@PrivateConundrum “if this law supposedly protects girls and women, what are we doing to protect boys? A male can’t be in the restroom with your daughter, but he can be standing next to your son”
Interesting point, however, it is likely other males in the restroom will prevent this as opposed to women who are more vulnerable. As a result, most of the victims of sex offenders tend to be overwhelmingly girls/female and the sex offenders male.
Wow, really? People don’t tend to rape other people in front of an audience, unless the audience is likeminded (the many drunken unconscious rapes that have been filmed by onlookers). There is nothing preventing a 12 year old boy from being assaulted by an older, stronger man in an empty bathroom, just as the women’s restroom sign doesn’t stop a man from raping a woman in an empty bathroom.
And no, a SIGNIFICANT contingent of sexual assault victims are boys (I’m not sure on the stats for men)
Isn’t it more likely that the males entering the locker rooms will not assault anyone but will go in to see naked women? Basically peeping toms…there are laws to deal with any types of assaults, but are there any if they go in pretending to be a transgender? Is that not what others mentioned has already started by some of the HB2 supporters?
It is not the issue of stopping the criminal from trying to break the law; it is the issue of unquestioned easier access to potential victims and to potential victims not being able to be preventive, as to one’s own safety as a female. In a nutshell, it is about teaching females to put their own guard down, which just seems a bizarre thing to do, as public policy.
People who support this policy act like they have some special sort of radar or sixth sense that other humans are failing to employ.
Specifically, has anyone noticed that no one in favor of this transgender policy has answered the question of exactly how does a female (young girls, teenagers, and adults) tell the difference between two men dressed in regular men’s clothes with one being the nicest transgender in town and the other being an actual rapist.
Since this policy allows that both people, the nicest transgender and the rapist, can now walk into female areas freely without being questioned, it is then up to the advocates to inform females how to spot to the rapist and be wary and how to spot the transgender and not worry. Until advocates explain how to take this distinction between two equal-looking men with diametrically opposed motives, then all they have done is made female security and well-being a back burner issue in favor of transgenders’ use of opposite sex facilities.
@sensation723 Repost: If that is the case then why do we have laws against murder and robbery?? Would laws against murder prevent homicides?? Would laws against stealing prevent criminals from stealing?
I hope you realize the flaw in your argument here.
Sorry I mistyped your username on the previous response.
And they are. It doesn’t change the fact that right now, people in those states have no options.
You said (in response to musicprnt discussing the fight for same-sex marriage) :
to which i responded:
It is a pretty unavoidable fact that civil unions did not exist in some states before the SCOTUS ruling.
No saying is asking to remove the laws against assault. An no one has demonstrated that this new bill will help lower the incidence of these assaults. I am strongly against government overreach and over legislation.
@PrivateConundrum “Wow, really? People don’t tend to rape other people in front of an audience, unless the audience is likeminded (the many drunken unconscious rapes that have been filmed by onlookers). There is nothing preventing a 12 year old boy from being assaulted by an older, stronger man in an empty bathroom, just as the women’s restroom sign doesn’t stop a man from raping a woman in an empty bathroom.”
And no, a SIGNIFICANT contingent of sexual assault victims are boys (I’m not sure on the stats for men) "
I understand your points, however, on most cases of sexual assaults females have been the victims. In response to your other example yes your right but does that mean there shouldn’t be a law against this. People are also capable of murdering others, stealing and doing hard drugs does this mean we shouldn’t have laws preventing these offenses as well since they’ll do it anyway?
To address you final point, yes a significant percentage of victims are boys but girls make up the vast majority of victims of sexual assault.
Law is not preventative, it is reactive. Rape is already against the law. Sexual assault (which covers more than just rape) is already against the law. Filming people, upskirt photos, and exposing yourself in a sexual manner to ANYONE (ie it is just as illegal to expose onself to a man on the subway as it is to a woman) is already illegal. This law provides zero additional protection; it is redundant. Yes, there is a lot of redundancy in all legal systems, but we don’t have to waste taxpayer money on additional redundancy. How are NC’s schools and infrastructure doing? Any roads that need repairing?
*upskirt photos are not a crime in all stats IIRC
@raneck “And they are. It doesn’t change the fact that right now, people in those states have no options.”
You’ve just proven my point, the protests against this bill aren’t valid since the protest is should be about the option of changing sexual orientation on your birth certificate without sex change surgery.
“It is a pretty unavoidable fact that civil unions did not exist in some states before the SCOTUS ruling.”
Although civil unions were pretty much the countries policy there have been little to no cases of persecution after civil unions were introduced. Once again, I await your example of major persecution. I also add that there are areas in this country that have rejected the supreme court ruling.
“No saying is asking to remove the laws against assault. An no one has demonstrated that this new bill will help lower the incidence of these assaults. I am strongly against government overreach and over legislation.”
Yet you are OK with government overreach and legislations on nearly all aspects of human behaviour in this country. Laws against murder have existed since forever yet there have been fluctuations of growth and decline of the homicide rates in many states in this country. The Laws themselves don’t prevent the crime they provides the means to prevent a crime, however, it’s the law enforcement officers job to ensure the citizens of this country are safe.
@Ali1302 No there isn’t a flaw in my argument and your follow up statement actually proves my point. If laws against rape won’t stop a rapist. Why would they listen to a bathroom law that actually hold less punishments? In that case instead of making drugs or the sale of drugs illegal, why not make the little plastic, bags the drugs come in a misdemeanor offense. Because clearly drug dealers will be more afraid to break that law. Point is if a rapist doesn’t care that rape is against the law they won’t care about getting a slap on a wrist for using the wrong bathroom.
Okaaayyyyyy then. That’s just deliberately ignoring the intent of the law.
@PrivateConundrum "Law is not preventative, it is reactive. Rape is already against the law. Sexual assault (which covers more than just rape) is already against the law. Filming people, upskirt photos, and exposing yourself in a sexual manner to ANYONE (ie it is just as illegal to expose onself to a man on the subway as it is to a woman) is already illegal. This law provides zero additional protection; it is redundant. Yes, there is a lot of redundancy in all legal systems, but we don’t have to waste taxpayer money on additional redundancy. How are NC’s schools and infrastructure doing? Any roads that need repairing?
*upskirt photos are not a crime in all stats IIRC"
Exactly my point, laws don’t prevent crimes law enforcement officers do. However, laws provide a means to prevent a crime and this is where the bathroom bill helps law enforcement officers protect citizens from the risk of being assaulted. If your so worried about your tax payers money being wasted I wouldn’t use this bill as a prime example of taxpayer money wasted and wouldn’t it be the citizens of North Carolina tax payers money anyway?
@OHMomof2 “Okaaayyyyyy then. That’s just deliberately ignoring the intent of the law.”
State where exactly on the bill are transgendered individuals mentioned? I can tell you the intent of the law which is to defend vulnerable girls and women from sex offenders aswell as assault.
Since I made no claim to that effect, I am not sure why. My statement was very clearly limited to the time before the SCOTUS ruling, and addressed to the existence of civil unions.
What is your basis for this statement?
What is the relationship between two things if you observe one remaining constant and the other changing?
@sensation723 “No there isn’t a flaw in my argument and your follow up statement actually proves my point. If laws against rape won’t stop a rapist. Why would they listen to a bathroom law that actually hold less punishments? In that case instead of making drugs or the sale of drugs illegal, why not make the little plastic, bags the drugs come in a misdemeanor offense. Because clearly drug dealers will be more afraid to break that law. Point is if a rapist doesn’t care that rape is against the law they won’t care about getting a slap on a wrist for using the wrong bathroom.”
I’m surprised that you persist with this argument despite me clearly demonstrating how deeply flawed it is. If laws won’t prevent murder, rape and robbery does this mean we shouldn’t have laws making such practices illegal since according to you criminals would break the law anyway?
The intent of this bill is to help law enforcement officers prevent sexual/physical assault of girls and women.
Law enforcement does not prevent crime, either. The fastest response time will not prevent someone from being raped. A man was able to harass or assualt a woman in the restroom before this law and is still able to after this law. It has changed nothing except caused innocent people (trans women and cis women who don’t present as feminine) problems. I’m a woman, but I have been harassed in public (both in the restroom and in gender neutral spaces) and questioned about my gender. Because I keep my hair short and wear loose fitting crew neck t-shirts. I couldn’t imagine dealing with that in a state where someone could just call the cops instead.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article68401147.html#storylink=cpy
How do you know that’s the intent? Does it say so?
Here’s the law: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v0.pdf
Lots of discussion of “biological sex” as appearing on birth certificate.
And I assume (or rather, hope) you know why HB2 was written and passed, it was a reaction to a Charlotte ordinance that most certainly does address gender identity explicitly:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/CityClerk/Documents/NDOrdinance.pdf
Really? Then how do you know if it went unreported? This is just an outrageous statement with zero truth to it.
And you continued rant that just because something is against the law it doesn’t stop it is beyond ludicrous. Of course it doesn’t stop it, but if it isn’t against the law we cannot punish it without resorting to mob/street justice as our only resort. The court cannot find a man guilty of murder if murder is not prohibited by statute.
Oh good Lord, what is you think they enforce??? If it isn’t against the law, they cannot do a thing.
@Ali1302, how does a women know if it’s a non trans man who is a ladies restroom or if it’s a trans man? How does law enforcement know if it’s a non trans man or a trans man in the ladies room? They look the same you know. This law makes it illegal for a transman to use the men’s room.
I’m waiting for some idiot to freak out that a man is in the ladies room and shoots him only to discover that was the restroom the trans man was legally required to use. I’m sure I won’t have to wait too long.