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.
originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
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.
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
No. Not really. But you know that was just one provision of the bill, right?
As I said, nobody seemed to notice. It's almost as if the original bill was pointless and needless.
I don't know about Republicans but I don't understand your point either.
It seems this whole thing started for the very reasons those damn republicans were in an uproar.
I don't think that leering is a legal offense. As offensive as it may be. Maybe we need a law to cover playgrounds too? With a no leering clause.
Because making it alright to chose your bathroom removes the ability to prosecute that guy who stands in the corner leering at kids.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, you tell me, who benefits the most from these laws or policies that open up male and female restrooms to all sexes? And then tell me if those of you who are pro-neutral-gendered bathrooms really think that the concern over such policies is really only based on bigotry.
originally posted by: Phage
The claim was that there were no "laws" about such. The claim is false.
Admit that you were wrong and move on--why are you hyper-focused on this? It lacks any major relevancy to the thread.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Annee
I'm sorry, Annee, but after our back-and-forth in the abortion thread, I'm going to respectfully decline to discuss this with you.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude
What hyperbole?
Who was called out for using it?
originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
... 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.
Pros to government intervention in this area: none.
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.
originally posted by: network dude
"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"
Could you explain how this is blocking the ability to make accommodations?
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is dumb. There are stalls in bathrooms for a reason, they are for privacy even from the same sex. There is no threat other than what is already present.
If we make a law that says anyone who CLAIMS to be trans can use the restroom of their choice then we will have men doing just that.
That's what triggered the law in Oxford. A store was doing what it deemed necessary. A law was written that said, "No. You can't do that."
We do not need a law, we do need for private businesses to continue to do what they deem necessary, and the market will work out whether that was a good thing to do or not.