president Obama and transgender bathroom controversy

[rareboy]

I was wondering when you'd let loose on the Jews. It must make you crazy that you are restricted to anti-immigrant rants on this site.

You can't have it both ways though. You can't argue that majority dictate at the state level should govern on the issue of states rights and slavery and be bragging that your family fought on the side of the Federal anti-slavery, anti-seccessionist government.

So it must follow that if you believe that the representatives at the state level are speaking for the majority on the issue of toilet privileges and anti lgbt protections...then you must uphold that the same governments had the right to keep slaves and secede from the Union.

Unless you are in accord with the idea that if the majority of Americans in states without toilet laws and/or already with protection for transgender people to use the piss pot that best matches their holistic identity...then they should be able to mount a war against the states with restrictive toilet laws to make them comply.

So, since 57% of Americans oppose bathroom laws like South Carolina's, you'd be willing to allow the Feds to send in the army?

Notice that even almost half of the Republicans are even opposed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-its-good-news-for-transgender-advocates/

Check and mate.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The slave owners were democrats, and my family never were. 3 grt grandfathers and 6 grt grt uncles fought for the Union. After the war, the southern democrat bigots, the immigrants, mostly Irish and Jewish becomes the party of minorities and have been attacking the majority ever since.

It's interesting to go 150 years back in time to talk about when Democrats had more in common with modern day Republicans on social issues than they do today.

It doesn't, however, explain your support of modern day Republicans, or exonerate their views.

 

[Benvolio]

I was wondering when you'd let loose on the Jews. It must make you crazy that you are restricted to anti-immigrant rants on this site.

You can't have it both ways though. You can't argue that majority dictate at the state level should govern on the issue of states rights and slavery and be bragging that your family fought on the side of the Federal anti-slavery, anti-seccessionist government.

So it must follow that if you believe that the representatives at the state level are speaking for the majority on the issue of toilet privileges and anti lgbt protections...then you must uphold that the same governments had the right to keep slaves and secede from the Union.

Unless you are in accord with the idea that if the majority of Americans in states without toilet laws and/or already with protection for transgender people to use the piss pot that best matches their holistic identity...then they should be able to mount a war against the states with restrictive toilet laws to make them comply.

So, since 57% of Americans oppose bathroom laws like South Carolina's, you'd be willing to allow the Feds to send in the army?

Notice that even almost half of the Republicans are even opposed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-its-good-news-for-transgender-advocates/

Check and mate.

Representative democracy does not mean povernment by polls, but through elected Representative persuant to the Constitution. Polls are easily manipulated. In this case it is a democrat, i.e. CNN poll, which was then "weighted". That is, the results we are given are not the actual results prior to being manipulated. Beyond that, it is doubtful that even a majority of the respondents under stand the questions. A specific objection is the use of the words "gender" and "gender identity" with their meanings altered to mean some thing other than sex.
Also the poll talks of toilet facilities, without addressing the broader problems of the feds mandating use of locker rooms and apparently showers as well. Do parents understand their daughters may be required to dress and shower with boys?
Further, do they really understand that employers who choose not to be represented by men dressed as woman and women dressed as men, will be criminally and civilly liable?

 

[Kabluey]

Representative democracy does not mean povernment by polls, but through elected Representative persuant to the Constitution. Polls are easily manipulated. In this case it is a democrat, i.e. CNN poll, which was then "weighted". That is, the results we are given are not the actual results prior to being manipulated. Beyond that, it is doubtful that even a majority of the respondents under stand the questions. A specific objection is the use of the words "gender" and "gender identity" with their meanings altered to mean some thing other than sex.
Also the poll talks of toilet facilities, without addressing the broader problems of the feds mandating use of locker rooms and apparently showers as well. Do parents understand their daughters may be required to dress and shower with boys?
Further, do they really understand that employers who choose not to be represented by men dressed as woman and women dressed as men, will be criminally and civilly liable?

Your arguments are as flexible as they are flawed.

I'm glad your kind of tyranny and hatred is tempered by democracy. Your inability to understand that legislators who agree with you are not all-powerful must make actual democratic representation very frustrating.

Bet you miss the good-ole days, with pitch forks, and public floggings, and witches to burn.

 

[Kabluey]

...The result is US liberals/democrats have developed an ideology designed to get votes and keep the democrats/minorities in power: anti majority, anti white, anti Christian, anti free enterprise, anti Americana and pro immigrant, anti straight, and ultimately anti democracy, and pro authoritarian. You can clearly see it among the democrats in this forum; scornful of democracy, eager to have the liberal agenda forced on America by the president and/or Supreme Court.

It's like you took an argument about bigotry and flipped it as though the bigots need protection.
Deep.

 

[rareboy]

That's what the southern baptist bigots have been doing for the last 50 years...playing the victim because their institutionalized intolerance of anything non-white, non-protestant and non-heterosexual has been subjected to the challenges of civil rights.

And of course...as you point out....Benvolio's arguments are infinitely flexible...but they still fail. It was the same representative democracy that led to the civil war and later, to the Jim Crow laws throughout the US. What he is saying is that if these representatives are not representing the actual will of the majority people....that's fine...as long as what they are deciding fits with his world view.

What he refuses to still acknowledge is that the Federal government and the Department of Justice still have power over individual states who seek to discriminate without cause in the broader interest of the American public.

The federal government has done their job. They have made it clear that discrimination will not be tolerated and on behalf of interested parties, have filed a suit to see this issue decided in the courts.

But the problem still is....it is the black guy in the white house who is at the helm of the executive branch. And that just rustles Benvolio's jimmies to no end.

 

[LittleDove]

Is it really true that from introduction to debate to passage to signing took place in less than 12 hours?

Having read through the Bill, it appears to be an interesting example of what happens when those afflicted with halitosis of the intellect, unable to think things through and see the consequences of particular actions are let loose on the commonweal to wreak their idiocy.

Although they covered the situation for public bathrooms, they apparently neglected to think that the situation might arise with a school bathroom. A single parent of whatever sex with a child of the opposite sex is specifically allowed to bring that child (if under the age of 7) into a facility designated for the opposite to the child's sex if the child has to wee. The child is breaking the law, however, if that happens in a public school. It is, however, expressly permitted for the opposite-sexed parent to accompany the child into the wee-room designated for the child's own sex.

Are they planning to build very small prisons for toddlers, and to put kindergärtners on the sex-offenders' registry?

 

[Kabluey]

Are they planning to build very small prisons for toddlers, and to put kindergärtners on the sex-offenders' registry?

But uh.... womens and childrens!
And taxes! Freedum!

 

[TX-Beau]

Is it really true that from introduction to debate to passage to signing took place in less than 12 hours?

Having read through the Bill, it appears to be an interesting example of what happens when those afflicted with halitosis of the intellect, unable to think things through and see the consequences of particular actions are let loose on the commonweal to wreak their idiocy.

Although they covered the situation for public bathrooms, they apparently neglected to think that the situation might arise with a school bathroom. A single parent of whatever sex with a child of the opposite sex is specifically allowed to bring that child (if under the age of 7) into a facility designated for the opposite to the child's sex if the child has to wee. The child is breaking the law, however, if that happens in a public school. It is, however, expressly permitted for the opposite-sexed parent to accompany the child into the wee-room designated for the child's own sex.

Are they planning to build very small prisons for toddlers, and to put kindergärtners on the sex-offenders' registry?

It it a criminal statute?

 

[LittleDove]

It it a criminal statute?

Don't know. I tried looking at the General Statute this thing is modifying, but I didn't manage to locate anything. It became a blur after a while with bouncing back and forth between the Bill as written and passed and the General Statute as it stands.

I did find a number of statements from various police agencies stating they weren't planning to put any effort into trying to enforce the wee-room provisions of this load of slop because it was unenforceable and there were no defined penalties. I tried to find it from the actual statute one way or the other, but I couldn't. It seems well odd to enact a law prohibiting something and then to make no provision for what happens if someone breaks the law, but if those provisions exist, I didn't find them.

 

[TX-Beau]

Right wingers are always bad ar writing laws, usually because what they want to do is unconstitutional in the first place.

 

[rareboy]

The toilets were never the intended target....it is the other provisions of the law that are much more insidious and hurtful that are the real substance.


The toilets are just a cynical move to gin up the base for November.

 

[Kabluey]

The toilets were never the intended target....it is the other provisions of the law that are much more insidious and hurtful that are the real substance.

The toilets are just a cynical move to gin up the base for November.

Wonder what other tyrannies they'd sneak in under the guise of simple human rights abuses...

 

[opinterph]

You seem to be arguing in favor of a “collective right” – a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Yes. The people as a group have a right to make decisions about their country, and that necessarily means a majority of the people.

It’s interesting to note that a classic application of collective rights is found in United States v. Miller. Nonetheless, there seems to be some sort of newfangled speculation behind the concept as a legal vehicle to help protect the “Rights of the Majority.” In fact, “a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common” are actual words published by Justice Kennedy when writing for a majority opinion several years ago.

 

[Benvolio]

It’s interesting to note that a classic application of collective rights is found in United States v. Miller. Nonetheless, there seems to be some sort of newfangled speculation behind the concept as a legal vehicle to help protect the “Rights of the Majority.” In fact, “a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common” are actual words published by Justice Kennedy when writing for a majority opinion several years ago.

Either the people make the big decisions for themselves, either directly or through representative, or there is some form of dictatorship/authoritarianism by less than a majority. Because the democrats are a collection of minorities, they have come to prefer an authritarion government while going through the motions of democracy.

 

[kallipolis]

Each individual human person is a minority of one, living in a society made up of individual human beings.

The truth does not change when one human person, is a minority of one.

Agreement between human beings includes acknowledging the rights of every human person, for not to do so would imperil our own rights when we are the minority.

 

[rareboy]

A collection of minorities can be a majority when they hold enough values and ideas in common.

And again...the nonsense about authoritarian governments....it is the right wing conservatives who keep trying to introduce legislation to govern the uterus and bathrooms. As usual, it is the liberals who are trying to push back against unnecessary legislation and the intrusion of the state into the pissoirs of the nation.

Even faced with evidence that the majority don't support your point of view....you try to demolish the very notion and integrity of a majority by claiming it is only a cabal of minorities who shouldn't have the right to make those decisions.

Again...you are trying to have it both ways.

 

[Benvolio]

A collection of minorities can be a majority when they hold enough values and ideas in common.

And again...the nonsense about authoritarian governments....it is the right wing conservatives who keep trying to introduce legislation to govern the uterus and bathrooms. As usual, it is the liberals who are trying to push back against unnecessary legislation and the intrusion of the state into the pissoirs of the nation.

Even faced with evidence that the majority don't support your point of view....you try to demolish the very notion and integrity of a majority by claiming it is only a cabal of minorities who shouldn't have the right to make those decisions.

Again...you are trying to have it both ways.

No, the problem arises because a decision was made at the top to impose regulations governing bathrooms. Neither the majority or a collection of minorities had a voice in the decision. It is disingenuous for you to think polls can answer the question. Polls are far too easy to manipulate. Will you accept the next poll by conservative saying they don't want the new government bathroom regulations? Of course you won't.

 

[Mariatenebre]

The issue is all the Pre-OP MTFs.

The majority of MTFs nowdays are keeping their penis because they know they know Post-OPs MTF can't have orgasms.

They could allay the parents' terror by getting a surgeon to remove that penis!

That is bullshit MTF post op women can still have orgasms. Many even report that it is very powerful. This transwoman said that the sexual sensation was so powerful that she had to stop stimulation in certain instances because she didn't want to cum to early.

The issue also involves lovker rooms and showers.
The objection is not limited to potential rape and abuse. Most girls do not want to share with boys. It is an issue of sexual privacy. Political correctness is all about exaggerating the "rights" of the tiny minorities and ignoring the rights of the vast majority.
I also think liberals tend to think being transexual is like being gay. We all would agree that being gay is not psychological. But appears to be physiological, genetic or congenital in origin. It can not be cured or treated. BUT the same is not necessarily true of the transexuals. That is, in my opinion, more likely to be a personality disorder, psychological in origin an potentially curable like narcissistic p.o., obcessive compulsive p.o. etc.
Schools should not encourage kids to make a decision committing themselves to be outside the mainstream in school, and to live a frustrating life trying to be something they cannot really be. Perhaps they will make that decision as adults, but we should protect children from making bad decisions affecting their entire future.

Actually transsexuality can not be cured either and science shows that it is an inborn trait. Our corpus callosum for instance is even flipped on the side of our gender identity. All major psychological institutions state that transsexuality can not be cured and the only form of treatment is transitioning.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

 

[Mariatenebre]

You are more likely to see women raped while using the mens room, dressing room or shower, or women raped by boys using the girls rooms.

Actually in places that allow trans people to use the restrooms of their gender identity you see none of those things happen. However put a trans woman in a male bathroom she will probably get beaten up.

No, but i say either the state legislature gets to decide what type of "women" can use the mens room or the womens room, OR anyone can use any room. If it is illegal to keep trans "women" out of the girls shower it is illegal to keep any boys or men out of any girls or womens room because of their male gender identity.
BTW i can't wait until Hussein"s beloved muslims find out that their daughters have to dress and shower with biological men.

Actually this legislature does not allow cisgendered men to go to the bathroom with girls. It allows transwomen who are hormonally women to go to the bathroom in the girls bathroom. Which there have been no problems. However again this would be solved by adding gender neutral washrooms for trans people. Many non Abrahamic societies recognize third gendered people like with India and the hijras.

No. Since time immemorial, boys have used the boys room, and girls the girls room. No laws were needed. Then Czar Hussein decreed that boys who like to dress like girls are entitled to use the girls facilities, and the same for girls who like to dress as boys. Then some states have intervened to counter the imperial dictate.

Actually that is not true. In many parts of the ancient world bathrooms were in some places unisex and where they were not there were places for what would be known as trans people to use the bathroom. Transsexuality was not unknown in the ancient world and was in most parts accepted. You had the Galli of the cult of Cybele, the hijras of India, The Mukhannathun of Arabia, the Two Spirited people of the Americas etc. Among the Two Spirited People trans women shared the spaces with ciswomen and trans men with cismen. The Bugis people of Indonesia believe there are 5 genders namely cisgendered men, cisgendered women, trans men, trans women and a gender that encompasses all gender polarities and the transwomen are allowed into the spaces of the ciswomen just as the transmen are allowed into the places of the cismen.

Again Benvolio the legislation does not allow men to use the female restrooms it allows transwomen who are by their gender identity women and look as such.