NationStates

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.