North Carolina Bathroom Law

[Metsfanmax]

We value freedom in this country, which means we don't lock innocent people up or restrict their movements unless we have an extraordinarily good reason for doing so

Hey, it's nothing to do with me!

No, you just have continually failed to understand this statement is meant in the imperative mood, as in "we ought to value freedom... we ought not lock innocent people up...". It was a statement of intent, not a statement of fact. Your desire to score rhetorical points overwhelmed your ability to have a reasoned discussion, and continues to do so.

[mrswdk]

Wait, so now instead of 'we value freedom' it's become 'we ought to value freedom'? Because those are two completely different statements.

Do you believe that the US does value freedom and refrains from excessively curtailing its citizens' freedom, or do you believe that the US doesn't but should value freedom and allow suitable levels of freedom?

[Metsfanmax]

Wait, so now instead of 'we value freedom' it's become 'we ought to value freedom'?

I always meant it in the latter sense, which I have tried to explain multiple times.

Do you believe that the US does value freedom and refrains from excessively curtailing its citizens' freedom, or do you believe that the US doesn't but should value freedom and allow suitable levels of freedom?

I believe that such broad, generalized statements are completely useless to ask, and therefore to answer.

[mrswdk]

And yet you believed such a broad, generalized statement was worth making in the first place.

[Metsfanmax]

And yet you believed such a broad, generalized statement was worth making in the first place.

As already explained multiple times, I believe to be defensible the broad, generalized statement that the US should strive towards a value of freedom regardless of circumstance, and that is what I meant by the original statement. A statement about whether the US does respect freedom already in general is meaningless, and requires specificity about which circumstance you would like to learn about.

Anyone want to take bets on how many more times I have to explain this before mrswdk decides to move on?

[mrswdk]

It's not my fault you chose to muddy the water by making a broad, generalized statement but then inserting some brackets at the end basically voiding the entire statement you had just made.

You're such a politician. You put the big sound bite up front for the headlines, but are careful to play some semantics so that if anyone calls you on it you can say 'no I never actually said that because semantics'.

The result being a totally useless input to this thread.

[Metsfanmax]

The result being a totally useless input to this thread.

The only useless input to this thread has been the discussion that has nothing to do with North Carolina's bathroom law, and the only person responsible for that is you. You're the only person anywhere who could possibly have interpreted my statement as an invitation to debate about the really moronic concept of whether America is really a country that respects freedom or not, as opposed to the obvious implication that everyone else accepted, that if America wants to be a country that respects freedom, it had better not have laws like this one. Like it or not, I am in fact the only person who gets to decide what my posts originally meant. You're the one that started this idiotic discussion... but I'm going to be the one who ends it. If you continue this for one more post, I'm actually going to foe you and stop responding to you in this forum.

[mrswdk]

The only useless input to this thread has been the discussion that has nothing to do with North Carolina's bathroom law, and the only person responsible for that is you. You're the only person anywhere who could possibly have interpreted my statement as an invitation to debate about the really moronic concept of whether America is really a country that respects freedom or not, as opposed to the obvious implication that everyone else accepted, that if America wants to be a country that respects freedom, it had better not have laws like this one. Like it or not, I am in fact the only person who gets to decide what my posts originally meant. You're the one that started this idiotic discussion... but I'm going to be the one who ends it. If you continue this for one more post, I'm actually going to foe you and stop responding to you in this forum.

Is exactly what someone who values freedom would say!

Anyhoo, as long as we learn the value of speaking clearly from this and take that lesson forwards into your futures, such misunderstandings should not reoccur. Learn and grow, honey pot!

[thegreekdog]

This is the most relevant part of your lengthy post. I agree with most of what you've said other than what you've indicated above. A white man can tell when a black man uses a "whites only restroom." A woman cannot tell when a transgender man uses a woman's restroom.

Okay, supposing this was true, doesn't it defeat a large part of the point in support of this law? If women cannot tell whether their bathroom colleagues are biologically male or female, then they'd never have any reason to be uncomfortable in thinking that there's a man in their restroom, so there's no reason to have the law.

Your wish for equality is great; I support it. Unfortunately, it is impossible to reconcile this point of view with real life unless we make all bathrooms unisex. If the Obama administration's letter says that, I'm supportive (but I doubt it says that).

No idea what the administration's letter says. I think that I would support a move towards unisex facilities in general, though that's part of a larger societal conversation about gender identity.

A somewhat related example (bathroom and locker room wise, not sexuality wise) is a question I've asked my friends: Is a lesbian woman showering in a public woman's shower the same as a man showing in a public woman's shower? Ultimately, the woman who would otherwise be uncomfortable would not know whether the woman who was sharing the shower was a lesbian or not.

I think this is going to vary from person to person. Some might be uncomfortable with it, I think anecdotally most don't care.

A woman doesn't see a woman or transgender man using the locker room shower; she sees a man. How would you deal with that situation?

Why does it require dealing with? In general my attitude is the same as for the example of racial segregation -- if they don't like it, they have to deal with it and eventually they will die and be replaced by people who have more enlightened social views.

I'll caveat this again by saying I'm arguing with you for the point of arguing; ultimately my view is some version of "suck it up cupcake."

In any event, I think anecdotally that most women would not want to shower with men they don't know. I think they would be happy to (or at least ignorant of) showering with a person with a vagina who just happened to be born a man. I think there is a difference between those two things and we're not at Starship Troopers at this point. I also don't think there is a valid equal protection claim for two reasons; first, our Supreme Court doesn't do things by the book, they do whatever they feel like doing based upon political leanings and I don't think the swing votes (e.g. Kennedy) are going to be in favor of this. Second, I just don't know where the violation is.

Separately, I was at an event at a college over the weekend. They had three bathrooms: gender neutral, men, and women. I don't believe that is acceptable under the Obama administration's policy.

[thegreekdog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/the-legal-fight-over-north-carolinas-transgender-bathroom-law-explained-in-4-questions/

I'm sick of the lack of political discussion in this forum. I used to be able to get lots of good threads without creating them... not so much any more. Therefore, I'm creating this one.

North Carolina's transgender bathroom law basically says a person can only use a restroom that corresponds to the gender that person was born with; thus, a transgender man can't use the men's room and a transgender woman can't use the ladies' room.

Discuss.

somebody predicted this would happen 3-4 years ago.

WHY HOW DARE I?

You predicted that North Carolina would pass a law requiring people like Caitlyn Jenner to use the men's restroom? I think you predicted that the president would somehow pass a law (even though he can't actually do that) requiring religious people to allow gay marriage or something like that. First of all, this was not the Obama administration acting on its own. North Carolina passed a law which was probably the most poorly worded law they could think of (if they want to pass constitutional scrutiny).

[thegreekdog]

This law is the same as making restrooms for white people only, or drinking fountains. Or perhaps only protestants can use public transit. Or only men can enter bars. Discrimination needs to be dealt with head on and eradicated.

No, it's really not. It's about making a restroom that is for men only and a restroom that is for women only. It's separate but equal as between genders for restrooms only. This has been the case for a long time in a lot of different places (my freshman dorm notwithstanding). This is not about excluding transgenders from using restrooms so your analogies are inaccurate.

And... all a person has to do to get around the North Carolina law is to change his/her birth certificate. That's it. This law is completely ineffective. I am a 6'1" 250 pound, dark-skinned man with facial hair. If I change my birth certificate, I can use a women's room in North Carolina without breaking the law (admittedly, I need to do some things to get my birth certificate changed from male to female).

I can't help but reintroduce the relationship to how this is going to impact boy scouts and girl's softball teams. We really did make the decision to steer America 2.0 directly into crazy town to the point where the answer is 'YES, nobody can have anything that might possibly discriminate against .1% of any certain population. I wouldn't doubt urinals get banned since someone in a wheelchair might get pissed off at the mere sight of one.

There was a recent article on reason.com discussing what happens now with women playing on boys teams and vice versa because the Obama adminsitration is pointing to Title IX on this stuff.

But yes, we should not discriminate against 0.1% of the population no matter how much it makes the other 99.9% uncomfortable.

[thegreekdog]

And one more! Although, I'm sure you all wanted to continue to watch Mets and mrs go at each other and see which one caves first, but...

Argument on banning guns:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban guns so people cannot commit crimes with guns."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal!"
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Argument on banning transgender restroom usage:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban men from women's restrooms so they cannot commit crimes."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal."
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Does anyone know the difference between those seemingly similar sounding arguments?

[Metsfanmax]

North Carolina passed a law which was probably the most poorly worded law they could think of (if they want to pass constitutional scrutiny).

I don't think they care about surviving constitutional review.

And one more! Although, I'm sure you all wanted to continue to watch Mets and mrs go at each other and see which one caves first, but...

Argument on banning guns:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban guns so people cannot commit crimes with guns."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal!"
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Argument on banning transgender restroom usage:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban men from women's restrooms so they cannot commit crimes."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal."
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Does anyone know the difference between those seemingly similar sounding arguments?

I got this one first, bitch.

the fear of rape is always a concern among women.

The conservative position: laws banning guns don't stop criminals from using guns, but laws banning people from entering restrooms stop rape.

(The extension to the liberal position is obvious, I was just too busy making fun of tzor at the time to go into it.)

[thegreekdog]

North Carolina passed a law which was probably the most poorly worded law they could think of (if they want to pass constitutional scrutiny).

I don't think they care about surviving constitutional review.

And one more! Although, I'm sure you all wanted to continue to watch Mets and mrs go at each other and see which one caves first, but...

Argument on banning guns:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban guns so people cannot commit crimes with guns."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal!"
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Argument on banning transgender restroom usage:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban men from women's restrooms so they cannot commit crimes."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal."
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Does anyone know the difference between those seemingly similar sounding arguments?

I got this one first, bitch.

the fear of rape is always a concern among women.

The conservative position: laws banning guns don't stop criminals from using guns, but laws banning people from entering restrooms stop rape.

(The extension to the liberal position is obvious, I was just too busy making fun of tzor at the time to go into it.)

Dammit. I'm trying not to read tzor's posts in this thread.

[mrswdk]

And one more! Although, I'm sure you all wanted to continue to watch Mets and mrs go at each other and see which one caves first, but...

Argument on banning guns:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban guns so people cannot commit crimes with guns."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal!"
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Argument on banning transgender restroom usage:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban men from women's restrooms so they cannot commit crimes."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal."
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Does anyone know the difference between those seemingly similar sounding arguments?

This is why party politics is the worst thing ever.

[thegreekdog]

And one more! Although, I'm sure you all wanted to continue to watch Mets and mrs go at each other and see which one caves first, but...

Argument on banning guns:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban guns so people cannot commit crimes with guns."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal!"
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Argument on banning transgender restroom usage:

- Pro ban - "We need to ban men from women's restrooms so they cannot commit crimes."
- Anti ban - "Yeah, but all those crimes are already illegal."
- Pro ban - "Doesn't matter. We should act preemptively."

Does anyone know the difference between those seemingly similar sounding arguments?

This is why party politics is the worst thing ever.

Agreed, although there is probably more evidence for banning guns solving the murder issue than banning transgender from solving rape. However, I have yet to hear most mainstream Democrats call for banning guns, just placing "more restrictions" as if those "more restrictions" would solve anything substantial (other than creating more bureaucracy). In any event, this thread is not about guns; it's about people using whatever bathroom they want to use regardless of anything.

[mrswdk]

I figured tzor had already shot himself in the foot with that weird list of stories about perverts being caught in bathrooms/changing rooms and Mets' horseplay was just this thread's swansong.

[mrswdk]

[Phatscotty]

One thing that can never be changed - Phatscotty called it

[Metsfanmax]

One thing that can never be changed - Phatscotty called it

Why don't you use your prediction powers to make some money on prediction markets?

[thegreekdog]

One thing that can never be changed - Phatscotty called it

I will not acknowledge that you called it until you provide a link.

[Phatscotty]

One thing that can never be changed - Phatscotty called it

I will not acknowledge that you called it until you provide a link.

I happen to have a link that links to a plethora of links

[Serbia]

One thing that can never be changed - Phatscotty called it

I will not acknowledge that you called it until you provide a link.

I happen to have a link that links to a plethora of links

Are you talking about your penis again?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

One thing that can never be changed - Phatscotty called it

I will not acknowledge that you called it until you provide a link.

I happen to have a link that links to a plethora of links

Are you talking about your penis again?

Click image to enlarge.

[thegreekdog]

One thing that can never be changed - Phatscotty called it

I will not acknowledge that you called it until you provide a link.

I happen to have a link that links to a plethora of links

So... no?