Why the NC Transgender law is retarded, and how it helps perverts

[erowe1]

The law was passed because the politicans in NC who wanted this passed were saying that transgenders preyed on women, you have no evidence to back that up.

No it wasn't. It was passed as a response to local governments in NC passing anti-discrimination laws requiring that people be allowed to use whatever bathroom fits the sex they claim to identify with.

 

[Gh34]

Do you think property owners should not be allowed to do that on their own property?

The law applies to government buildings, hence the problematic examples as in the OP still remain valid.

 

[Gh34]

No it wasn't. It was passed as a response to local governments in NC passing anti-discrimination laws requiring that people be allowed to use whatever bathroom fits the sex they claim to identify with.

Except they did not just repeal that bill, they added additional provisions like mandating the birth sex issue.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

If I've gotta shower with strangers I'd prefer shower partners of the opposite sex, close to my age and in fair to excellent physical shape...

Are there laws to protect my delicate sensibilities?

I must say I'm quite pleased my doctor is a woman.

 

[erowe1]

The law applies to government buildings, hence the problematic examples as in the OP still remain valid.

In that case the government is the property owner.

I don't really see how those are problematic examples. Have these women been using men's rooms all along? If so, then obviously they can just keep doing what they have been doing, and it's no more of a violation of any policies than it always has been. If nobody can tell they're not men, then they're not taking much risk. Of course, if they're using showers, then their genitals will trump their beards, and I have a hunch that they already have a practice of avoiding public showers and will again just continue what they've always done.

This isn't really about people with vaginas who make themselves look so much like men that nobody can tell they're not men using men's rooms just like they have already been doing without getting caught. It's about people with penises who look like men and everybody knows are men but dress like women using ladies' rooms--not just bathrooms, but also locker rooms and showers--and expecting to just be able to get away with it.

 

[Gh34]

In that case the government is the property owner.

I don't really see how those are problematic examples. Have these women been using men's rooms all along? If so, then obviously they can just keep doing what they have been doing, and it's no more of a violation of any policies than it always has been. If nobody can tell they're not men, then they're not taking much risk. Of course, if they're using showers, then their genitals will trump their beards, and I have a hunch that they already have a practice of avoiding public showers and will again just continue what they've always done.

This isn't really about people with vaginas who make themselves look so much like men that nobody can tell they're not men using men's rooms just like they have already been doing without getting caught. It's about people with penises who look like men and everybody knows are men but dress like women using ladies' rooms--not just bathrooms, but also locker rooms and showers--and expecting to just be able to get away with it.

Again, that was the old law, before if you were a transman, and looked like a man and entered a woman's bathroom you were simply told to go to the men's bathroom instead, and vice versa. Now, a transman legally has the right to stay in a woman's bathroom all they want, and that gives the same justification and pretext for legitemate straight perverts who can pretend to be transmen in women's bathrooms.

 

[erowe1]

Again, that was the old law, before if you were a transman, and looked like a man and entered a woman's bathroom you were simply told to go to the men's bathroom instead, and vice versa. Now, a transman legally has the right to stay in a woman's bathroom all they want, and that gives the same justification and pretext for legitemate straight perverts who can pretend to be transmen in women's bathrooms.

Your language is confusing. When you say "transman," you're talking about someone with a vagina right? So a woman.

Your last sentence is nothing but a repetition of the same unfounded nonsense you've already said multiple times.

 

[Gh34]

Your language is confusing. When you say "transman," you're talking about someone with a vagina right? So a woman.

Your last sentence is nothing but a repetition of the same unfounded nonsense you've already said multiple times.

Yes, like the examples in the OP. You're the one talking about unfounded nonsense, you're even saying that transmen should break the law. However, that's not necessarily how it can work out, if you are a legit transman, and you try to a use a woman's bathroom, but are not allowed to do so, you can legally sue the facility inside the state for sex discrimination under the new NC law, they would not have been able to do that before. That's why it's bad for business and causes a ton of legal complications.

 

[erowe1]

You're the one talking about unfounded nonsense, you're even saying that transmen should break the law.

That's not quite what I said. But if you think that advising someone to break the law is nonsense, then you and I are coming from very different points of view.

Now you say, "legit transman." What in the world is that? If you have a vagina, you're not a legit man.

 

[Gh34]

Your language is confusing. When you say "transman," you're talking about someone with a vagina right? So a woman.

Your last sentence is nothing but a repetition of the same unfounded nonsense you've already said multiple times.

Basically, you're saying that transmen should break the law for your pleasure, however legally they don't have to, and if anything, can threaten to sue if they are denied access to a woman's bathroom as per the new law. This would not have happened under the original law.

 

[Gh34]

That's not quite what I said. But if you think that advising someone to break the law is nonsense, then you and I are coming from very different points of view.

A transman entering a men's bathroom would technically be against the law, but for one to be denied access to a woman's bathroom would be against the law under the new NC bill that classifies them as women, as it would be sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, and hence open the facility to lawsuits, which didn't happen before.

You can't have it both ways, if transmen are women, they are entitled to civil rights legally, and can sue if they are denied them.

 

[erowe1]

A transman entering a men's bathroom would technically be against the law

So what? If you're talking about someone that no one can tell isn't a man, what difference would it make if they broke the law by using a stall in a men's room to pee? They would have no risk of getting found out, or of anyone caring even if they were found out.

Notice how you're fixated on this irrelevant situation, and keep totally ignoring what the real issue is, which is actual men with penises being able to go into women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, without property owners having the ability to tell them they can't.

 

[Gh34]

So what? If you're talking about someone that no one can tell isn't a man, what difference would it make if they broke the law?

Notice how you're fixated on this irrelevant situation, and keep totally ignoring what the real issue is, which is actual men with penises being able to go into women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, without property owners having the ability to tell them they can't.

No, the point is that you wouldn't be able to enforce it, because it would legally require you to allow transmen access to women's bathrooms. So the question becomes, how do you prove that they are transmen? If you turn them away, they can sue you for sex discrimination.

 

[Antischism]

That's not quite what I said. But if you think that advising someone to break the law is nonsense, then you and I are coming from very different points of view.

Now you say, "legit transman." What in the world is that? If you have a vagina, you're not a legit man.

So you don't draw any distinction between sex and gender/gender identity? What about intersex individuals?

 

[Gh34]

It doesn't matter what the transman wants to do or what you want him to do, legally he/she has the right to sue you for sex discrimination, if you deny him access to a woman's bathroom under the new law, as the new law classifies him/her officially as a woman.

 

[erowe1]

No, the point is that you wouldn't be able to enforce it, because it would legally require you to allow transmen access to women's bathrooms.

Wouldn't be able to enforce what? When you say transmen, you're still talking about women, as in people with vaginas. You're not talking about people with penises. If someone proves that they have a vagina and not a penis and has to be allowed to use the ladies' room (although still, if they've already been using mens' rooms all this time without anyone knowing they're not really men, I don't know why they would change that now), then they're just a lady with a vagina in the room for ladies with vaginas. But if it turns out they have penises, then they won't be allowed to do that. There's nothing stopping people from being able to enforce the policy just as much as ever.

 

[erowe1]

It doesn't matter what the transman wants to do or what you want him to do, legally he/she has the right to sue you for sex discrimination, if you deny him access to a woman's bathroom under the new law, as the new law classifies him/her officially as a woman.

Again, you mean the person with the vagina has to be allowed to use the bathroom for people with vaginas. So?

If, in fact, they have a penis, then they won't be able to do what you are saying.

It is not because of a "new law" that people with vaginas are classified as women. That's what they've always been classified as.

 

[Gh34]

Wouldn't be able to enforce what? When you say transmen, you're still talking about women, as in people with vaginas. You're not talking about people with penises. If someone proves that they have a vagina and not a penis and has to be allowed to use the ladies' room (although still, if they've already been using mens' rooms all this time without anyone knowing they're not really men, I don't know why they would change that now), then they're just a lady with a vagina in the room for ladies with vaginas. But if it turns out they have penises, then they won't be allowed to do that. There's nothing stopping people from being able to enforce the policy just as much as ever.

So again, how will you prove that an individual has a vagina or a penis before entering a bathroom?

 

[Gh34]

Again, you mean the person with the vagina has to be allowed to use the bathroom for people with vaginas. So?

If, in fact, they have a penis, then they won't be able to do what you are saying.

Yes, but how are you going to prove what genitalia they have before entering the bathroom to actually enforce the law?

 

[erowe1]

So you don't draw any distinction between sex and gender/gender identity? What about intersex individuals?

I don't see how you could get that from what I said. Intersex individuals are a different category than what we've been talking about. They have a legitimate anatomical ambiguity. But without that ambiguity, someone with a vagina is a female and someone with a penis is a male. Claiming to identify as the other doesn't change that for a person.