(April 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)paulpablo Wrote: don't forget though when you say protection you mean get the government to force the business to do something they might not necessarily want to do.  The business doesn't need protection from bigots.  When you say someone wants to protect the businesses from bigots, they aren't really.  It's not like they're actively protecting the business they're just not forcing the private business to do anything in particular.

They are when the make laws that say that no city or municipality in a state can make a law providing protection in employment, housing, or public space use for transgender individuals. That is an active protection of businesses over people.

To your point, in the 50's and 60's, when the government forced white business owners to allow black people in their place of business, was that a bad thing? How about protections for employment, housing, or public space use for black people?

When a interracial couple got kicked out of their homes by a racist white man in Mississippi recently because he didn't know until after they moved in that the woman's husband was black, should he have the right to kick paying tenants who passed the background checks/credit checks required to live in his rental because he think white people should marry black people?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../82584514/

(April 15, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The people who care do so because they believe it will be detrimental to society as a whole.

Which is, of course bull of the finest quality. They can remain in their own bubble of what strikes their fancy till eternity. Regardless if their next door neighbour marries a man, a woman or a transgender person.

Society can only be hurt by people trying to force their own little perception of life on the population at large.

Drinking and shooting from the hip here......people who oppose gay marriage really piss me off. Not necessarily relevant to the thread topic but a few people brought it up so I'm jumping.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:21 pm)Sterben Wrote:       Sorry about the typo, I thought I proofread it fully. It would not be right to discriminate in any of these cases, how would you purpose to keep bigots out of businesses? While your thinking about that, let me ask you a other question. Would you classify a sex-change operation has cosmetic surgery? John who feels he is really a woman on the inside, this has been bothering him for a while and is affecting his work. He wants to get breast implants and hormone therapy, should his employers health insurance cover such a operation? A female employee could easy claim the size of her breasts are to small and is affecting her work performance. Should both be covered by there HMO or PPO? Their both trying to get "Cosmetic" surgery's. Should both be covered, or do both get denied there surgery's? Does the requests fall under a medical need? If you were the underwriter for the company's health plan, would you deny both of them, or approve both? Since both fall under "Cosmetic".

I think you're doing it on purpose now, so whatever.

I didn't propose to keep bigots out of business. They are there. Instead of protecting the business, you protect the people who are being discriminated against. The same arguments were used in the South in the 50's-60's when segregation was made illegal. More commonly businesses would lose patronage if a black person was seated at the lunch counter because the law protected that black person from being kicked out of the business for being black. So racist white people would come in, see the black people in the store, and leave for another place. This happened until it didn't.

Social change isn't always easy, but a lot of the times it's necessary.

As far as the example of the surgery, you have literally no understanding of the process for getting a sex reassignment surgery. You can't just walk into a plastic surgeon's office and ask them to turn you into a woman. It takes years of therapy, both hormone and mental/emotional, before a doctor will perform a SRS. At that point, it is medically indicated as the best treatment option. If your HMO or insurance options include certain elective options, then no, SRS shouldn't be excluded. The same would go if a person had serious emotional issues with breast size. If she went through years of therapy and her doctor recommended that an augmentation was medically indicated, then yes, that should be covered like any other elective procedure. If elective procedures are not already covered, then this is a moot point. Some companies just have shitty insurance. They can continue to have shitty insurance if they prefer that. The employee makes that decision when they join the company.

It's not a case of protecting the business vs protecting the people being discriminated against.  

It's either letting businesses hire who they want or having governments force them to hire people.

Calling the absence of interference against someone protecting them is like a mafia style philosophy.

Abaris pointed out, erroneously, that I'm saying this because I'm for or against choice or being open for choice or something which isn't the case.  I'm just pointing out that I don't the the word protection fits into what you're describing.

Also it was laws that drove a lot of the segregation before the anti segregation laws.  Because before that you had the Jim crow laws so in my opinion that's just the government pandering to what people want, which would have happened naturally anyway in a free market society.

So we should just wait around until people naturally stop discriminating against trans people?

(April 15, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think the worry is that they'll be molested by a transperson. I think the worry is that a hetero man who has a peeping fetish and is NOT trans will pretend to be in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep.

So, again, why are we stepping on trans people in the interest of protections from non-trans people?

C_L, if a trans person identifies as a woman but still looks like a man, then they are likely to still be using the men's restroom. I have three trans friends, and one is just beginning her transition. Like most people, she is just trying to get by, but doesn't want the crazy ass people in TN all up in arms, so she still uses the men's room.

These fears you have are predicated on a lot of fear-mongering by right wing politicians. The likelihood of you ever even noticing a trans person in the bathroom with you is miniscule. It's probably happened many times already, you just didn't know it. This is the catastrophism that the GOP relies on, irrational fear based peddling of bigotry, in the name of "safety."

The funny thing is, if these bathroom laws had never existed, no one would have ever even noticed anything. Now we've created this bogey man that largely doesn't exist, and made it out to be an inevitability.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:09 pm)Losty Wrote: So we should just wait around until people naturally stop discriminating against trans people?

Either that or get the government to force people to stop doing it.  I'm not even sure which option I'd be for since I don't really believe that when government programs like that start they accomplish much that couldn't be accomplished without good education with no government force.

All I've stated is the fact that not forcing a business to do something isn't protecting it and that's a very mafioso like philosophy to have about the situation.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The people who care do so because they believe it will be detrimental to society as a whole.

Even if that is why they care, that doesn't make it true...

I'm not saying it does, I'm just offering an explanation as to why people care about certain issues that don't directly effect them personally.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not saying it does, I'm just offering an explanation as to why people care about certain issues that don't directly effect them personally.

But there's a word for people, who aren't effected in their personal lives. Mind your own business.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:12 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:09 pm)Losty Wrote: So we should just wait around until people naturally stop discriminating against trans people?

Either that or get the government to force people to stop doing it.  I'm not even sure which option I'd be for since I don't really believe that when government programs like that start they accomplish much that couldn't be accomplished without good education with no government force.

All I've stated is the fact that not forcing a business to do something isn't protecting it and that's a very mafioso like philosophy to have about the situation.

I don't know either. For the most part I really like just letting the businesses be bigoted douchebags and lose all their clients due to boycotting. But that leaves some people very vulnerable. I can't imagine being trans in a part of the country where everyone is a bigoted douchebag especially if you can't afford to move away. Should these people have a lower quality of life just because we don't like to force businesses to do things? Should we make that kind of sacrifice choosing a business' freedom over a person's dignity? I don't know. I don't think so.