Conquer Club

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 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.

I think we already had a thread for it though.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, I've had about 1 hour of sleep the last 48 hours.

muy_thaiguy wrote:I think we already had a thread for it though.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, I've had about 1 hour of sleep the last 48 hours.

You may be right and I didn't bother to look.

However, more importantly, go to sleep.

thegreekdog wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:I think we already had a thread for it though.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, I've had about 1 hour of sleep the last 48 hours.

You may be right and I didn't bother to look.

However, more importantly, go to sleep.

Family emergency just now dying down. Still have some caffeine in my system to work out first.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:I think we already had a thread for it though.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, I've had about 1 hour of sleep the last 48 hours.

You may be right and I didn't bother to look.

However, more importantly, go to sleep.

Family emergency just now dying down. Still have some caffeine in my system to work out first.

In that case, good luck dude.

Thanks.

There was another thread, but it was mostly hot air as people tried to make a case that businesses and individuals who were boycotting the state were somehow blackmailers.

I hear the state and the federal government are suing each other now.

Yeah, hope it all works out muy.


In other news, thread is now dead. Re-name this thread "Good Luck Muy" and start a new one, Greekie.

I heard today the US government is taking the North Carolina government to court over this issue.

I hope the law is struck down and buried deep.

notyou2 wrote:I heard today the US government is taking the North Carolina government to court over this issue.

I hope the law is struck down and buried deep.

Why?

thegreekdog wrote:

notyou2 wrote:I heard today the US government is taking the North Carolina government to court over this issue.

I hope the law is struck down and buried deep.

Why?

Why do I hope the law is struck down?
Because it is discriminatory and just plain WRONG.

notyou2 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

notyou2 wrote:I heard today the US government is taking the North Carolina government to court over this issue.

I hope the law is struck down and buried deep.

Why?

Why do I hope the law is struck down?
Because it is discriminatory and just plain WRONG.

Discriminatory against who? Men, women, transgenders, all, none?

Transgendered people.

What's your take, given your legal background TGD?

If I understand correctly, the law originally removed the rights of LGBT people to have legal standing to sue if they were discriminated against. That seems like a pretty heinous attempt to create second-class citizens.

notyou2 wrote:Transgendered people.

Okay, I have a few different thoughts on this. I'll start at the most important and go from there.

(1) The amount of time and energy from a state government and the federal government is disgusting. The amount of time and energy the media is spending on this issue is also disgusting. There are significantly more important issues affecting many, many, many more people than whether a man who identifies as a woman can use a woman's restroom instead of a men's restroom. I can't emphasize enough (despite the remaining items on this list) how much this whole issue angers me. There is no evidence that a man identifying as a woman is going to use a woman's restroom for nefarious purposes. Like literally no evidence at all. So there's no reason for the law. Alternatively, why in the f*ck does a man identifying as woman caring about using a woman's restroom instead of a man's restroom? I know I'm going to get my ass kicked in this forum (say symmetry three times) for saying this, but if it's so important for you to use a woman's restroom, go get your birth certificate changed. It's much easier to get your birth certificate changed than to challenge the constitutionality of a law.

(2) I think transgender people should be able to use whatever restroom they want and a law prohibiting them from using whatever restroom they want, in addition to not being based in reality, is disgusting.

(3) This is not an equal protection issue if we're talking transgender only. If anything, this is an equal protection claim for men and women on a general basis. This is separate but equal as between men and women, regardless of the transgender issue. To put it another way, if there was a law (and there may be) that men identifying as men can't use a women's restroom, that law is (maybe) unconstitutional under the same principles the federal government is espousing. So, co-ed restrooms, right?

Separate, related note - We had co-ed bathrooms in my freshman year in college: stalls, urinals, sinks, showers, the whole deal. It never seemed to be a big deal.

(4) One of my favorite things was how businesses and celebrities started pulling out of North Carolina. That's the kind of stuff I like to see - the free market working the way it should.

thegreekdog wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Transgendered people.

Okay, I have a few different thoughts on this. I'll start at the most important and go from there.

(1) The amount of time and energy from a state government and the federal government is disgusting. The amount of time and energy the media is spending on this issue is also disgusting. There are significantly more important issues affecting many, many, many more people than whether a man who identifies as a woman can use a woman's restroom instead of a men's restroom. I can't emphasize enough (despite the remaining items on this list) how much this whole issue angers me. There is no evidence that a man identifying as a woman is going to use a woman's restroom for nefarious purposes. Like literally no evidence at all. So there's no reason for the law. Alternatively, why in the f*ck does a man identifying as woman caring about using a woman's restroom instead of a man's restroom? I know I'm going to get my ass kicked in this forum (say symmetry three times) for saying this, but if it's so important for you to use a woman's restroom, go get your birth certificate changed. It's much easier to get your birth certificate changed than to challenge the constitutionality of a law.

(2) I think transgender people should be able to use whatever restroom they want and a law prohibiting them from using whatever restroom they want, in addition to not being based in reality, is disgusting.

(3) This is not an equal protection issue if we're talking transgender only. If anything, this is an equal protection claim for men and women on a general basis. This is separate but equal as between men and women, regardless of the transgender issue. To put it another way, if there was a law (and there may be) that men identifying as men can't use a women's restroom, that law is (maybe) unconstitutional under the same principles the federal government is espousing. So, co-ed restrooms, right?

Separate, related note - We had co-ed bathrooms in my freshman year in college: stalls, urinals, sinks, showers, the whole deal. It never seemed to be a big deal.

(4) One of my favorite things was how businesses and celebrities started pulling out of North Carolina. That's the kind of stuff I like to see - the free market working the way it should.

TGD I agree there are many issues facing our communities and governments today, and it shouldn't have to come to spending dollars to force an entity to do the right thing. However, I think you are wrong in how important this is.

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.

notyou2 wrote: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).

Excuse me, I'd like to buy an argument.

The answer is coed, you are correct.

New topic, this one is solved.

I would argue that the disproportionate attention paid by the media, and indeed foreign governments (the UK issued a travel warning to LGBT travellers over this) is actually a good thing. Just because an unjust law only persecutes a small minority, doesn't mean it deserves less scrutiny.

While I understand that the majority of the scrutiny has fallen on NC's attempts to regulate the use of the state's toilets, the effects are a bit wider ranging. Essentially, an attempt to create second class citizens under the dubious auspice of religious freedom.

Transgender rights are the next big frontier. With big names like Caitlyn Jenner, and the Wachowski sisters, people are going to pay attention.

I agree with you on the unisex bathroom thing. It's a simple solution, and one that most of us have in our homes.

notyou2 wrote:Excuse me, I'd like to buy an argument.

The answer is coed, you are correct.

New topic, this one is solved.

Yes, this is my response to the question (and, by the way, seems to be what many Libertarians have latched on to... other than "who cares?"). A couple other random thoughts:

- If the courts say that transgender folks are covered by equal protection (which I believe they will), what in the f*ck is North Carolina's compelling state interest going to be? The "bathroom abuse" thing is so ridiculous it won't work. There is no factual basis for it.

- How much will gender identity play in the eventual case? Will the courts care about the birth certificate thing at all? (By the way Symm - I don't know the answer, but I suspect states cannot legislate away standing).

- This is definitely a case the pro-transgender folks want in the Supreme Court ASAP while the court is still "liberal" leaning.

- How many transgender people are there in North Carolina? How about the United States? It shouldn't make a difference to the eventual case, but it would be interesting to know how that plays in to what people think.

Symmetry wrote:I would argue that the disproportionate attention paid by the media, and indeed foreign governments (the UK issued a travel warning to LGBT travellers over this) is actually a good thing. Just because an unjust law only persecutes a small minority, doesn't mean it deserves less scrutiny.

It deserves less scrutiny when compared to other issues. I'm not saying it deserves less scrutiny on its face. I'm saying it deserves less scrutiny than, for example, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee arguably engaged in a massive cover-up from her time as the Secretary of State or the various conflicts going on around the world or gun control or immigration reform or budgetary concerns or the 500 other things that we should care about, but don't, because the media doesn't address it because it's not Trump or transgender politics. If transgender people had no restroom to use or were being indiscriminately killed, yeah, that should be towards the top of the list.

Symmetry wrote:While I understand that the majority of the scrutiny has fallen on NC's attempts to regulate the use of the state's toilets, the effects are a bit wider ranging. Essentially, an attempt to create second class citizens under the dubious auspice of religious freedom.

Not sure religious freedom is relevant. I think the justification was safety or some other bullshit. I admittedly do not know the religious implications of being transgender.

Symmetry wrote:Transgender rights are the next big frontier. With big names like Caitlyn Jenner, and the Wachowski sisters, people are going to pay attention.

Not a big frontier dude. First, not many transgender people. Second, public polling is pretty clearly in favor of allowing transgender people the same rights as everyone else (my view is this is because of the success of the gay rights movement and people like Jenner and the Wachowskis and shows like Orange is the New Black... in other words, culture, not legislation). This is not a situation where the majority is in favor of anti-transgender laws. That would be a frontier. This is more like a small side road.

Apologies, I got the NC law and Mississpi's similar anti-LGBT law mixed up re: the religious freedom angle.

Found it!

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=217889

I don't really understand the rationale for this law. What's the issue with someone who was born a man but is now a woman using the women's toilets? Are they worried that perverts will get sex changes in order to go and peek under the stalls in women's toilets or something?

That said I don't really care and feel like everyone (including transgender people) has bigger things to worry about than which bathroom a transgender person uses.