Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Neutraligon]

The women supporting the NC law certainly do.

Argumentum ad populum.

In politics, argumentum ad populum is a viable tool.
Ghostbusters: "You will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M39l7rj80bM

Only to an extent. See in the republic we have, there are protections for minority population against the majority.

[MightyQuinn]

In politics, argumentum ad populum is a viable tool.
Ghostbusters: "You will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M39l7rj80bM

Only to an extent. See in the republic we have, there are protections for minority population against the majority.

Well, there's a minority of the population that are felons and criminals, we have all sorts of rules for them and society goes along just fine.

[Geilinor]

Only to an extent. See in the republic we have, there are protections for minority population against the majority.

Well, there's a minority of the population that are felons and criminals, we have all sorts of rules for them and society goes along just fine.

Criminals still have rights while they're in prison, including to trial and from cruel and unusual punishment.

[Jolet]

It's as narrow as you want it to be. Man on child, man on woman, it's irrelevant- the fact is that it opens up the possibility for a more widespread form of abuse. The remainder of your points, however, are valid, with the exception of calling this fear mongering. That's not what this is- if it was, I'd be going the extra step to portray you as some sort of monster for suggesting it, which I'm hopefully not. I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across that way, that wasn't at all my intent. This is meant to be an honest discussion, not a mudslinging event on the level of the Republican primary- we're probably doing a better job articulating our points than anybody up on the stage at any time ever did. Digression aside, that is where I stand on it, agree with me or not.

Also, general question for my personal gratification, where in the world do they have fully mixed-sex bathrooms? The last time I went to Europe it was still split up between men and women, so probably not there. Any ideas?

1. The narrowness is absolutely not irrelevant. What matters is the thing your sacrificing and what you get for it. How large the class of people you are protecting is about half of the equation here. I don't know how frequent bathroom attacks are but I'd wager "not very". Already, not many people to help. If we're acknowledging that same sex abuses are either not effected or worsened by preventing transgender people in the bathrooms of their gender then then there's another big chunk of people gone right away. There's also no advantage against people who are able to carry out assault in public bathrooms undetected and are also not bothered by the sign on the door. At a certain point we're reaching an impact that doesn't really bare notice.
2. What you are doing is fear mongering. You said specifically that IF we allow transgender women into the women's room THEN sex offenders will exploit this "probably with disturbing frequency." You are arguing that the way things are is the way that things should be because of fears that don't seem to be based in anything.

1. Agreed, in the end it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. My question to you, then, is whether or not the benefit to the hundred thousand people that you'd help (give or take, I'm not doing the math) outweigh the combined number of victims. Probably, on examination, but the tradeoff must occur. I'm personally not okay with it, but that's my opinion and not supposed to be gospel.
2. Partially conceded. The way I was portraying the point (specifically tying together a cause/effect relationship without correlation) was inaccurate and flawed. However, can we objectively say that sex offenders or those who wish to exploit this rule won't? Probably not. The status quo has existed for centuries, if not a millenia. We as humans are very familiar with it. All I'm doing is questioning the disposal of the status quo in favor of something that seems to be a radical change in a different direction.

[Galloism]

Well, there's a minority of the population that are felons and criminals, we have all sorts of rules for them and society goes along just fine.

Criminals still have rights while they're in prison, including to trial and from cruel and unusual punishment.

What? Criminals have rights?

Not in this country! *conservative chest-thumping*

[Galloism]

1. The narrowness is absolutely not irrelevant. What matters is the thing your sacrificing and what you get for it. How large the class of people you are protecting is about half of the equation here. I don't know how frequent bathroom attacks are but I'd wager "not very". Already, not many people to help. If we're acknowledging that same sex abuses are either not effected or worsened by preventing transgender people in the bathrooms of their gender then then there's another big chunk of people gone right away. There's also no advantage against people who are able to carry out assault in public bathrooms undetected and are also not bothered by the sign on the door. At a certain point we're reaching an impact that doesn't really bare notice.
2. What you are doing is fear mongering. You said specifically that IF we allow transgender women into the women's room THEN sex offenders will exploit this "probably with disturbing frequency." You are arguing that the way things are is the way that things should be because of fears that don't seem to be based in anything.

1. Agreed, in the end it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. My question to you, then, is whether or not the benefit to the hundred thousand people that you'd help (give or take, I'm not doing the math) outweigh the combined number of victims. Probably, on examination, but the tradeoff must occur. I'm personally not okay with it, but that's my opinion and not supposed to be gospel.
2. Partially conceded. The way I was portraying the point (specifically tying together a cause/effect relationship without correlation) was inaccurate and flawed. However, can we objectively say that sex offenders or those who wish to exploit this rule won't? Probably not. The status quo has existed for centuries, if not a millenia. We as humans are very familiar with it. All I'm doing is questioning the disposal of the status quo in favor of something that seems to be a radical change in a different direction.

First gendered bathrooms were in 1739.

Didn't become common until the mid 1800s.

[Jolet]

1. Agreed, in the end it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. My question to you, then, is whether or not the benefit to the hundred thousand people that you'd help (give or take, I'm not doing the math) outweigh the combined number of victims. Probably, on examination, but the tradeoff must occur. I'm personally not okay with it, but that's my opinion and not supposed to be gospel.
2. Partially conceded. The way I was portraying the point (specifically tying together a cause/effect relationship without correlation) was inaccurate and flawed. However, can we objectively say that sex offenders or those who wish to exploit this rule won't? Probably not. The status quo has existed for centuries, if not a millenia. We as humans are very familiar with it. All I'm doing is questioning the disposal of the status quo in favor of something that seems to be a radical change in a different direction.

First gendered bathrooms were in 1739.

Didn't become common until the mid 1800s.

Cool, so around 200 years. Still stands that they've existed for a pretty long time, though not for as long as I thought.

[MightyQuinn]

Well, there's a minority of the population that are felons and criminals, we have all sorts of rules for them and society goes along just fine.

Criminals still have rights while they're in prison, including to trial and from cruel and unusual punishment.

They also report to parole officers and in many cases can't associate with other known criminals and many have their 2nd Amendment rights suspended.

[Des-Bal]

1. Agreed, in the end it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. My question to you, then, is whether or not the benefit to the hundred thousand people that you'd help (give or take, I'm not doing the math) outweigh the combined number of victims. Probably, on examination, but the tradeoff must occur. I'm personally not okay with it, but that's my opinion and not supposed to be gospel.
2. Partially conceded. The way I was portraying the point (specifically tying together a cause/effect relationship without correlation) was inaccurate and flawed. However, can we objectively say that sex offenders or those who wish to exploit this rule won't? Probably not. The status quo has existed for centuries, if not a millenia. We as humans are very familiar with it. All I'm doing is questioning the disposal of the status quo in favor of something that seems to be a radical change in a different direction.

1. I would argue it is, I have seen no indication that bathroom attacks are particularly common and nothing to suggest that they would be made more common by allowing transgender people (or anyone) to use whichever bathroom they prefer.
2. I would say that people who are going to commit sexual assaults in bathrooms are probably not going to be dissuaded by the fact that they are not permitted to be in the particular bathroom where they are committing sexual assault. To paraphrase Tim Minchin the tenacity of an idea is not a measure of it's worth, if there is no good reason for the policies we have and there are reasons we should not have those polices then let's do away with them.

[Neutraligon]

Criminals still have rights while they're in prison, including to trial and from cruel and unusual punishment.

They also report to parole officers and in many cases can't associate with other known criminals and many have their 2nd Amendment rights suspended.

Correct, but they still have some basic rights, even if the majority feels they should not have those rights. For instance they still have the right not to be tortured for a crime they committed. They still have the right to not be forced into drug tests against their will, or to be forced to work against their will, despite large swathes of the population supporting both. We do not have mob rule here in the state here the rights of the minority are to a certain extent protected against the whims and will of the majority. It is why even in states where it was not supported, many courts said that homosexuals had the right to marry.

[MightyQuinn]

They also report to parole officers and in many cases can't associate with other known criminals and many have their 2nd Amendment rights suspended.

Correct, but they still have some basic rights, even if the majority feels they should not have those rights. For instance they still have the right not to be tortured for a crime they committed. They still have the right to not be forced into drug tests against their will, or to be forced to work against their will, despite large swathes of the population supporting both. We do not have mob rule here in the state here the rights of the minority are to a certain extent protected against the whims and will of the majority. It is why even in states where it was not supported, many courts said that homosexuals had the right to marry.

I've highlighted an important part of your last argument.

But let me say that I'm quite please in your assertion that we ought not have Mob Rule. I'm glad that we have a system of checks and balances in three (supposedly) co-equal branches of government. Therefore, I'm sure that you would agree that rather than use an existing law (Title IX) as a bludgeon, that was written prior to any decision regarding questions of sexual identity concerning transgendered people, you would prefer that legislation would be drafted and approved rather than this nasty affair or a number of cases eventually heading up to the SCOTUS and an uncertain outcome.

[Neutraligon]

Correct, but they still have some basic rights, even if the majority feels they should not have those rights. For instance they still have the right not to be tortured for a crime they committed. They still have the right to not be forced into drug tests against their will, or to be forced to work against their will, despite large swathes of the population supporting both. We do not have mob rule here in the state here the rights of the minority are to a certain extent protected against the whims and will of the majority. It is why even in states where it was not supported, many courts said that homosexuals had the right to marry.

I've highlighted an important part of your last argument.

But let me say that I'm quite please in your assertion that we ought not have Mob Rule. I'm glad that we have a system of checks and balances in three (supposedly) co-equal branches of government. Therefore, I'm sure that you would agree that rather than use an existing law (Title IX) as a bludgeon, that was written prior to any decision regarding questions of sexual identity concerning transgendered people, you would prefer that legislation would be drafted and approved rather than this nasty affair or a number of cases eventually heading up to the SCOTUS and an uncertain outcome.

I said your claim to argumentum ad populum has meaning in politics is true only to an extent, that does not mean it is without importance, but there are protections again the will of the majority, when that will is harming the minority. Title IX was something already passed by Congress, meaning it already dealt with the system of checks and balances. It is not a bludgeon, it is a contract with the states for under what circumstances they can recieve federal money. States are not entitled to that money. It does not matter that it was written prior to any decision regarding gender, it was written broadly enough that it covers gender. Other court cases have already upheld that particular interpretation. And once again, state are not entitled to federal money. The courts exist to do exactly what I said, protect the minority (in this case trans individuals) against the will of the majority.

[Linux and the X]

They still have the right to not be forced into drug tests against their will, or to be forced to work against their will,

Prisoners actually can be force to work, unfortunately.

[Neutraligon]

They still have the right to not be forced into drug tests against their will, or to be forced to work against their will,

Prisoners actually can be force to work, unfortunately.

Really I thought that wasn't the case. I should probably have included they cannot be forced to work against their will without some pay, even if that pay is ridiculously low.

[Des-Bal]

Really I thought that wasn't the case. I should probably have included they cannot be forced to work against their will without some pay, even if that pay is ridiculously low.

I am almost certain that is not the case.

[Neutraligon]

Really I thought that wasn't the case. I should probably have included they cannot be forced to work against their will without some pay, even if that pay is ridiculously low.

I am almost certain that is not the case.

I could easily be wrong, although I would call working without pay slavery. Although, hmm I believe the Constitution does allow that in inmates.

[Linux and the X]

I am almost certain that is not the case.

I could easily be wrong, although I would call working without pay slavery. Although, hmm I believe the Constitution does allow that in inmates.

Yep. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

[Neutraligon]

I could easily be wrong, although I would call working without pay slavery. Although, hmm I believe the Constitution does allow that in inmates.

Yep. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The idea sickens my. Although maybe we should get back on topic.

[Esternial]

Shouting fire or not is fairly obvious.

Pray, do tell, how you'd determine whether someone "looks like the sex they belong to" or not? Cup size? Anything? It's very subjective, so you can't possibly build an argument based on that.

Back when they were casting for Pirates of the Caribbean IV, Disney was looking for athletic women with no breast enhancement. My dream job was to be the inspector.

Now if I were a transvestite or transsexual, I would make sure that I did my best to look like a female. Who wants to be ugly? I'd watch a LOT of Ru Paul's Drag Race, buy my clothes from specialty stores and do my best impression of Brenda Vaccaro when speaking. Some of the most beautiful men I've ever seen were at a female impersonator show in New Orleans.

Boobie inspector? How old are you, 12?

Shouting fire or not is fairly obvious.

Pray, do tell, how you'd determine whether someone "looks like the sex they belong to" or not? Cup size? Anything? It's very subjective, so you can't possibly build an argument based on that.

1.Yes you can. See, the nature of having a men's room and a woman's room and having those policies enforced is that we have already conceded it is visually possible to identify which sex a person belongs to. You can argue that it would be difficult to "catch" everybody breaking the rules or that periodically a person who is not transgender would be ejected from a bathroom but you can't argue there's no metrics at all.
2.Presuming that transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their stated gender then consider the case of Alan.
Alan acknowledged her status yesterday, Alan has not practiced "passing", uses her birth name, and prefers wearing traditionally male clothing. Alan still feels more comfortable in the women's room. Does Alan have a right to be there?

1. Feel free to give me some metrics because I can't think of any that would have a flawless success rate, and I strongly doubt any combination of those metrics wouldn't have a statistically significant fail rate.
I reject the notion that enough metrics exist to give a sufficient success rate. People are too physically homogeneous to make such a claim.

2. In an ideal world, yes. Though people are going to give Alan a hard time, so it's up to Alan to decide whether he wants to brave those risks. But he should certainly have that right. As I said earlier, people should be much less uptight about "their" bathrooms. If there are stalls, I don't quite see the problem. I also strongly doubt that "Perverts" and "degenerates" (oh my~) won't be stopped by current conventions anyway.

[Ifreann]

Wait... They're actually considering cutting funding to helping disabled children in their education over the shitter?

What... The fuck...

Yes, the Obama Administration is considering cutting funding to disadvantaged and disabled children if public school and university have restrooms that are for people who actually happen to be women or men.

Title IX is the excuse that they are using. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex, but it has no language recognizing transgender-transsexual persons and it predates any judicial ruling that recognizes the mental perception of sexual identity.

Certainly sounds like sexist discrimination to me to refuse to acknowledge people as men or women because of their sex.

---

Heard on the news today, the majority of North Carolina residents seem to believe that if you don't like their laws, then just stay away and leave them alone, and shove the Federal dollars up Washington D.C.'s backside.

The one assumes the state government will be raising taxes so as to replace the revenue lost from turning down federal funding.

---

Well, let's suppose that you have a typical Men's bathroom and it contains a few typical urinal stalls and a few toilet stalls, all in one room.
Let's also suppose that you have a typical Women's bathroom and it contains individual toilet stalls.
Now, let's suppose that we are actually concerned with privacy and specifically women's privacy and freedom from fear that a man will overpower them in a restroom, the to have gender neutral bathrooms, each restroom will need to be a separate unit, which means more individual bathrooms which means more space for bathrooms and more walls.

Unless bathrooms were equipped with gender detecting force fields while I wasn't looking, cheap plastic signs continue to be ineffective against sexual predators.

Depends how hard you throw them.

---

The women supporting the NC law certainly do.

Argumentum ad populum.

In politics...

In politics? Are you trying to put forth a logical argument or are you trying to get elected?

[Khadgar]

So let me get this straight.

A state government knowingly violates the terms it HAS to meet in order to receive federal education funding. The federal government then says "meet the requirements or the funding will be cut", state cries foul and the OP scream gubmint tyranny!


Is that the gist of this now 25 page thread? Because this should have been resolved before page two.

[Crockerland]

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.

Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector." ~Plato, The Republic, book VIII

The tyrant Obama is still trying to wrestle control of the country from democracy, as we see here again, even after the Supreme Court unanimously voted against him over a dozen times, he still thinks he can just declare laws on a whim without the approval of anyone. The worst part of the story is knowing he and his regime still have several months to further batter the country before the next election, unless he pulls a Mugabe and declares himself president for life.

[Vassenor]

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.

Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector." ~Plato, The Republic, book VIII

The tyrant Obama is still trying to wrestle control of the country from democracy, as we see here again, even after the Supreme Court unanimously voted against him over a dozen times. The worst part of the story is knowing he and his regime still have several months to further batter the country before the next election, unless he pulls a Mugabe and declares himself president for life.

In what way is he a tyrant?

[Zoice]

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.

Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector." ~Plato, The Republic, book VIII

The tyrant Obama is still trying to wrestle control of the country from democracy, as we see here again, even after the Supreme Court unanimously voted against him over a dozen times, he still thinks he can just declare laws on a whim without the approval of anyone. The worst part of the story is knowing he and his regime still have several months to further batter the country before the next election, unless he pulls a Mugabe and declares himself president for life.

You don't seriously think that's true right?

Besides, he can't do shit through the legislature because they're busy trying to find their balls.

[Khadgar]

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.

Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector." ~Plato, The Republic, book VIII

The tyrant Obama is still trying to wrestle control of the country from democracy, as we see here again, even after the Supreme Court unanimously voted against him over a dozen times. The worst part of the story is knowing he and his regime still have several months to further batter the country before the next election, unless he pulls a Mugabe and declares himself president for life.

In what way is he a tyrant?

He's a democrat president. They're all tyrannical trampling all over those poor states and their rights.