(April 15, 2016 at 8:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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

I get that, I was just wondering why MK specifically cares.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote: 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.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. In America, we have these protections already, and for good reason. The government is not forcing anyone to hire anyone. What they are saying is that, all things being equal for two qualified individuals, you cannot disqualify someone from a position because of their sex, their race, their gender, their age, their ethnicity, and in some places their sexual orientation. You also cannot kick someone out of housing, or a public space for those reasons.

The NC government made it illegal to create protections for LGBT+ individuals. It is legal in NC to evict a tenant for nothing more than that they are gay and your religion doesn't agree with gays.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote: 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.

I don't know what any of that word salad means.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote: 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.

Yes, the government created laws based on the idea that blacks were "less than," propagated that myth, created a national system of racism, and then took a look at itself. If you believe that without government interference, there wouldn't be some places still in Tennessee, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, and Alabama that would still allow people to be kicked out of an establishment just for being black, you are out of your mind.

I am only slightly brown, being half black, and I've walked into a little hole in the wall restaurant in Hohenwald, TN, and told to get out because they don't serve towelheads. As I left, I was called the Taliban and some mispronounced versions of Al-Qaeda. That shit still exists, and it's a good thing it's illegal, or else segregation would very much still be a legal and practiced thing in some places in the south.

(April 15, 2016 at 7:50 pm)Losty Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:46 pm)Sterben Wrote:        A single locker room and bathroom with security cameras would be a terrible idea. I would not be comfortable people recording me taking a shower or using the restroom. Privacy is a very important issue, I close the door even when no one is home while using the toilet. How many of you feel that way as well?

Try re-reading my post and get back to me whenever you understand why your response made no sense.

       I understand what your getting at, under your system how do you know that camera's aren't pointed in the stalls as well? Even if a camera was pointed at the sinks and the general area in the stalls. It would still bother a lot of people being recorded in the bathroom and be a massive privacy invasion.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:11 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(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.

I don't think the goal is to "step on trans people" out of bigotry or anything like that. I think people are concerned that this may make it easier for a hetero man with a peeping fetish to pretend to be trans in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep. 

Like I have said, this isn't a big fear of mine. My biggest reason for saying a 3rd bathroom is the best option is due to women feeling uncomfortable while in a bathroom/lockerroom with a person who is still physically male. However, I do think it is a valid concern that should be taken into account.  

Did you see my post where I was asking you guys where you would draw the line (if one should be drawn at all) and if it should be different for lockerrooms?

(April 15, 2016 at 8:22 pm)Sterben Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 7:50 pm)Losty Wrote: Try re-reading my post and get back to me whenever you understand why your response made no sense.

       I understand what your getting at, under your system how do you know that camera's aren't pointed in the stalls as well? Even if a camera was pointed at the sinks and the general area in the stalls. It would still bother a lot of people being recorded in the bathroom and be a massive privacy invasion.

Even if the cameras were pointed at the stalls nothing would be seen because people close the doors when they use them. I don't know..I live in a medium sized city. Many of the restrooms here have security cameras aimed at the sink. I suppose everyone who isn't willing to sacrifice their hand washing privacy for their safety likely pees somewhere else.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think the goal is to "step on trans people" out of bigotry or anything like that. I think people are concerned that this may make it easier for a hetero man with a peeping fetish to pretend to be trans in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep. 

So, would you be comfortable with having your lady parts checked before entering a restroom. If for one, excuse my french, would piss on the one checking. Just so, there's no doubt.

What about trans people.

I hate this argument about women feeling uncomfortable. I have a lot of trans friends and most of them feel uncomfortable no matter what restroom they use, but nobody cares about their comfort.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:26 pm)abaris Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think the goal is to "step on trans people" out of bigotry or anything like that. I think people are concerned that this may make it easier for a hetero man with a peeping fetish to pretend to be trans in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep. 

So, would you be comfortable with having your lady parts checked before entering a restroom. If for one, excuse my french, would piss on the one checking. Just so, there's no doubt.

I have addressed this a couple of times. No, I don't believe anyone should get their parts checked before going into the bathroom.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:18 pm)Losty Wrote:

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

But there's plenty of discriminated people out there who the government doesn't help with force.  I mean I can't imagine how bad it must be to be really ugly with a tiny penis.  They have no access to vagina from a good looking woman, and yet their bodies testosterone constantly demands that they get vagina from a good looking woman. He will have no chance of getting certain jobs in a trendy clothing store or part of a sales team. They could possibly pay for access to sex but that would be illegal.  So they're being discriminated against and the one thing they could do to stop it is actually prevented by several government laws.

(April 15, 2016 at 8:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 8:11 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: 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.

I don't think the goal is to "step on trans people" out of bigotry or anything like that. I think people are concerned that this may make it easier for a hetero man with a peeping fetish to pretend to be trans in order to easily gain access into women's rooms to peep. 

Like I have said, this isn't a big fear of mine. My biggest reason for saying a 3rd bathroom is the best option is due to women feeling uncomfortable while in a bathroom/lockerroom with a person who is still physically male. However, I do think it is a valid concern that should be taken into account.  

Did you see my post where I was asking you guys where you would draw the line (if one should be drawn at all) and if it should be different for lockerrooms?

What does it matter what the goal is if the outcome is just as I said?

As to your question, I answered it, we leave it up to the trans person. Wherever they feel more comfortable peeing, that's where they pee.

Just like in the 50s-60s, when white people were uncomfortable sitting in the booth next to black people, you'll get over it in time. Black people were a minority then just like they are now, but they deserved protection, even at the cost of the majority being uncomfortable while they adjusted. So while having a black person sit next to you (global you) on the bus was just about nearly intolerable, having a trans person nervously shuffle into a stall to use the restroom will be something you'll get over. It's even easier this time, because you'll probably not even notice that it's happening.

Again, the perv bogey man is just a tactic that was drawn up out of fear mongering from the right. Denying people rights and putting them in danger because some asshole politician whose party has been involved in more bathroom perversions than the people they are claiming to protect against is creating this "trans panic" is a thing that would fly in no other situation.