NC Gov on the wrong side of history......

[I_am_not_mafia]

....

/facepalm

....

/facepalm, your ass. I'm in a far better position to use that very argument than any of you are.

How so?

And yes, I facepalmed as well when I read your post.

[A Theist]

I believe we're talking about two different things here. You're addressing the NC law. I'm talking about, if Loretta Lynch and Barrack have their way, to get laws passed that allows transgenders and others to use bathrooms of the sex they say they identify with, there'll be nothing to restrain voyeurs or sexual predators from using the public restrooms they want. You say it's happening now and that the NC law won't change anything. You're full of shit. I don't believe it's happening as much now as you claim it is, rarely maybe, but not even close to the scale as you blow it up to be. As things stand now, do you actually think that some mother isn't going to go to an establishment's management and tell them that there's a man leering in the women's bathroom and that the predator or voyeur won't be escorted out by security? Your leftist ideology is blind and naïve. Your thinking's fucked up.

Have you even bothered to do a Google search, yourself, to see if there's any scientific studies that disputes the studies that gays are predetermined to be gay before birth? The so-called gay gene is still eluding any scientific evidence....here's one for you to look at
https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no...asons-why/

You apparently didn't read the article. The author is claiming that sexuality is more complex than just the genes, and that most people are bisexual but make choices about which "side" to play for, bowing to social pressure and personal preferences... which is essentially what scientists and sociologists/psychologists have been saying since the Kinsey studies. That's why there are six numbers on the Kinsey Scale, not just two or three. [Edit to Add: The "no gay gene" argument is also ignorant as fuck... they think it's epigenetic and developmental, not just a piece of DNA, meaning it has to do with hormone balance in utero and the way it affects the "unpacking" of the DNA code... as such, it's not an A-or-B switch, but a graduated scale of several parts of our brains that control sexuality, identity, and many other functions that contribute to what we call "sexuality". Grow up and realize the world isn't black and white, especially in biology, and we shouldn't expect it to be.]

As for the whole "nothing to restrain voyeurs or predators", you're insane. Anyone (male or female) leering or doing anything else disconcerting in a bathroom can be removed by the management at the request of those being frightened by those actions. Treating trans persons like persons by prohibiting discrimination against them under law doesn't change that, even a little bit.

Your made-up fear that predators will suddenly have a new license to go after women ignores that several states have had such laws on the books for years, now, and have seen no indications whatsoever of problems resulting from that policy change. The same is true for numerous European countries who have already made this step. It also ignores that boys are preyed upon by strangers far more than girls (who tend to be most frequently molested by a family member or friend of the family), and your whole argument of "protect the women and little girls!!" skips over that little detail-- the simple fact is that child molesters are far more concerned with the vulnerability and innocence of the children than they are with the gender, as has been confirmed by numerous studies on the subject. So unless you want to ban all men from the restroom in case some predator dresses up like a normal man and just walks right in to the men's room full of vulnerable little boys, you need to stop pretending that it's really about protecting the vulnerable.

Meanwhile, trans people really are vulnerable, and being attacked and even killed for their differences. Only by denying their humanity and entire identity can you equate respecting them with some license for predators to commit crimes by mimicking them. 

As long as you keep peddling fear-mongering illusions to support/defend your bigotry, we're going to keep calling you out on it. And cut the "leftist ideology" bullshit. If respecting human beings' rights and value (even if they're different from me) makes me a "leftist ideologue", then I consider it a compliment, and pity you that you think it's an insult.

...and you either just skimmed through the article or cherry picked what you what you wanted to see...yes, he said it was a complex issue, but, he went on to say,

In the same sense, we cannot discount the possibility that in the presence of any given sexual desire—the desire to masturbate, the desire to have sex with someone of the same or opposite gender, the desire for oral sex or anal sex, etc.—the human impulse toward self-determination and sexual gratification is very powerful.  But this alone is not evidence that the particular sexual desire in question is in-born, just as religious beliefs are not in-born (no matter how deeply held or severely punished).

Then of course there is the question of how any sexual desire forms in the first place. Like many others, I have taken the position that “sexual orientations” are formed after we are born, sometimes in early childhood and sometimes later.  The possibilities for how this happens, like the possibilities that can lead people to any number of erotic tastes or distastes, are nearly endless.  Good experiences, bad experiences, unconscious experiences, willful defiance, and happy conformity are all potential parts of this story.  The fact that some people don’t have a coherent story about all of the social, cultural, and psychological factors that produced their particular complex of sexual feelings simply does not mean they were born with those feelings already intact.

Yes. You are a naive leftist ideologue living in a dream world.

[SteelCurtain]

The point that everyone is making and that you just confirmed is that these laws don't do anything, your 1950s understanding of what transgenderism is notwithstanding.

If you don't understand, not to worry! There are lots of explanations and scientific studies that will explain it for you, and they even have wonderful charts in case the words are too difficult.

Google away!

I believe we're talking about two different things here. You're addressing the NC law. I'm talking about, if Loretta Lynch and Barrack have their way, to get laws passed that allows transgenders and others to use bathrooms of the sex they say they identify with, there'll be nothing to restrain voyeurs or sexual predators from using the public restrooms they want. You say it's happening now and that the NC law won't change anything.

No, I'm not. Your reading comprehension skills are on display here. I am, and everyone else is saying it's not happening now, hence there is no need for the laws in the first place. Transgender people have been using bathrooms long before you started worrying your little head about it. The entire point is that these laws do absolutely nothing. I am saying that your fear that laws that say transgender people can use the restroom corresponding to their gender identity encourage predators cannot be assuaged by a law that mandates which bathroom a person uses, because the exact same argument can be used for both laws. Those arguments are bullshit. Sexual predators are not laying around waiting for laws to change to benefit them. You've been fearmongered into a frenzy in an election year, and it's frankly sad that you're that naive.

You're full of shit. I don't believe it's happening as much now as you claim it is, rarely maybe, but not even close to the scale as you blow it up to be. As things stand now, do you actually think that some mother isn't going to go to an establishment's management and tell them that there's a man leering in the women's bathroom and that the predator or voyeur won't be escorted out by security? Your leftist ideology is blind and naïve. Your thinking's fucked up.

If there's someone leering in any fucking bathroom, everyone should speak up whether that person is cisgender, transgender, whatever. You have, once again, shown your abhorrent bigotry in equating transgenderism with perversion and leering in a bathroom, as if that is the sole reason a trans person wants to be treated with dignity.

Have you even bothered to do a Google search, yourself, to see if there's any scientific studies that disputes the studies that gays are predetermined to be gay before birth? The so-called gay gene is still eluding any scientific evidence....here's one for you to look at
https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no...asons-why/

Oops. That old reading comprehension again. First of all, that article does not say what you think it does. That's embarrassing, quoting an article from which you read the headline. Second of all, even if it said what you thought it said, if your example of a scientific study from Google is an op-ed from SocialInQueery---then you are sorely mistaken as to what a scientific study even is. More embarrassing. Sorry bud, thems the brakes.

[Lek]

A question for our resident theists. Since you seem to be so adamant about transgenders using the "proper" pooper, how do you feel about straight up opposite sex handicapped assistants? I mean some guy with a penis might have to enter the ladies room to help his handicapped wife drop her deuce! Holy fuck, the horror.

This issue isn't about which sex enters what room, but about keeping people who aren't "normative" out of sight and out of mind.

I've never seen anyone as obsessed by the genitals of others as the pious assholes on the religious right.

I think this is the question you said I never answered. I would say that this is an exception to the rule. They probably should give a verbal announcement before entering and see if there are any objections. When the woman working the counter at my health club needs to enter the men's locker room for some reason she always announces herself first and waits for a reply, but never walks in unannounced. Sometimes a guy might be walking from the shower to the locker or something like that.

[Ravenshire]

A question for our resident theists. Since you seem to be so adamant about transgenders using the "proper" pooper, how do you feel about straight up opposite sex handicapped assistants? I mean some guy with a penis might have to enter the ladies room to help his handicapped wife drop her deuce! Holy fuck, the horror.

This issue isn't about which sex enters what room, but about keeping people who aren't "normative" out of sight and out of mind.

I've never seen anyone as obsessed by the genitals of others as the pious assholes on the religious right.

I think this is the question you said I never answered.  I would say that this is an exception to the rule.  They probably should give a verbal announcement before entering and see if there are any objections.  When the woman working the counter at my health club needs to enter the men's locker room for some reason she always announces herself first and waits for a reply, but never walks in unannounced.  Sometimes a guy might be walking from the shower to the locker or something like that.

I'll give you credit for answering Lek, but unless you're explaining your position poorly, you're actually confirming that the issue isn't about which sex enters what room, but about keeping people who aren't "normative" out of sight and out of mind.

[Lek]

I think this is the question you said I never answered.  I would say that this is an exception to the rule.  They probably should give a verbal announcement before entering and see if there are any objections.  When the woman working the counter at my health club needs to enter the men's locker room for some reason she always announces herself first and waits for a reply, but never walks in unannounced.  Sometimes a guy might be walking from the shower to the locker or something like that.

I'll give you credit for answering Lek, but unless you're explaining your position poorly, you're actually confirming that  the issue isn't about which sex enters what room, but about keeping people who aren't "normative" out of sight and out of mind.

[Lek]

I'll give you credit for answering Lek, but unless you're explaining your position poorly, you're actually confirming that  the issue isn't about which sex enters what room, but about keeping people who aren't "normative" out of sight and out of mind.

It's not keeping people who are not normative out of sight and mind, but rather protecting people's privacy rights.  Men's and women's bathrooms have been separated for good reason.  It is normal to have separate facilities.  We shouldn't have to step on the rights and values of the majority in this or any case, especially when they can be better accommodated by providing separate facilities.  I sympathize with transgenders and I don't think they are necessarily sinning or something like that, but I also sympathize with those who would be violated with members of the opposite sex (at least physically) sharing bathroom and locker room facilities - especially junior and high school students.  It's akin to accommodating wheelchair bound people by putting small business owners out of business because they can't afford the required upgrades, even when they are willing to assist any handicapped people to enter and use their facilities.  We have a handicapped guy here in our city (nicknamed "Litigious Louie") who goes around finding small businesses who fall into that category and puts them out of business by suing for large amounts of money, all in the name of helping the handicapped.  When we speak of the rights of all citizens, we should remember the rights of the majority, as well as the minority, and seek a solution that works for all.  

.

[Ravenshire]

It's not keeping people who are not normative out of sight and mind, but rather protecting people's privacy rights.  Men's and women's bathrooms have been separated for good reason.  It is normal to have separate facilities.  We shouldn't have to step on the rights and values of the majority in this or any case, especially when they can be better accommodated by providing separate facilities.  I sympathize with transgenders and I don't think they are necessarily sinning or something like that, but I also sympathize with those who would be violated with members of the opposite sex (at least physically) sharing bathroom and locker room facilities - especially junior and high school students.  It's akin to accommodating wheelchair bound people by putting small business owners out of business because they can't afford the required upgrades, even when they are willing to assist any handicapped people to enter and use their facilities.  We have a handicapped guy here in our city (nicknamed "Litigious Louie") who goes around finding small businesses who fall into that category and puts them out of business by suing for large amounts of money, all in the name of helping the handicapped.  When we speak of the rights of all citizens, we should remember the rights of the majority, as well as the minority, and seek a solution that works for all.  

.

There is a solution that works for all. But, the religious right just wants to kill it.

I accidentally used a woman's bathroom a few years ago (hey, it was on the left) and the only other person in there took it in stride, even going so far as to joke with me about it. There are stalls for privacy and no one goes walking about the common area with their junk hanging out. It's time for the religiousites to grow the fuck up and get over their sexual obsessions.