people to no longer be able to use the correct bathrooms. Why do people keep electing pervs?

Because they're ignorant and afraid I guess? Beats me.
Friedensreich wrote:I guess I do not support nor reject this law. It doesn't really affect me in any way, or any people I know.
But it makes me wonder why North Carolina is passing it in the first place. Were they having problems with transgender people going into bathrooms that aren't the gender specified on their birth certificate? Or, did some random Republican in North Carolina's government just proposed it on a whim to start a controversy?

It's on a whim, in a Republican state, to oppose the existence of transgender people the moment they knew that they did exist. NC most likely conflates sex and gender on birth certificates; and generally the most recognized trans demographic would like to have their "sex"* changed.
*Especially if they're gonna get SRS.
Disclaimer: this is all from my mind and has a good chance of being inaccurate. I apologize for promoting bullshit with this post.

New Chilokver wrote:Clearly the solution is to replace all segregated bathrooms with unisex stalls. *nods*

b-but my only-male pedo rapists! :gasp: Reds would hate that.
The Planetary Administration of Setgavarius,
The World of Snark
Pro: Universal application, myself, porn, ramen noodles, tea, chocolate milk, liberalism, Halo, SimCity 4, GTA V, war, M27 IAR, BR85 HB SR, M392 DMR, Halo 4 multiplayer, DiplexHeated, Civ5, Fluttershy, #DeposeKauthar, Free RIG!
Anti: Heterosexism, heteronormativity, conservatism, broccoli, homework, suffering, death, Call of Duty multiplayer, sniper rifles, capitalism, feudalism, special pleading, genocide, MA5D ICWS, CBJ-MS, MTS-255, sig limits, anti-bronies, altright

I'm U N C O N T R O L L A B L Y L E W D

We have tropical sunsets and other such beauties in our glorious land of Pacifica. I, for my part, enjoy the TET lottery.

User avatar
Boineburg
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Nov 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Boineburg » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:42 am

Vassenor wrote:
Boineburg wrote:
I guess I'll just remind everyone that this bill nullifies anti-discrimination laws passed by local governments beneath the NC state government. It's not specifically trying to enforce any laws prohibiting transgenders from using whatever restroom they want.


So why is the governor saying exactly that? Going on and on about how it'll keep "sexual predators" out of women's bathrooms.


He didn't propose the bill to my knowledge. That's just his reason for supporting it.
B O I N E B U R G
★-               -★
★—               —★
★-               -★
ABSIT INIURIA

Myself | I don't give a damn. | SAVE
Class G17 nation according to the Civilization Index.
 N  PRO 
   C   HB2  

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44810
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:42 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Lady Scylla wrote:
Which, essentially means it's unenforceable. Trans peeps are extremely 'convincing', so unless you're walking around in a dress with a Paul Bunyan on your face, it's unlikely any eyebrows will be raised.


They really aren't especially if they didn't partake in surgery or hormones at a young age. I am not convinced the policies would be impossible to enforce.


So how do you enforce it then?
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
Philjia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9457
Founded: Sep 15, 2014
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Philjia » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:42 am

New Chilokver wrote:
Philjia wrote:
Makes more sense. Maybe throw in some urinals, but otherwise there's no particular good reason to keep segregated public bathrooms.

Urinals would probably have to go in a seperate room though.


Yeah.

Now that I think about it, urinals are the only reason you should be publically exposed in a bathroom at all. Why are they sex segregated?
"Empathising with stupidity is halfway to thinking like an idiot" - Iain Banks
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
⚧ Gender and sex aren't the same thing. ⚧
Liberal social democrat. Keynesian. Egalitarian, pro LGBT rights and gay marriage, pro gay adoption, pro EU, atheist, pro free speech and expression, pro legalisation of prostitution and soft drugs, and pro choice. Anti authoritarian, anti bigotry, anti radfem, anti bullshit. White cishet male.

User avatar
Lady Scylla
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15411
Founded: Nov 22, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lady Scylla » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:43 am

Boineburg wrote:
Lady Scylla wrote:
Which, essentially means it's unenforceable. Trans peeps are extremely 'convincing', so unless you're walking around in a dress with a Paul Bunyan on your face, it's unlikely any eyebrows will be raised.


I guess I'll just remind everyone that this bill nullifies anti-discrimination laws passed by local governments beneath the NC state government. It's not specifically trying to enforce any laws prohibiting transgenders from using whatever restroom they want.


The session, which was abruptly convened by Republican lawmakers on Tuesday, came in response to an antidiscrimination ordinance approved by the state’s largest city, Charlotte, last month. That ordinance provided protections based on sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity, including letting transgender people use the public bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, not gender at birth.

The state bill, put together so quickly that many lawmakers had not seen it before it was introduced Wednesday morning, specifically bars people in North Carolina from using bathrooms that do not match their birth gender, and goes further to prohibit municipalities from creating their own antidiscrimination policies. Instead, it creates a statewide antidiscrimination policy — one that does not mention gay and transgender people.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aravea, Cannot think of a name, D V, Fidisi, Galloism, Infected Mushroom, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jolthig, Kaltovar, Liriena, Locus Praemonstratus, Neko-koku, Ostroeuropa, Pacomia, Purgatio, Samudera Darussalam, Yisrae1

Advertisement

Remove ads