NationStates

I'm rather surprised that no thread has been started yet. Unfortunately, I've never posted one of these and I'm not in the mood to write up anything special, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinions on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us/no ... ender.html

http://time.com/4270246/north-carolina- ... nder-rule/

---

Personally, I'm all for the bill.

I think it's absolute bs when people claim that it's "anti-LGBT", as well. The bill only mentioned transgenders, not gays and lesbians as Sarah Preston says.

“North Carolina has gone against the trend,” said Sarah Preston, the executive director for the North Carolina office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “And they crafted a bill that was more extreme than others. They specifically left gays, lesbians and the transgender community out of the antidiscrimination policy. They want to make it plain that they think that kind of discrimination is O.K.”

Additional points for the law:

Chloe Jefferson, a junior at Greenville Christian Academy, said letting biological males into women’s bathrooms would expose girls to sexual predators, adding, “Girls like me should never be made to shower and undress in front of boys.”

Republicans stressed that the bill was passed not just to protect women and children from unwanted and potentially dangerous intrusions by biological males, but also to clarify legislative authority. On the House floor, Representative Dan Bishop, a Republican who sponsored the bill, described Charlotte’s decision to enact an antidiscrimination measure as an “egregious overreach.” With the state bill, he said, “What we are doing is preserving a sense of privacy people have long expected.”

We all knew mtf transgender people are pedos, after all ...this bill is bullshit, by the way.
*takes test*

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

Not anti-LGBT? I hope you realise that it stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender etc.

Honestly, I don't see how any law on this subject could really be enforced. It's not like a police officer is going to see a suspiciously male-looking woman head to the bathroom and just scream "Stop! In the name of the law!". At the same time though, its better than the alternative, which is basically just giving everyone the freedom to eavesdrop on any member of the opposite sex with impunity. As much as I am for transgender rights, giving sexual offenders a "Get out of punishment free" card isn't something I'd like to see happen.

Boineburg wrote:I'm rather surprised that no thread has been started yet. Unfortunately, I've never posted one of these and I'm not in the mood to write up anything special, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinions on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us/no ... ender.html

http://time.com/4270246/north-carolina- ... nder-rule/

---

Personally, I'm all for the bill.

I think it's absolute bs when people claim that it's "anti-LGBT", as well. The bill only mentioned transgenders, not gays and lesbians as Sarah Preston says.

“North Carolina has gone against the trend,” said Sarah Preston, the executive director for the North Carolina office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “And they crafted a bill that was more extreme than others. They specifically left gays, lesbians and the transgender community out of the antidiscrimination policy. They want to make it plain that they think that kind of discrimination is O.K.”

Additional points for the law:

Chloe Jefferson, a junior at Greenville Christian Academy, said letting biological males into women’s bathrooms would expose girls to sexual predators, adding, “Girls like me should never be made to shower and undress in front of boys.”

Republicans stressed that the bill was passed not just to protect women and children from unwanted and potentially dangerous intrusions by biological males, but also to clarify legislative authority. On the House floor, Representative Dan Bishop, a Republican who sponsored the bill, described Charlotte’s decision to enact an antidiscrimination measure as an “egregious overreach.” With the state bill, he said, “What we are doing is preserving a sense of privacy people have long expected.”

So... FTM Transgender people don't exist? What of intersex individuals? Love to see how they'd enforce this one. Rather stupid bill.

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

What makes it right to discriminate against anyone born male who wants to use the women's bathroom?

Ceres-Vesta wrote:At the same time though, its better than the alternative, which is basically just giving everyone the freedom to eavesdrop on any member of the opposite sex with impunity. As much as I am for transgender rights, giving sexual offenders a "Get out of punishment free" card isn't something I'd like to see happen.

Why does every debate on this always come down to THEY JUST WANT TO RAPE US?

It appears the transgender pedo collective has finally been uncovered thanks to the righteous folks in North Carolina!

Really though this is fucking stupid.

Lady Scylla wrote:

Boineburg wrote:I'm rather surprised that no thread has been started yet. Unfortunately, I've never posted one of these and I'm not in the mood to write up anything special, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinions on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us/no ... ender.html

http://time.com/4270246/north-carolina- ... nder-rule/

---

Personally, I'm all for the bill.

I think it's absolute bs when people claim that it's "anti-LGBT", as well. The bill only mentioned transgenders, not gays and lesbians as Sarah Preston says.

Additional points for the law:

So... FTM Transgender people don't exist? What of intersex individuals? Love to see how they'd enforce this one. Rather stupid bill.

This. It's impossible to enforce, did the state government just get bored and decided to roll the wheel of things to make laws about?

Darn north carolina, you were my favorite state.

Ceres-Vesta wrote:Honestly, I don't see how any law on this subject could really be enforced. It's not like a police officer is going to see a suspiciously male-looking woman head to the bathroom and just scream "Stop! In the name of the law!". At the same time though, its better than the alternative, which is basically just giving everyone the freedom to eavesdrop on any member of the opposite sex with impunity. As much as I am for transgender rights, giving sexual offenders a "Get out of punishment free" card isn't something I'd like to see happen.

It doesn't take into account that sexual offenders exist in both sexes, and many target their own sex. Putting under "stopping" sexual offenders is just a ruse to pass legislation that's discriminatory. For the most part, people have very likely seen or met someone that's Transgender and not even known it. They usually go about their lives, and act like normal people. That's seems to be something certain groups of people have a hard time grasping.

Vassenor wrote:

Ceres-Vesta wrote:At the same time though, its better than the alternative, which is basically just giving everyone the freedom to eavesdrop on any member of the opposite sex with impunity. As much as I am for transgender rights, giving sexual offenders a "Get out of punishment free" card isn't something I'd like to see happen.

Why does every debate on this always come down to THEY JUST WANT TO RAPE US?

Desperate emotional appeal to gain sympathy and support in the absence of facts.

New Chilokver wrote:Not anti-LGBT? I hope you realise that it stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender etc.

The bill is only ruling against one group of the LGBT "community". To say it's also against every other group would make it seem more serious than it actually is. It's dishonest.

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.

Boineburg wrote:

New Chilokver wrote:Not anti-LGBT? I hope you realise that it stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender etc.

The bill is only ruling against one group of the LGBT "community". To say it's also against every other group would make it seem more serious than it actually is. It's dishonest.

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.

You're telling me I'm not allowed to use the facilities corresponding to my gender. That's discrimination.

Ceres-Vesta wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
So... FTM Transgender people don't exist? What of intersex individuals? Love to see how they'd enforce this one. Rather stupid bill.

This. It's impossible to enforce, did the state government just get bored and decided to roll the wheel of things to make laws about?

Seems like it. It's not like they'll have someone at every bathroom there to check if everything is in the right place down there before you enter. (Not to mention, intersex individuals, that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen), nobody carries their birth certificate with them, and if I understand correctly, all of that documentation gets changed following post-transition.

Vassenor wrote:You're telling me I'm not allowed to use the facilities corresponding to my gender. That's discrimination.

The signs you see next to restrooms are based on sex, not gender.

Vassenor wrote:You're telling me I'm not allowed to use the facilities corresponding to my gender. That's discrimination.

Would you allow a man to use the women's restroom?

A ruling against one group in the LGBTQI "community", as you put it, is a major and serious setback to the fight for LGBTQI rights as a whole.

Boineburg wrote:

Vassenor wrote:You're telling me I'm not allowed to use the facilities corresponding to my gender. That's discrimination.

The signs you see next to restrooms are based on sex, not gender.

So?

Boineburg wrote:

Vassenor wrote:You're telling me I'm not allowed to use the facilities corresponding to my gender. That's discrimination.

The signs you see next to restrooms are based on sex, not gender.

I'm still puzzled as to why, in this day and age, we're having a debate on segregation.

Vassenor wrote:

Ceres-Vesta wrote:At the same time though, its better than the alternative, which is basically just giving everyone the freedom to eavesdrop on any member of the opposite sex with impunity. As much as I am for transgender rights, giving sexual offenders a "Get out of punishment free" card isn't something I'd like to see happen.

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.

Boineburg wrote:I think it's absolute bs when people claim that it's "anti-LGBT", as well. The bill only mentioned transgenders, not gays and lesbians as Sarah Preston says.

When you deliberately exclude part of a demongraphic, such as LGBT, then it isn't unreasonable to claim that it is unfair to that demographic.

Vassenor wrote:

Boineburg wrote:
The signs you see next to restrooms are based on sex, not gender.

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. Simple as that.

That is a quite frankly disgustingly narrow view of the world.

Thank god I live in a free country where we don't have to put up with this stupidity.