North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

[Noraika]

State Nullification: Because it worked so well before

Yep. Totally. Never an issue.

Just leave everything to the states. Had totally worked before for the best way to deal with segregation and discrimination. Just look at how well it worked out for racial segregation and homosexual marriages!

[The New Falkland Islands]

Yep. Totally. Never an issue.

Just leave everything to the states. Had totally worked before for the best way to deal with segregation and discrimination. Just look at how well it worked out for racial segregation and homosexual marriages!

Eventually the SCOTUS had to step in. Will we be seeing the same situation with HB2?

[Shonburg]

So, I was reading through the lawsuit NC has filed against the DoJ and found this little interesting tidbit. Supporters of the bill have been claiming that bathrooms are and have been "sex-segregated". His lawsuit also claims the same thing, citing his executive order 93.

Lawsuit; http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/docs/05 ... ustice.pdf
(EO 93 mentioned on page 4, paragraph 11)


Executive Order; https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Order.pdf

Section 3. Restroom Accommodations
In North Carolina, private businesses can set their own rules for their own restroom, locker rooms and shower facilities, free from government interference.

Under current law, every multi-occupancy restroom, locker room or shower facility located in a cabinet agency must be designated for, and only used by persons based on their biological sex. (con't)

However, I could not find any mention of this said law anywhere. But the EO mentioned HB2, so I took a quick look at the law, and turns out, bathrooms being sex-segregated was introduced by the very same law they are defending with "Bathrooms in NC are sex segregated". That is a very circular argument and weakens his side considerably.

Here is HB2; http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bi ... /H2v0.html

[Grenartia]

1. I'm insulted by your use of the term "actual women", I'm as much a woman as any of them. Secondly, allowing women to use the women's restroom is not denying women rights, as that is a clear contradiction.

2. Abuse, assault, and discrimination are not simply "hurt feelings".

3. So? I served in the Peace Corps and would gladly join up if there was ever a threat like Nazi Germany again. Oh wait...the military won't accept me, a healthy and able bodied person willing to fight for my country, because of what is between my legs.

4. See #2

5. Fallacy of relative privation. Just because someone is starving in Somalia doesn't make my struggle go away.

6. Ah yes, because when I'm out at a party in my best dress, highheels, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, high-heels, painted nails, jewelry, carrying a purse, and are clearly possessing of breasts, I should use the men's bathroom.

3. Same. I kinda wanted to be a Navy pilot. Whatever. I'm either going to go into Law or Law Enforcement, depending on if I really feel like scrapping up cash for law school.

I always wanted to go into the Air Force. While the AF is the most trans-friendly branch of service, I'd probably not be allowed in because I know I can't pass the PT requirements.

[Scandinavian Nations]

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.

This is a stupid and backwards bill.

And not because it discriminates against trannies. Maybe that too, but not just because of that.

The segregation of bathrooms is one of the things that instill sexism; we should be moving towards an increased acceptance of gender-neutral facilities. The only reason they're separate in the first place is the medieval idea that someone observing a person of another gender naked means they're going to immediately cheat on their spouse.

In the meanwhile, while the society isn't quite ready for that (let's hope Islam doesn't have its way with making "naked" mean "without a hijab"...), we can at least progress towards treating the gender labels as a suggestion. That if there's someone in there, they're probably the marked gender, and that the urinals are behind that door, but otherwise it's up to you to choose what to do.

Passing laws about who should use which bathroom is a step backwards, not forward.
Regardless of whether you stand on the family vs liberty divide.

[Aphryss]

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.

This is a stupid and backwards bill.

And not because it discriminates against trannies. Maybe that too, but not just because of that.

The segregation of bathrooms is one of the things that instill sexism; we should be moving towards an increased acceptance of gender-neutral facilities. The only reason they're separate in the first place is the medieval idea that someone observing a person of another gender naked means they're going to immediately cheat on their spouse.

In the meanwhile, while the society isn't quite ready for that (let's hope Islam doesn't have its way with making "naked" mean "without a hijab"...), we can at least progress towards treating the gender labels as a suggestion. That if there's someone in there, they're probably the marked gender, and that the urinals are behind that door, but otherwise it's up to you to choose what to do.

Passing laws about who should use which bathroom is a step backwards, not forward.
Regardless of whether you stand on the family vs liberty divide.

I suspect you didn't intend it that way, and I can't speak for all transgender people, but many of us consider "tranny/ies" to be very offensive; personally I'd say it's equivalent to calling a black person a nigger.

[Des-Bal]

I suspect you didn't intend it that way, and I can't speak for all transgender people, but many of us consider "tranny/ies" to be very offensive; personally I'd say it's equivalent to calling a black person a nigger.

It's not at all equivalent. You can tell it's not equivalent because the more acceptable "trans" is differentiated by one phoneme. Nigger is so offensive that it's pretty hard to get close to without being offensive. You can argue that "Y" is a generally disrespectful suffix but no, tranny is not the same as nigger.

[Boineburg]

1. No major plumbing changes are required. In many cases, the absolute most that would have to happen would be knocking down a wall between the two rooms, and even that isn't strictly necessary.

2. It was implied that the statement held true within the limits of NC's jurisdiction.

3. & 4. False dichotomy. I fully support gender-neutral bathrooms, but I also realize that without the legal right to use the restroom that is in best accordance with one's gender (i.e., not sex), gender-neutral restrooms become little more than a new "colored restroom" for us.

You lost me. How dare you compare something so frivolous to racial segregation and Jim Crow laws? There are no lynch mobs after you. You're not receiving any less quality restrooms than anyone else. Such a comparison is simply disgusting and uncalled for.

I hope I haven't triggered your self-diagnosed PTSD with this post.

EDIT: And two divided by two does not equal 3.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

1. No major plumbing changes are required. In many cases, the absolute most that would have to happen would be knocking down a wall between the two rooms, and even that isn't strictly necessary.

2. It was implied that the statement held true within the limits of NC's jurisdiction.

3. & 4. False dichotomy. I fully support gender-neutral bathrooms, but I also realize that without the legal right to use the restroom that is in best accordance with one's gender (i.e., not sex), gender-neutral restrooms become little more than a new "colored restroom" for us.

You lost me. How dare you compare something so frivolous to racial segregation and Jim Crow laws? There are no lynch mobs after you. You're not receiving any less quality restrooms than anyone else. Such a comparison is simply disgusting and uncalled for.

I hope I haven't triggered your self-diagnosed PTSD with this post.

No lynch mobs for transpeople? How laughable. As if the trans murder-rate isn't through the roof. And before you whine about "but thats not a lynch mob like the ones back in the day!," allow me to remind you that today such things are impossible to do due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not that the police don't mistreat transpeople anyway.* This isn't frivolous, its just a continuation of the attitudes that make this country such a horrible place to live if you are unfortunate enough to have a gender that doesn't match up with your birth-sex.

*Note: I am not bashing the NYPD - thats an organization I may one day end up working for.

[Gauthier]

I suspect you didn't intend it that way, and I can't speak for all transgender people, but many of us consider "tranny/ies" to be very offensive; personally I'd say it's equivalent to calling a black person a nigger.

It's not at all equivalent. You can tell it's not equivalent because the more acceptable "trans" is differentiated by one phoneme. Nigger is so offensive that it's pretty hard to get close to without being offensive. You can argue that "Y" is a generally disrespectful suffix but no, tranny is not the same as nigger.

Someone black claiming that the struggles and insults that LGBTs are going through are incomparable to the Civil Rights Movement. Guess fighting for the right to sit in the front of the bus is necessary if you want throw another group under it to begin with.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

I suspect you didn't intend it that way, and I can't speak for all transgender people, but many of us consider "tranny/ies" to be very offensive; personally I'd say it's equivalent to calling a black person a nigger.

It's not at all equivalent. You can tell it's not equivalent because the more acceptable "trans" is differentiated by one phoneme. Nigger is so offensive that it's pretty hard to get close to without being offensive. You can argue that "Y" is a generally disrespectful suffix but no, tranny is not the same as nigger.

As a transperson, I can say that "tranny" is equally as offensive as "nigger." You aren't a transperson, so don't you dare try and say its not offensive. After all, by your logic, nigger shouldn't be offensive - its just a cognate of Negro, which really just means black, and used to be the polite way to refer to a black person. So please, stop your bullshit circle jerking. Its a slur, fucking deal with it.

[Carl Yastrzemski]

It's not at all equivalent. You can tell it's not equivalent because the more acceptable "trans" is differentiated by one phoneme. Nigger is so offensive that it's pretty hard to get close to without being offensive. You can argue that "Y" is a generally disrespectful suffix but no, tranny is not the same as nigger.

Someone black claiming that the struggles and insults that LGBTs are going through are incomparable to the Civil Rights Movement. Guess fighting for the right to sit in the front of the bus is necessary if you want throw another group under it to begin with.

When the LGBT community is enslaved because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, you can make this claim. Until such time, it's kind of insulting to the black community.

[Vassenor]

Someone black claiming that the struggles and insults that LGBTs are going through are incomparable to the Civil Rights Movement. Guess fighting for the right to sit in the front of the bus is necessary if you want throw another group under it to begin with.

When the LGBT community is enslaved because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, you can make this claim. Until such time, it's kind of insulting to the black community.

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

[Carl Yastrzemski]

When the LGBT community is enslaved because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, you can make this claim. Until such time, it's kind of insulting to the black community.

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

Painting with a broad brush, aren't we? Just because one can't compare to the struggle of one group doesn't make their struggle any less real. But let's not bequeath equivalency between experiences, because that's revisionist hogwash.

[The V O I D]

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

Painting with a broad brush, aren't we? Just because one can't compare to the struggle of one group doesn't make their struggle any less real. But let's not bequeath equivalency between experiences, because that's revisionist hogwash.

Discrimination is discrimination. End of discussion. You can argue about whether or not its equivalent all you want, it is still discrimination, and it still needs to stop, and people are still being hurt by it. LGBTs are murdered, assaulted, raped, and all other colors of the rainbow for their sexual orientation or gender identity just as much as blacks were for the color of their skin in the 1800s and 1900s.

In fact, they were murdered, assaulted and raped even more than blacks before the 1800s. So, you can't claim it isn't equivalent.

[Gauthier]

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

Painting with a broad brush, aren't we? Just because one can't compare to the struggle of one group doesn't make their struggle any less real. But let's not bequeath equivalency between experiences, because that's revisionist hogwash.

But it's perfectly acceptable for someone from one group to openly declare that a proven slur against another is Not An Insult like a slur against the one group is.

Groupsplaining!

[Des-Bal]

As a transperson, I can say that "tranny" is equally as offensive as "nigger." You aren't a transperson, so don't you dare try and say its not offensive. After all, by your logic, nigger shouldn't be offensive - its just a cognate of Negro, which really just means black, and used to be the polite way to refer to a black person. So please, stop your bullshit circle jerking. Its a slur, fucking deal with it.

1. I'm not sure you understand what a circle jerk is.
2. I didn't say it wasn't offensive I said it wasn't as offensive as "nigger." As a polite guideline for every single group insisting that a word is their N word: No it probably isn't.
3. Tranny and Trans are shortened versions of the same word differentiated only by [s] vs. [ny]. Niggs is not and has never been an acceptable way to refer to black people.

[Carl Yastrzemski]

Painting with a broad brush, aren't we? Just because one can't compare to the struggle of one group doesn't make their struggle any less real. But let's not bequeath equivalency between experiences, because that's revisionist hogwash.

Discrimination is discrimination. End of discussion. You can argue about whether or not its equivalent all you want, it is still discrimination, and it still needs to stop, and people are still being hurt by it. LGBTs are murdered, assaulted, raped, and all other colors of the rainbow for their sexual orientation or gender identity just as much as blacks were for the color of their skin in the 1800s and 1900s.

In fact, they were murdered, assaulted and raped even more than blacks before the 1800s. So, you can't claim it isn't equivalent.

I would love to see your sources for those statistics, because I'm willing to bet the money in my pocket against the money in your pocket that those statistics aren't true at all.

[Des-Bal]

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

Who said that? Who is saying don't complain? I'm not really a fan of the oppression olympics but when someone says "our thing is exactly the same as their thing" responding that it is not is totally reasonable.

[Boineburg]

When the LGBT community is enslaved because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, you can make this claim. Until such time, it's kind of insulting to the black community.

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

We actually got here by your side complaining that you have it worse than blacks did.

[Carl Yastrzemski]

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

Who said that? Who is saying don't complain? I'm not really a fan of the oppression olympics but when someone says "our thing is exactly the same as their thing" responding that it is not is totally reasonable.

This, a thousand times this. It's quite tragic that discourse can so easily be stymied in 2016 by irrational absolutism.

[Gauthier]

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

We actually got here by your side complaining that you have it worse than blacks did.

Um, live in Colorado or Washington State? The complaint is that "tranny" was being dismissed as being intrinsically insulting to transgenders the way "nigger" is to blacks.

[The V O I D]

Discrimination is discrimination. End of discussion. You can argue about whether or not its equivalent all you want, it is still discrimination, and it still needs to stop, and people are still being hurt by it. LGBTs are murdered, assaulted, raped, and all other colors of the rainbow for their sexual orientation or gender identity just as much as blacks were for the color of their skin in the 1800s and 1900s.

In fact, they were murdered, assaulted and raped even more than blacks before the 1800s. So, you can't claim it isn't equivalent.

I would love to see your sources for those statistics, because I'm willing to bet the money in my pocket against the money in your pocket that those statistics aren't true at all.

Hope you're ready to pay up. The Williams Institute published this report on hate crimes per 100,000 people in the US. Currently, anti-LGBT crimes combined trump even anti-Semitic and anti-Black crimes by a huge margin. To say they weren't equal at one time is false; perhaps they were equally bad at one time, but now it is much worse. In fact, anti-LGBT crimes are at the point where I think it is safe to say that blacks are no longer the most discriminated against minority, and therefor LGBT discrimination is now the top concern.

[Wallenburg]

And we're back to relative privation again. This whole "you're not allowed to complain because you don't have it as bad as these people" shtick.

We actually got here by your side complaining that you have it worse than blacks did.

"Your side"?

You aren't talking to a monolith. You don't get to lay blame on someone for something someone else said.

[Boineburg]

We actually got here by your side complaining that you have it worse than blacks did.

"Your side"?

You aren't talking to a monolith. You don't get to lay blame on someone for something someone else said.

Context. I wasn't pitting the blame on anyone, I was explaining how bs his claim is about how people arguing against him keep bringing up a certain argument, when it reality they didn't. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't, but I don't know how else to word it.