Why do we want to keep segregation, though?
There doesn't seem to be any good reason for it.
Advertisement
by Galloism » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:27 am
by Lady Scylla » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:29 am
by 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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by 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?
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
by 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.
by 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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by 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.
by New Chilokver » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:34 am
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 Sohum Jain Population: 195.10 million GDP (nominal): $6.39 trillion Military personnel: 523.5k IIWiki | There is no news. | | Other Stuff
|
by Friedensreich » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:34 am
by 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*
by 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.
by Philjia » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:36 am
New Chilokver wrote:Clearly the solution is to replace all segregated bathrooms with unisex stalls. *nods*
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by Ifreann » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:36 am
by Cannot think of a name » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:37 am
by 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..."
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by 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.
by 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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by New Chilokver » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:40 am
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 Sohum Jain Population: 195.10 million GDP (nominal): $6.39 trillion Military personnel: 523.5k IIWiki | There is no news. | | Other Stuff
|
by New Benian Republic » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:41 am
by 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?
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*
by 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.
by 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.
by Philjia » Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:42 am
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by 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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Dunkirlothesia, Ethel mermania, Great Eddy, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Ravemath, Sarolandia, Statesburg, Untecna, Valentine Z
Advertisement