@Ali1302 No, what I’m saying is at least the law should make sense. If a rapist doesn’t care about spending years in jail for rape, why would you create a law with less punishment than that and expect a better outcome? If the intent is to protect woman and girls from being raped why not impose a more severe punishment for rape. Instead of a rapist spending maybe 5 to 10 years in jail. Why not make it a 25 year plus crime. Since most rapists are repeat offenders logic would follow if you keep them off the street for a longer amount of time fewer people would get raped. Throwing random asinine laws out there only serve to give people a false sense of safety that’s really not there.
Because trans women don’t go into women’s restrooms presenting as men, without any visible cues of body or attire signaling who they are, Ever. Far too dangerous. So the situation doesn’t come up. Anyone presenting completely male in a women’s restroom without such cues is almost certainly (a) an employee there to clean, or (b) somebody sent by a right-wing group to make a political point, who, I agree, could also be an “actual rapist.” ( (And your underlying assumption – based on whatever you’ve read or heard in the echo chamber that provides such talking points – that laws protecting trans people from discrimination allow this, because supposedly anyone can simply claim that they are men on Tuesday and women on Wednesday, is equally ludicrous; such laws have existed now for a couple of decades, and no such thing has happened. Do you really think trans women would put themselves at risk of arrest by doing such a thing as entering a women’s room dressed as men, and then claiming as a defense to prosecution that they’re protected by such laws, and be forced to present proof of their gender identity? I defy you to show me where any of those laws provide that “gender identity” means whatever you say on a passing whim.)
I know I shouldn’t even stoop to the level of engaging with someone who refers to trans women as men who think they’re women – but some things are just too utterly ridiculous to let even someone like that go unchallenged. I don’t even know why such insults, which are contrary to both law and fact, are allowed here, simply because they’re phrased generally rather than directed towards any particular poster… I’m sure I wouldn’t be allowed to refer to the kind of people who hold such views as bigots who think they’re human beings!
In any event, who’s going to pay for the bathroom police to check people’s bodies and identification? And, under the new laws in North Carolina and elsewhere, how will you deal with all the burly, balding, bearded trans men who will be required to use women’s restrooms because it says “F” on their birth certificates? What would stop a potential male rapist from simply saying they’re a trans man and have to use the women’s room?
PS: “transgender” is not a noun. It’s an adjective. There’s no such thing as “a transgender.” Are you one of those people who call black people “the blacks,” too?
PPS: Despite your obsession with nudity, I can assure you that in the last 13 years that I’ve spent using women’s restrooms (both before and after transition and surgery), I have yet to see anyone else’s genitals (or anything else remotely interesting to anyone); nor has anyone seen mine.
The stupidest thing about all this legislation (in my opinion) is there is nothing about a bathroom that makes it “male” or “female”. It’s a room with toilets with a sign outside. There are all kinds of instances where people use whichever bathroom is available (emergencies, when one is broken, when someone of the opposite sex is cleaning). There is not some portal to manhood or womanhood. It’s a place to do your business. I have never, ever in my life, seen someone naked in one.
If there needs to be legislation, make it so that the doors lock properly to protect every individuals privacy.
One of the best memes I’ve saw on Facebook posed the question – if we are so concerned about girls and women being assaulted by sexual predators entering their bathrooms, how come we weren’t concerned about this when these sexual predators were entering male bathrooms, putting boys at risk?
If a man follows me into the woman’s room (which has never happened to me), I would be concerned. If a person who looks like a woman but is actually a man (because they are trans) comes into the woman’s bathroom, I wouldn’t think anything of it.
If a man dresses as a woman for the sole purpose of being able to enter the woman’s room to assault a woman – why go through all that trouble? If a man wants to assault a woman, what is stopping him from entering a woman’s room and doing it, whether he’s wearing a dress or a business suit?
On a somewhat trivial note, it bothers me that this bill makes it illegal for me, as a woman, to enter the man’s bathroom when the lines outside the woman’s room go down the hall and there is no line outside the men’s room.
@DonnaL Your first argument here is pretty off topic. Who cares what transgendered women(biologically male btw) present themselves as. My argument is this isn’t about them but about he risk of sex offenders and assaults period. It is clear here you resort to going off topic in order to come up with some form of counter argument.
Oh you shouldn’t stoop to a level of engaging in a debate? Sorry people don’t meet your high expectations of political correctness, it’s called free speech. Try being more logical without getting your emotions mixed up. Unfortunately I’ve noticed the absent of facts in your argument care to demonstrate where they are present anywhere in your post.
I agree with most of your points and don’t get the conflict here. If this law helps prevent assaults on girls and women then why are you against it?
Also, do I really have to list of fences commuted by homosexuals on this thread so you can believe homosexuals can be criminals? I think this is pretty childish of you, I understand being political correct but not this naive. Of course crimes against homosexuals are well reported by the media, it helps promote their victim complex which is in line with liberal beliefs. Do you really believe their have been no cases of homicide committed by homosexuals or cases where homosexuals have bullied others?
So now we’re going to have x-ray scanners like they have at airports screening people before they go into the bathroom? Because how else are people going to be sure? We’re all going to have to carry around our birth certificates?
And no more moms bringing their toddler sons with them into the women’s room!
Maybe we should all just stay home.
To the poster – a high school student, I assume? – who insists that there was little or no persecution of L & G people in any location where they were able to get civil unions, and demands proof that he’s wrong, I would suggest that the burden of proof is on anyone who makes such a facially ludicrous claim. Has he ever heard of DOMA? Or is that too far in the past for him to remember? Surely he’s heard of the concept of “adoption”?
But here are some very simple explanations, at a very understandable reading level, which ought to disabuse him. (Though I doubt it.)
http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/fact_sheets/WhyCivilUnionsAreNotEnough.pdf
http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-failed-experiment.pdf
https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf
Plus, ten minutes on Google would yield a ton of human interest stories explaining the impact of such “separate but equal” thinking on actual human beings, back before it was relegated to the dustbin of history. A few results:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/nyregion/17samesex.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meghan-streit/civil-unions-vs-marriage-_b_2689991.html
There are hundreds more.
@emilybee this law has nothing to do specifically with transgendered individuals but preventing sex offenders from assualt girls in public places. You ridiculous example is silly and naive. However, the risk of assualt against women seriously since it does sexual assault occur in public places in this country.
I don’t think it prevents any assaults.
But even if it did, there are good reasons to oppose it. To make an extreme example, castrating all the men in the world would also prevent certain sexual assaults and I think we can all agree that there are good reasons to be against that idea, despite the fact that it would surely prevent a lot of rapes.
@sensation723 The law is to help
prevent sexual and physical assault against girls from occurring. Using your logic most laws against crime that aren’t severely punished don’t help reduce crime. Did severe punishment against murder prevent homicide rates from peaking during 80’s and 90’s? No. Yet you believe your argument is still valid here. As I’ve stated before your argument here is deeply flawed.
As far as your comment about “facts,” you once again mistake the burden of proof here. Even if this were a formal debate or an exchange of legal briefs rather than an Internet forum, I would not be required to provide citations to prove a negative, i.e., that there’s no evidence for any of the contentions of people like you.
Also, I flagged your comment. You really don’t belong here. And should learn what “free speech” means in the context of a privately-owned forum with rules for discourse.
I flagged also. A few posts ago. It was difficult to decide which one to flag.
@DonnaL You make all these strong accusations then state the burden of proof is on me? Flagging my comment is typical here even though you’ve thrown personal insults at me and other supporters of the bill. I guess on this thread liberal views shouldn’t ever be criticized and freedom of speech only applies if I agree with you whilst following your rules of political correctness? None of your links provide evidence or any cases of state persecution since the introduction of civil unions. Just farcical liberal and LGBT arguments on this subject mostly based on their feelings and ideology.
Fireandrain, I would also point out that the vast majority of people who’ve been arrested for improper behavior in women’s restrooms are men – not pretending to be anything else! – who have legal access to women’s rooms (by ownership or control of the premises, by being employed to clean, etc.) and do things like planting cameras or putting in concealed peepholes. Why isn’t anyone proposing laws against allowing people like that to have access to women’s rooms? Because it would be ridiculous, impossible to implement practically, and is unnecessary in any event – because all such wrongful acts are already illegal. Sounds familar!
And remember: there are far more elected officials (I won’t mention the party) than trans women who’ve been arrested for crimes of a sexual nature in bathrooms. So let’s ban all politicians from using public restrooms.
@itsgettingreal17 I have a disdain for others views? Yet people here can’t bear to tolerate my views. I mean this is the definition of hypocrisy isn’t it. Is tolerating your views means that I have to agree with them? Is this how it’s like debating with liberals?
@Ali1302
Sorry, you are wrong.
A person must use the rest room which their biological sex states they are on their birth certificate. So all trans persons must use the different sex bathroom then how they present. There was no need in the law to specifically state the term trans gender because the law states your sex is determined, for purpose of this law, as one’s biological sex at birth. Nothing can change a person’s biological sex. Period.
So again, I ask you - how does a women or girl tell the difference between a non trans man and a trans man who
enters a ladies room? How does law enforcement tell the difference??
In fact, this law makes it easier for women to be assaulted in a ladies room. It does the opposite of what it purports to do because any man can now freely enter the ladies room in NC because there is no way to tell the difference between the two men (unless you have some x-ray vision no one else possesses.) Before this law a trans man would use the men’s room and one would know that a man entering the ladies room wasnt trans - because no trans man would willingly use the ladies room because…wait for it…they are men.
This law will eventually be deemed unconstitutional. Of that there is no debate - as much as those who support this law want to believe.
To the high school student: all those links contained nothing but “facts” on the inherently discriminatory nature of distinguishing between civil unions and marriage – both facially and as applied – and cite numerous specific legal examples. I doubt you even read them. Do your own research and find something to the contrary if you think you’re able to demonstrate the truth of your contentions. Your style of argument is to dismiss anything you disagree with and call it “not a fact,” and throw around the word “liberal” as an insult – which, again, violates the rules of the forum against injecting partisan political argument. So I won’t respond to you in the future.
@DonnaL “I would also point out that the vast majority of people who’ve been arrested for improper behavior in women’s restrooms are men – not pretending to be anything else! – who have legal access to women’s rooms (by ownership or control of the premises, by being employed to clean, etc.) and do things like planting cameras or putting in concealed peepholes”
Exactly my point, this bill is aimed at these males. The bill doesn’t even mention transgendered individuals yet you and others insist this is all about them. This is about helping stop sex offenders in public bathrooms period.
"Why isn’t anyone proposing laws against allowing people like that to have access to women’s rooms? "
it’s funny you mention that because that is exactly what the bill prevents! Transgendered individuals aren’t even mentioned on the bill.
@DonnaL "To the high school student: all those links contained nothing but “facts” on the inherently discriminatory nature of distinguishing between civil unions and marriage – both facially and as applied – and cite numerous specific legal examples. I doubt you even read them. Do your own research and find something to the contrary if you think you’re able to demonstrate the truth of your contentions. Your style of argument is to dismiss anything you disagree with and call it “not a fact,” and throw around the word “liberal” as an insult – which, again, violates the rules of the forum against injecting partisan political argument. So I won’t respond to you in the future. "
Complete and utter nonsense. You’ve clearly violated the rules aswell by insulting those that support the bill and no I’m not using the word liberal as an insult but as a reference to ones political views which lean extremely left. Your guilty of dismissing all of my opinions and have clearly stated that my previous statement wasn’t factual. I don’t mind criticism just don’t be hypocritical.