Donald Trump returns the power of bathrooom rules back to the states

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Actually biology doesn't say that gender is dependent on sex.

Not to mention that (and all this has been pointed out to you before), medical, psychiatric, psychological professional assocations all recognize that for some their gender does not match their sex.

No one's privacy is being violated. Do you check the genitals of people you share public facilities with before you do your business?

Transgender is not a mental disorder. Update your argument.

Bathrooms are not the place to bare our souls? Fair enough. Then it's also not a place that anyone needs to bare their privates for your inspection, to make sure they are conforming to your expectations.

Showers and locker-rooms are not private places. (And they should be.)

You're assuming that everyone is okay with others seeing their private parts as long as they share a sex? Laughable.

a reply to: happyperson

The question is: "Why is this an issue at all?"

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Where's the photographs of their genitals for proof?

That's your point of definition, right?

We can't go on what somoene looks like? It's only the plumbing that decides according to you. How do we know?

Thanks for these photos though ... you've just proven you want others' freedoms to be limited based on how you feel about how they look.

Disgusting.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Trump said he would return power back to the states, and even though this is a fringe, barely worthy of discussion issue, he has once again delivered on his campaign promise. Another Trump +1.

Actually, this is what candidate Trump said:

“You’ve got to protect all people, even though it’s a tiny percentage of 1 percent. I think from that standpoint, [states] should come up with a policy that’s going to work for everybody and protect people.”

Link

Let's wait to see if he follow through with his whole promise, or just the part that many of his followers approve of.

originally posted by: Annee

What logic is there in making something like this a state issue? Other then religion, the main opposition to this kind of thing.

Are you... are you kidding me?

Absent something falling under the enumerated powers of Congress, everything is a state issue.

It doesn't matter if you or I don't like how some states have dealt with some matters or how disgusted we may be with their lack of common sense or humanity, as long as they are in compliance with the Constitution and their own state constitution - and if not, the courts are the appropriate avenue, not Congress.

The fact that previous administrations have decided to rape the "necessary and proper" clause and "commerce" clause to death with little opprobrium does not justify the continuation of those actions.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Our system was designed to be a balance between ALL levels.

It was also designed to prevent the decoupling of the electorate from the decision makers.

You have a realistic impact on decision making when the decisions are made within your state or within your community.

There is a limit on the size of a community that a government can fairly govern. State level is the most effective level for 99.9% of legislation while remaining responsive to the wants and needs of that community.

originally posted by: Annee

Personal belief is not valid reason to deny Human Equality.

Except what is considered "Human Equality" is largely driven by "personal belief". So, if you personally believe something to be a matter of "equality" and thereby sacred, you are now forcing that personal belief on others.

Just another Little Hitler.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Our system was designed to be a balance between ALL levels.

It was also designed to prevent the decoupling of the electorate from the decision makers.

You have a realistic impact on decision making when the decisions are made within your state or within your community.

There is a limit on the size of a community that a government can fairly govern. State level is the most effective level for 99.9% of legislation while remaining responsive to the wants and needs of that community.

Where'd you pull that statistic from?

You and I are talking about two sides of the coin in my attention. If local levels of governance are more reactive, that same quality gives them the good chance to be more corrupt.

I'm fine with "the wants and needs of that community" being satisfied as long as no member of that community is disregarded.

There's a good reason we have the phrase "democracy is the tyranny of the majority."

a reply to: EvillerBob

Really EvillerBob?

You want to suggest that freeing people to live as they will, without being discriminated against, makes Annee a Little Hitler?

Hitler never freed anyone. He had people shot, gassed, beaten, disappeared, for being black, Jewish, for being real socialists, for being communist, for being against his policies, for being homosexual and a whole host of other things.

You cannot suggest that someone who would have fought him every step of the way, would have prevented his tyranny if they could have, if they had been there, is akin to him in any significant fashion. You can TRY, but all the effort would result in, is making it seem as if you are just incapable of composing a reasonable argument, and instead have decided to try and twist the situation to your ends, despite your position being absolutely unjustifiable from a human rights stand point.

Care to try again?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Where'd you pull that statistic from?

I self-identify as a credible survey. Stop oppressing me, you surveyphobe!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You and I are talking about two sides of the coin in my attention. If local levels of governance are more reactive, that same quality gives them the good chance to be more corrupt.

I'm fine with "the wants and needs of that community" being satisfied as long as no member of that community is disregarded.

There's a good reason we have the phrase "democracy is the tyranny of the majority."

You also have more scope for fixing problems at the local level.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

Care to try again?

Nope. I was right the first time.

a reply to: EvillerBob

A self-identified survey is generally referred to as an opinion. I'm not oppressing you, I just asked where your stat came from.


More scope? Yes. Used positively and fairly on behalf of all; good thing.

Used selfishly and to benefit only a few or one; not good.

Since there's no way to predict good and bad people ... a check and balance from all levels of government on all other levels of government makes the most sense.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Not really.

Some people try to compare apples and oranges, and that is pretty absurd. But calling Annee out for being a "Little Hitler" is like comparing an apple to an antique sideboard.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

Not really.

Some people try to compare apples and oranges, and that is pretty absurd. But calling Annee out for being a "Little Hitler" is like comparing an apple to an antique sideboard.

Yeah that's just not right, she is more a Stalin

So we are allowing states to discriminate. Might as well bring Jim Crow back to the South.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Personally, I am torn on this issue.

Bathroom Laws and like the "Patriot Act" or "Operation Restore Freedom". It's a name given to something so as to make that thing acceptable.

I, as a male, have no problem with who is using the restroom when I am. It's a non-issue as everyone should be able to use the facility they identify with.

I, as a parent of two teenage girls in High School, am very opposed to the showers being available to anyone that "identifies" as a gender.

If people are allowed to use the shower room that they "identify" with and questioning someone's "identity" is not allowed, where is the protection for kids? Can Little Johnny "identify" as a female between the hours of 3-5 because he is "gender-fluid"? Can a male coach be "gender-fluid" and be in the girls locker room?

Every means necessary should be taken to protect legitimate transgender people of all ages. That being said, open access to the girls locker room is not the answer. Being a teen can and is one of the most stressful times in a person's life (especially when it comes to physicality). I don't want my kids in the shower when Johnny comes "swinging in" for a peek. At the same time I seriously doubt any actual transgender kids want to expose themselves to their peers in school.

Why then is the locker room part of the "bathroom law"?

Added - my kid's school can't afford pencils, how are they going to remodel the locker rooms (to make private stalls"?

originally posted by: 200Plus

I, as a parent of two teenage girls in High School, am very opposed to the showers being available to anyone that "identifies" as a gender.

If people are allowed to use the shower room that they "identify" with and questioning someone's "identity" is not allowed, where is the protection for kids? Can Little Johnny "identify" as a female between the hours of 3-5 because he is "gender-fluid"? Can a male coach be "gender-fluid" and be in the girls locker room?

I totally get your concern. I'm all for schools requiring some kind of documentation that a student is transgender. I think a trans student should be working with a team of healthcare professionals that have officially diagnosed gender dysphoria. I'm not a proponent of so called "gender-fluid" students being able to go back and forth between the boy's showers and the girl's showers. But a student who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and is transitioning to the gender they identify with should be allowed to use the facility where they feel the safest.

All this wasted time and effort and thought on bathroom policies for .06% of the USA population.

Can we please move on to something important? This should never be a headline or a thread or anything.

What a joke.

a reply to: 200Plus

Thank you for a very reasonable and honest post. Your concerns are reasonable I think ... and I'll do my best to respond.

First of all, I'd like to see us, as a nation, move away from "communal public" anything. There are a mulitude of problems with such facilities not just those related to the issue of gender.

I appreciate that you are concerned about the safety of your two daughters. Had I been blessed with children, I assure you, concerns for their safety would have sent many of my egalitarian ideas out the window if they were threatened.

I'm loathe to give the local/state/national government anymore power over us, but, in the case of TG folk, and perhaps as a transitoinal measure as society grows to accept the fact that not everybody's body automatically matches their gender ... that the laws might incorporate some sort of designation for those who are, as you say "legitimately transgender." I'm not sure if this is a certification from a doctor or psychiatrist or how it would work.

I don't think that laws which accommodate trans-folk offer the aegis for abusers and criminals (and just ordinary horny male teenagers, since the scenario of contention is usually school-age related) that some think it does. I think that's a rhetorical point for the most part. I can almost guarantee you that a real trans-girl is not going to be "showing off her junk" in the shower. In fact, she is more than likely mortified that anyone would see this part of her that seems so foreign to her.

However, the idea of reasonable compromise has to come back into the American equation. We need to take steps to reassure parents (and anyone really) that allowing legal protection for the equal rights of trans-Americans does not have to put anyone at risk in so long as the rights of ALL individuals are protected as much as possible.