What we've gained is that if an adult man -- who does not claim to be a woman, just claims a right to be there-- walks in to the lady's locker room when my girls are changing for swim class, we have a recourse besides "leave."
The harm done is because Obama decided to shove the subject down the throats of his political enemies to solve a problem that didn't exist.
I feel like this "issue" is getting attention because it's a distraction from the reality that we're all getting screwed. If a democrat were in office, the distraction would be guns or something with the same fear mongering as always. Perhaps I'm more libertarian in my thinking, but it seems like it's always a battle about who gets rights taken away instead of tackling important issues like jobs and infrastructure.
As far as I've been seeing, Trump has been doing alright. It's the Democrats still providing the distractions over nonsense, like the whole Russian conspiracy noise.
Re: part one - long winded replykerossFebruary 28 2017, 14:53:53 UTC
Thank you for taking the time to post. This is a nice and informative (for me at least) response. Reasoned discourse is always preferable to froth flecked rantings - tends to win more people to your side too.
I'm very conflicted on this. On the one hand, having gender-specific restrooms is just a stupid idea to begin with - everyone uses them for the same thing, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation. (I'll note in passing that up through at least the 1860s, public spaces had a common restroom, with stalls, that everyone used). That being said, if we [i]are[/i] going to segregate by gender, then it's only common decency to let people decide for themselves which gender they belong to. And, all [i]that[/i] being said, Obama was wrong to have addressed the issue by an Executive Order, and Trump is correct to have overturned it on that grounds. Now that's he's done that, though, I'm disappointed not to see him lobbying Congress to pass a proper law to address the issue.
I think there's a lot more to it than using the bathroom...like the sheer awkwardness of excreting waste around strangers is awkward enough without members of the opposite sex hanging around.
"That being said, if we [i]are[/i] going to segregate by gender, then it's only common decency to let people decide for themselves which gender they belong to."
You mean sex.
"...I'm disappointed not to see him lobbying Congress to pass a proper law to address the issue."
"Leave it to the states" is a perfectly acceptable response.
A stranger is a stranger. I don't really see how their sex (or gender) enters into it.
I had originally used 'sex', but then changed it to 'gender', on the theory that we're dealing here with social roles of male and female, rather than biological ones.
Letting the states decide is an entirely proper strategy for many, and perhaps even the majority of issues. I can't really see it as an adequate response in a situation like this, though, since the civil rights of Americans are at issue. When something impacts Americans' equal protection under the law, then the tenth amendment no longer applies. There needs to be a unified standard if there is to be equal protection.
And again, the practical long-term solution to all of this, legal issues and social awkwardness, is simply to have a single restroom for everyone. I think that's coming, and probably faster than most would expect.
Well, basically, I don't want to use the toilet after a man has been there spraying everywhere. And YES I have a phobia of sitting on a public toilet seat because who knows who has been there doing god knows what to that seat
( ... )
I'm more than a little surprised that after the hiatus THIS is the subject you choose to post about. I mean there is so much more interesting and important subject matter and I can't even find an article that says the bathroom law has been repealed.
Comments 48
The harm done is because Obama decided to shove the subject down the throats of his political enemies to solve a problem that didn't exist.
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
For many of us, the issue is not with the Trans person, but with those who will use the laws to their advantage such as this man: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/17/transgender-rule-washington-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/ “the law has changed and I have a right to be here." I see people like him as a threat to children. I do not see the transgender who works at my local grocery as a threat to anyone.
Reply
Reply
"That being said, if we [i]are[/i] going to segregate by gender, then it's only common decency to let people decide for themselves which gender they belong to."
You mean sex.
"...I'm disappointed not to see him lobbying Congress to pass a proper law to address the issue."
"Leave it to the states" is a perfectly acceptable response.
Reply
I had originally used 'sex', but then changed it to 'gender', on the theory that we're dealing here with social roles of male and female, rather than biological ones.
Letting the states decide is an entirely proper strategy for many, and perhaps even the majority of issues. I can't really see it as an adequate response in a situation like this, though, since the civil rights of Americans are at issue. When something impacts Americans' equal protection under the law, then the tenth amendment no longer applies. There needs to be a unified standard if there is to be equal protection.
And again, the practical long-term solution to all of this, legal issues and social awkwardness, is simply to have a single restroom for everyone. I think that's coming, and probably faster than most would expect.
Reply
Reply
I mean there is so much more interesting and important subject matter and I can't even find an article that says the bathroom law has been repealed.
Reply
Leave a comment