It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama city: Use bathrooms matching biological sex or face 6 months in jail.

page: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Stuff like this is already illegal. Making a law that says men can't go in the women's restroom won't do jack squat to stop psychos like this.


You are the third (or fourth...) person to misinterpret my point. What I'm saying is this:

- We live in a society, and we need to weigh the pros and cons of policy and legislation, and if either puts the bigger burden on the vast majority in order to make things easy for a tiny percentage out there, said policies do society a disservice overall, even if keeping things a bit difficult for a few, and;

- I'm advocating for keeping things either as they have been or adding a family/gender-neutral bathroom and still retaining male/female separate facilities for those uncomfortable with the other sex pooping next to them while they are. You talk about making life hard for the relative few transgender people out there at the expense of the majority of those who would be made uncomfortable with the change--I don't see how that can be considered social justice.

- I'm advocating NOT making it easier for possible criminals to be criminals, not advocate FOR impotent laws that put restrictions on said criminals that would most likely be ignored if the criminal urge were strong enough.


All these laws serve to do is make transsexual's lives even harder. They already face threats of violence, discrimination and ridicule. Transsexuals and gays can be fired or refused hiring in the first place based on nothing more than their sexual preference. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Christians and heteros faced the same obstacles there would be riots in the streets.


Ummm...I live in a state where anyone can be fired for any reason, and I'm okay with that. I work hard, and I'm good at what I do, so I'm not rioting in any streets because my job isn't in jeopardy (although I've had the lovely experience of being let-go due to no fault of my own [hard times on the company, and I was the most-recent hire]).

But wait--are we talking about transgender people, or transsexuals? Because I'm fine with transsexuals using the bathroom that matches their "parts," so that's a different discussion altogether. But keep in mind that LGBTQ people can also be hired for reasons that you claim they can be fired, so it works both ways (although I agree that it's heavily weighted in the negative category). But still, every gay person I know is gainfully employed, has quit jobs in order to get better jobs, and even one (my uncle) just took a job as a VP in the online security section of Merck (he left his job at Hewlett-Packard in order to do so) and is driving with his partner across the country to take said job as we speak.

So, yes, they CAN be fired for no reason (at least in some states), but it's getting less and less likely. And honestly, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread. I mean, if we want to discuss making life hard, I'm 5'5" tall and shave my head because of male-pattern baldness. I'm lucky I got married in my early 20s, otherwise I don't know how life would have worked out. But can you imagine my difficulty getting things off the top shelf in a kitchen?

Yes, I'm making a bit light of your comment about making life hard because we all have hard lives in one way or another (mine was tongue-in-cheek, but I have other hard parts of my life I don't feel like discussing on this thread), but it's not a good or descent thing to alter everyone else's life just to make a few people in the population less uncomfortable--there are better ways to handle this issue, and that's the main point of my argument overall.
edit on 2-5-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
How often have you felt uncomfortable about a transgender being in a restroom with you? When did you start worrying about it?


I don't expect you to scroll through the thread to read all of my comments, but I've already said that I really don't have a personal issue with this, but I know many who do and I empathize with the logic behind it.

And my beef isn't with a transgender person...I suggest you read the whole of my comments before unleashing the snarkiness that has no basis.

You seem to have done this recently to me in another thread about abortion laws...



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Men attack women in empty elevators and parking lots as well. Shouldn't we ban men from getting into elevators and parking lots so we don't give predators a legal way to harm women?


Strawman.


Laws allowing transgender people to use the restroom of their identified gender does NOT legally allow male predators into the public restroom to harm others.


Actually, there are no "laws" really discussing this, just the policy of stores, for the most part. Take Target, for example, and then re-think your comment, because honestly, how is a store to know if someone is REALLY transgender or just faking it (whether or not they're faking it for benign or criminal intent is irrelevant to my question).



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
But how much easier is the question. I cannot imagine it would even make it any easier at all. A man who wants to assault or spy on a lady/man in a bathroom is going to be in that bathroom assaulting and spying regardless of any laws we enact. If he/she is in there doing something bad, then he/she will (hopefully) get arrested, just as it works now. If he/she isn't doing anything bad then it doesn't matter. Since he (or she), of course, is not doing anything bad.


Well, "how much easier" is not the question, it's that it makes it easier because some store policies embracing this trend don't even care if someone is transgender or not--bathrooms have been opened up to all sexes, even though they are still labeled at the door for one or the other. So, ease of getting in to the bathroom is there--whether or not they do criminal things while in there is only part of my argument.

I'm also focused on those who WOULD BE uncomfortable in that situation where there is a certain expectation and societal norm of same-gender facilities.


Uncomfortable to us, yes. But change is almost always uncomfortable. I'd say Trans people have likely been using the bathroom they felt like suited them beforehand, did they not?


Sure...so why the need to make it an issue if it really wasn't one?


I personally prefer the logic and privacy of my own home. Public toilets are a necessity, but an awful necessity. I have had a distaste them since I was a small child, and it has not shrunk since then.

The places aren't really gender-specific though, are they? They're appearance specific.



No, they really are gender-specific. If nothing else, you can be charged with trespassing if a store has them labeled and you use the incorrect one. That's up to the store--as for specific city or state laws, though, I couldn't tell you.


I'm all for a better solution. I personally don't even understand why this is an issue in the first place.


Agreed, as I noted above.


The one issue with that solution is that it seems like it could make people a target for using those rooms. Still, it shouldn't be major.


I doubt that many people would stand outside of a "family restroom" and berate someone who went in there alone upon their exit of the facility. If they did, they're just generally abhorrent people, and we can't legislate them out of existence. I'm all for trying, though



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




Actually, there are no "laws" really discussing this, just the policy of stores, for the most part.

What do you think this thread is about?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
What do you think this thread is about?


It's about A law.

One.

Singular.

When I said that "there are no 'laws' really discussing this," that means "for the most part," or, "in general." In writing, it's called "hyperbole." I have to assume that you know what that is.

Kind of like if I were to say that there are no people really embracing caviar as a great hors d'oeuvre doesn't mean that I literally mean that there is not a single person in the entirety of the world who isn't fanatical over their caviar. And I certainly wouldn't mean it that way in a thread about someone who loves caviar.

Come on...don't waste my (and others') time with meaningless replies, please.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey



In writing, it's called "hyperbole." I have to assume that you know what that is.

Yes, I do. And I know that is often used when one's position is weak.

Here's another law, btw.

Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. – Public agencies
50 shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only
51 used by persons based on their biological sex.

www.ncleg.net...


You said

Actually, there are no "laws" really discussing this,
That is not hyperbole. That is false.

edit on 5/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SlapMonkey



In writing, it's called "hyperbole." I have to assume that you know what that is.

Yes, I do. And I know that is often used when one's position is weak.

Here's another law, btw.

Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. – Public agencies
50 shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only
51 used by persons based on their biological sex.

www.ncleg.net...


You said

Actually, there are no "laws" really discussing this,
That is not hyperbole. That is false.


I sure hope nobody points this out.

Accommodations Permitted. – Nothing in this section shall prohibit local boards of 2 education from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing 3 facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities upon a request due to special circumstances, but in 4 no event shall that accommodation result in the local boards of education allowing a student to use 5 a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated under subsection (b) of this section 6 for a sex other than the student's biological sex



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
Right. So what? So a facility is free to construct a separate facility. Was that ever not the case?

It does not change the fact that it has been made illegal for anyone to allow anyone to use a restroom of the "wrong" gender.

The claim was that there were no "laws" about such. The claim is false.


edit on 5/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

sorry, I don't have a dog in the " I can prove you said something wrong" fight, just the big picture.

carry on with the picking of nits.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
For the love of God, it's URINE.

Let it go; let it flow, wash your hands, and then get back to your life. It's not that complicated. I don't linger in public toilets and don't know who does, and plus I don't go in them unless I get caught in a tee-tee emergency that I can't ignore.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



carry on with the picking of nits.

You mean nits like pointing out the "allowing" of the construction of separate facilities? Which of course, requires legal sanction.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

And then you have a whole 'nother group of perverts, in this "high tech" society we live in.

Police Find Camera in Ladies Bathroom


What exactly are they going to see?



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I just know I read a story a while back where a gay employee was the victim of domestic abuse and called the police. His employer found out about the call and fired him....for no other reason than he was gay. So, he's the victim of domestic abuse and on top of that loses his job because of what gender his partner happened to be? That's BS. I'm all for the freedom of private businesses, but it's just wrong for someone to be fired for something like this that has NOTHING to do with their job or job performance, and it's especially heinous when the person is fired for being the victim of a crime.

The fact is: a man who identifies as a woman, and who dresses and lives his life as a woman could walk into a woman's restroom and do his business without anyone being the wiser. But now, with these laws he's going to have to walk into the Men's room- while dressed as a woman. It makes the situation painfully obvious to all involved and he's far more likely to become the victim of verbal harassment or an assault.



We live in a society, and we need to weigh the pros and cons of policy and legislation...

Your words.
Pros to government intervention in this area: none. No one is afforded additional protection because it's a non-issue. Transgender people are not flocking to Women's restrooms in droves and assaulting women and children. In fact, if you'll refer to my previous posts even the most conservative news outlets failed to find ONE verified case (in the US) of such a thing happening.
Cons: Transgender people will now experience higher anxiety for doing nothing more than simply trying to live their lives. They will now be far more likely to be harassed and assaulted themselves. Their lives are hard enough and the government is going out of its way to make it more difficult for them.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude



carry on with the picking of nits.

You mean nits like pointing out the "allowing" of the construction of separate facilities? Which of course, requires legal sanction.



Actually, I was going more for the addendum that made provisions for special circumstances.
(kind of like what logical thinking people might do if they were trying to accommodate a tiny, tiny fraction of society that might need such accommodations) in wake of such a cluster# such as this has become.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Actually, I was going more for the addendum that made provisions for special circumstances.
And such an addendum was required, why? As I said, was there a prohibition against doing so previously? Your argument is specious.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude


Actually, I was going more for the addendum that made provisions for special circumstances.
And such an addendum was required, why? As I said, was there a prohibition against doing so previously? Your argument is specious.


Glad you asked.

It was required becasue a child molester in Charlotte NC pushed for a part to be added to a local law, under the auspice of looking out for transgender people, and wanted anyone to be legally allowed to enter any restroom, changing room, or shower room, as long as they claimed they identified as said gender.

Since that seemed a bit wild, NC legislatures decided to meet and pass a bill that would circumvent that, and make special provisions for those cases instead of a sweeping allotment for any and all to use this as an excuse.
www.charlotteobserver.com...

Prior to the bill in Charlotte, it seems that transgender people went piss wherever they wanted and none were any the wiser.

Again, thanks for asking.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
Yeah. I saw your thread.

I'll say the same thing I said there.
So because something bad might happen it's a bad law? Like with guns?


Prior to the bill in Charlotte, it seems that transgender people went piss wherever they wanted and none were any the wiser.
Yup. And they were being molested by the score. Right?
edit on 5/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Sevearance-Turner was arrested in 1998, when he was 20, and charged in Cherokee County, S.C., with a “lewd act, committing or attempting a lewd act upon a child under 16.”

A 2000 story in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal said Sevearance-Turner had been a youth minister at a church in Gaffney. A jury there found him guilty of fondling a 15-year-old teenage church member while the boy slept.

So he fondled a boy.....seems like he would be more of a threat in a Men's room than a Ladies room.




but in 4 no event shall that accommodation result in the local boards of education allowing a student to use 5 a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated under subsection (b) of this section 6 for a sex other than the student's biological sex



Actually, I was going more for the addendum that made provisions for special circumstances.

Actually the law is specifically blocking business and schools from making special accommodations based on individual circumstances. But it allows for building/designating single occupancy bathrooms- which renders the rest of the law moot anyways.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude
Yeah. I saw your thread.

I'll say the same thing I said there.
So because something bad might happen it's a bad law? Like with guns?


Prior to the bill in Charlotte, it seems that transgender people went piss wherever they wanted and none were any the wiser.
Yup. And they were being molested by the score. Right?


Actually no, quite the opposite. As I said, nobody seemed to notice. It's almost as if the original bill was pointless and needless.

I carry a gun in case something happens and I might need it. It's my hope that I will never need it, and I will spend my life doing something pointless.

It seems this whole thing started for the very reasons those damn republicans were in an uproar. Because making it alright to chose your bathroom removes the ability to prosecute that guy who stands in the corner leering at kids. (even if it only happend once in the history of the world) Before the Charlotte law, nobody seemed to worry to much about how and where all those transgender folks were going to use the facilities.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join