president Obama and transgender bathroom controversy

[kallipolis]

^Does the transgender girl (A J was still Autumn Jackson, a girl in boys’ clothing,) sit in the boys' urinals to piss, or use a cubicle that is lockable?

That the transgender girl might just catch a glimpse of a boy's penis, pissing into a urinal...the shock of it!!!! and the embarrassment for the boy, pissing....

Most school boys here in Greece are happy to expose their penis to a girl, or another boy for boasting purposes..mine is bigger, than yours.

Puritan America is alive, and as nerve racking as ever.

 

[rareboy]

I guess it is her choice.

And the automatic go-to that she is looking to get raped is just stupid as well.

 

[Benvolio]

It's a cheap win-win as far as tea party types are concerned:
Cooperate and seek compromise to pass laws voted for through the president's mandate = president is a sell out.
Block everything and crash the country = president is ineffective.
Block everything and force his hand to use executive power for things as mundane as hicks banning black people from using white drinking fountains (the toilet debate is no different) = president is a dictator.

It's dumb, but that's the vote they're chasing.

You totally misunderstand our Constutution. You think the President makes the laws and the Congress says "yes master". Actally Art. I Sec. 1 vests ALL legislative, law making, power in the Congress. The president merely enforces the laws. You notion thar it is the right of the pres to make the laws and the obligation of Congress to cooperate is 180 degrees wrong.

 

[Kabluey]

You totally misunderstand our Constutution. You think the President makes the laws and the Congress says "yes master". Actally Art. I Sec. 1 vests ALL legislative, law making, power in the Congress. The president merely enforces the laws. You notion thar it is the right of the pres to make the laws and the obligation of Congress to cooperate is 180 degrees wrong.

You think it's democratic for illegal laws to be made. Classic.

In notifying the state that their law breaches anti discrimination laws, the president is doing exactly what his brief is, he's executing and enforcing federal law.

Why does the state government think it's at all acceptable to make an illegal law that blocks democracy at city and school district level? They're harming their citizens' rights.

 

[Benvolio]

You think it's democratic for illegal laws to be made. Classic.

In notifying the state that their law breaches anti discrimination laws, the president is doing exactly what his brief is, he's executing and enforcing federal law.

Why does the state government think it's at all acceptable to make an illegal law that blocks democracy at city and school district level? They're harming their citizens' rights.

What law do you claim prohibits this?

 

[Latimer]

I guess it is her choice.

And the automatic go-to that she is looking to get raped is just stupid as well.

What about the boys who choose not to use a bathroom with a girl? Besides, a gender-neutral bathroom has already been provided--exactly what has been proposed in this forum as a solution to the issue.

 

[Latimer]

You think it's democratic for illegal laws to be made. Classic.

In notifying the state that their law breaches anti discrimination laws, the president is doing exactly what his brief is, he's executing and enforcing federal law.

Why does the state government think it's at all acceptable to make an illegal law that blocks democracy at city and school district level? They're harming their citizens' rights.

In this instance the president is interpreting the laws in ways that were never contemplated by the legislature, specifically re-defining "sex" to mean "gender identity". If Congress intended add "gender identity" to the list of protected classes it could have done so, and can do so. It didn't and it hasn't. If Mr. Obama believes it important to add it, he needs to propose it to our representatives in Congress, the legislature. The executive doesn't legislate, it executes.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You think it's democratic for illegal laws to be made. Classic.

In notifying the state that their law breaches anti discrimination laws, the president is doing exactly what his brief is, he's executing and enforcing federal law.

Why does the state government think it's at all acceptable to make an illegal law that blocks democracy at city and school district level? They're harming their citizens' rights.

States rights selectively become paramount anytime conservatives are defending a bigoted law that won't stand up to any Constitutional scrutiny. At that point anything and everything is interpreted by conservatives as a dangerous tyrannical abuse of power, whether it's the President or the judiciary pointing out that the law is unconstitutional or ordering Federal programs (like public schools) to disregard it, and doing so within the express role those branches of the government were created for.

One wonders where was this outrage when Bush was hiring people to write up a document supporting waterboarding policies.

 

[Benvolio]

States rights selectively become paramount anytime conservatives are defending a bigoted law that won't stand up to any Constitutional scrutiny. At that point anything and everything is interpreted by conservatives as a dangerous tyrannical abuse of power, whether it's the President or the judiciary pointing out that the law is unconstitutional or ordering Federal programs (like public schools) to disregard it, and doing so within the express role those branches of the government were created for.

One wonders where was this outrage when Bush was hiring people to write up a document supporting waterboarding policies.

Nonsense. In no event is discrimination involved. To so hold, the Supreme Court would have to hold that the states and schools, in particular, may not provide separately for the sexes. Same football teams , same showers. An immense disruption for the 1 in 30,000 transgendered people.

 

[TX-Beau]

Nonsense. In no event is discrimination involved. To so hold, the Supreme Court would have to hold that the states and schools, in particular, may not provide separately for the sexes. Same football teams , same showers. An immense disruption for the 1 in 30,000 transgendered people.

...There aren't that many so fuck'em...

 

[TX-Beau]

In this instance the president is interpreting the laws in ways that were never contemplated by the legislature, specifically re-defining "sex" to mean "gender identity". If Congress intended add "gender identity" to the list of protected classes it could have done so, and can do so. It didn't and it hasn't. If Mr. Obama believes it important to add it, he needs to propose it to our representatives in Congress, the legislature. The executive doesn't legislate, it executes.

This is a silly argument, Congress didn't specifically make trans people a "protected class" (neither are gay people incidentally, I suppose that means all those anti-discrimination laws are illegal) so tough shit, but wait, congress didn't specifically EXCLUDE them either - oops, silly pseudo-legalease disappears in a puff of logic.

Obama runs the Executive, including the DOE, he can hand down any policy he wants that isn't a violation of the Constitution within the Federal Sphere, he is not constrained by Congress' lack of opinion or action, up UNTIL they either make a law (which they haven't) or it goes to the courts.

 

[TX-Beau]

If you are so opposed to the horror of trans urine, you have lots of recourse to the courts - who will eventually tell you no - because this is a bogus dog whistle issue created to distract people from the ass reaming you're getting from the right.

 

[Kabluey]

If you are so opposed to the horror of trans urine, you have lots of recourse to the courts - who will eventually tell you no - because this is a bogus dog whistle issue created to distract people from the ass reaming you're getting from the right.

Bingo.
They could pass a law saying they'd confiscate all houses in some states if it was buried in a 'prevent gay marriage' act.

 

[Kabluey]

What about the boys who choose not to use a bathroom with a girl? Besides, a gender-neutral bathroom has already been provided--exactly what has been proposed in this forum as a solution to the issue.

North Carolina banned unisex facilities too. Keep up.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/28/anti-unisex-bathroom-law-in-north-caroli

 

[vidarr]

^ thats just rediculous.

Unisex bathrooms would solve this whole problem yet they won't even do that.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nonsense. In no event is discrimination involved. To so hold, the Supreme Court would have to hold that the states and schools, in particular, may not provide separately for the sexes. Same football teams , same showers. An immense disruption for the 1 in 30,000 transgendered people.

I attended a university which had unisex bathrooms in the late 1990s.

It isn't a big disruption. No one even notices it anymore after their 3rd visit to the restroom.

You are speaking out of your ass.

 

[Kabluey]

Nonsense. In no event is discrimination involved.

Women who look, act, sound, and who hormonally are effectively women aren't able to use women's toilets.
They're supposed to use men's toilets under this law.

I believe (and the law makers know this), that transgender women are at real risk of physical violence if they use men's toilets.
That's their real goal. To scare trans people away from the public, in case they should ever need to use a toilet.

It's dumb, obvious discrimination against, as you say, a tiny minority.

 

[Kabluey]

^ thats just rediculous.

Unisex bathrooms would solve this whole problem yet they won't even do that.

They're using 'gotcha' politics on this one.

 

[rareboy]

What about the boys who choose not to use a bathroom with a girl? Besides, a gender-neutral bathroom has already been provided--exactly what has been proposed in this forum as a solution to the issue.

If boys choose to not piss in the washroom, that is their choice as well.

I guess maybe they can use the gender neutral washroom.

 

[frankfrank]

^ thats just rediculous.

Unisex bathrooms would solve this whole problem yet they won't even do that.

They can't allow unisex bathrooms, when their real intention is that transsexuals ARE BEATEN OR KILLED.