What If All of America Suddenly Agreed With Liberals?

Would the Acela corridor and Greater LA to the Bay Area really wish for fly-over country to turn towards their urban, mostly liberal values? Imagine if suddenly Harvard professors, Wall Street plutocrat liberals, Hollywood Honchos and Silicon valley progressive techies could zap every individual who dissents from their peculiar platform of open borders, high tech displacement of labor, and zealous identity politics witch (or sombrero) hunts.

What would a business woman in St. Louis, with say three successful retail stores, do? Sell everything and move to Malibu? And keep home prices on the west coast nice and outrageous? What would anyone living anywhere in the suburbs - greater LA excepted of course - do? Sell their 1,700 sq. ft. homes and move into a cozy 2 and 1/2 bedroom in a vegetarian co-op downtown? So that every city in America with a population anywhere near 1 million could soon enjoy San Francisco style rents?

Imagine the snobbishness spreading across the blossoming urban hubs of a brave new progressive America. If you don't have a Surly to pedal to your farmer's market (never mind that most farmers will have sold their ecologically destructive 2,000 acre farms to open rooftop gardens as near downtown as possible) then you're soooo out of it. And if you can't tap dance around the contradictions in the waste produced in manufacturing your household's 4 iPhone somewhere in Asia (good waste), and driving your tiny, efficient no-longer-an-SUV 22 blocks to pick up your kids (bad, bad, waste) then you are low-information. You poor little fool.

What would the liberal elite do if those who currently dissent from their smug worldview suddenly acquiesced fully and completely? Rip themselves to bits of course. When you are a progressive, (or even maybe an urban conservative policy wonk), you need targets. Objects that are in need of reform, revamping, revulsion, and rejection. Like the anarchists in Barcelona - during the Spanish Civil War - who turned their guns on each other. You always need a target when you are a radical. Or a progressive who admires what radicals do from a safe distance.

So the world would be made of hellishly chic urban centers with 100% recycling; as well as wind, solar, and other alt energy accounting for 50% of energy production (you can't kill off oil and gas, what would power all those server farms and hi-tech facilities?). Venomous gossip - to not say heavy fines - for those who didn't walk, commute on public transit, or cycle to work would abound. And somewhere on a road leading out of town, after guiltily listening to Route 66 on a forbidden medium distance drive, a lone rebel will turn her tiny swatch car around and head back to the nearest urban dump.

There she will tank up on local, waste-produced fuel and leave her pocket-sized vehicle at an adjacent park and pay lot. Which would all be located next to fuel-producing waste dumps. Because cars are wasteful garbage to be sin-taxed (again not taxed to death or else where would all that cash come rolling in from?). And she will then wait shamefully in the cool dark for a fuel-cell powered city bus to finally appear. And dissent will fizz out like a burnt-out incandescent bulb.

Posted by Keeley at April 22, 2016 4:52 PM
Comments
Comment #404237

I’m not quite sure where you are going with this Keeley. Seems like you are writing about a caricature of a liberal than a group of actual people.

This country is not only the greatest on Earth but the greatest nation in all of history. We got to this place by leveraging our greatest asset, which is our diversity. This is why I believe it would be terrible if we all lived the same lifestyle. That sort of conformity is more of a element of conservatism.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 22, 2016 6:26 PM
Comment #404239

Then why do you support a party that despises the individual, Warren Porter? Your party can’t see the tree because of the forest.

You’ve even broadened your blaming Bush to blaming conservatives in general. Like a three year old’s imaginary friend, conservatism is now the Democratic’s whipping boy for what your party’s 100 years of dominating the political process has wrought.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 23, 2016 9:16 AM
Comment #404240

The Democratic Party is the only party that supports individual liberty. The philosophy of individual rights is the central precept that grounds liberal ideology.

Compare this with conservatism, which emphasizes collective institutions such as churches, families, even entire countries. Right now, conservatives are passing legislation that expands government’s power to regulate individual behavior such as which bathroom I choose to use. In recent history we have seen similar efforts to control who I can marry, to control what women can do with their own bodies, etc. The list goes on and on. The current Republican Party is rooted in factionalism and identity politics, which is why it is the institution most responsible for today’s divisive politics. As long as the “in group” is treated differently than the “out group” things will not change.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 23, 2016 10:16 AM
Comment #404242

Why the complaints, WW? Conservatism achieved many of its goals over the past few decades. Lower corporate taxes were the one consistent feature among the 17 presidential candidates in 2016, and since WWII, the corporate tax rate has dropped dramatically. Lower taxes for the richest of the rich have also been enacted since WWII. This was a primary feature of the conservative agenda. Why are you dissatisfied? Although productivity has increased over the past few decades and vacation time for American workers is among the lowest in the industrial world, virtually all the economic gains have gone to the richest of the rich. Workers have seen their wages remain flat. This is what conservatives wanted. Why the sad face? Hostility to unions has been a consistent feature too. The richest of the rich have become even richer. Conservatives fought long and hard for this. You are unhappy?

Posted by: phx8 at April 24, 2016 1:36 AM
Comment #404250

warren

“Right now, conservatives are passing legislation that expands government’s power to regulate individual behavior such as which bathroom I choose to use.”


People should be using bathrooms that corresponds to their ACTUAL gender. this is pretty easy to understand. Got an outie use the mens room, got an inie use the ladies room. If you don’t see the problem with telling people to use any restroom they want, you’re just not thinking clearly.

I don’t think grown men, or boys should be walking into the women’s restroom, or the girls locker room.

Posted by: dbs at April 24, 2016 10:28 AM
Comment #404251
I don’t think grown men, or boys should be walking into the women’s restroom, or the girls locker room.

Neither do I, but that’s no excuse to involve the government. We have a system that works perfectly fine on its own.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 11:42 AM
Comment #404254

why is my comment being held ?

Posted by: dbs at April 24, 2016 1:15 PM
Comment #404255

dbs,
It is not that simple. People present themselves as male or female. They dress according to their “actual” gender. However, for some people, their physical gender does not match their mental one.

My wife used to work with the homeless to help integrate them back into the work place. Portland attracts a lot of homeless people because it is tolerant and accepting, and sadly, some of the ones coming here are young people with transgender issues who have been rejected by their families. It is a tough issue, but in a nutshell, they are women in male bodies or vice versa. It certainly is not something people choose. No one would put voluntarily put themselves into that kind of difficulty.

The issue needs to be decided by the way they present themselves to society. Doing this means there will be no disruption either for themselves or for others using restrooms.

And WP is right. Governments have absolutely no business passing unnecessary legislation like that. There are parts of our lives where government simply does not belong, and this is one of them.

Posted by: phx8 at April 24, 2016 3:17 PM
Comment #404256

“The Democratic Party is the only party that supports individual liberty. The philosophy of individual rights is the central precept that grounds liberal ideology.”

Well…for sure Warren. The liberty to work if one belongs to the correct union.

The liberty for a shop owner to refuse service for requests that compromise his/her individual morality.

The liberty to use one’s own land despite the presence of some protected creature or a large mud puddle.

More? Just ask.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 24, 2016 4:30 PM
Comment #404257

RF,
Those are exceptions that demonstrate the rule. Each of those cases are instances where one right comes into contact with another. This is no different than saying the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

In the first case, the more compelling right is the freedom of contract, which trumps the right of government to tell a business owner how to run his or her own business. In the second case, equal protection trumps the right to discriminate. In the third, government property rights trump the right to steal public property.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 5:26 PM
Comment #404258

dbs,

Watchblog will not publish a comment containing the word $ex without explicit approval from the original article’s author. Given Keeley’s typical passivity here at Watchblog, I highly doubt that approval will happen.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 5:32 PM
Comment #404259

I understand what you mean by “individual liberty” Warren. The liberty for government to insert itself into our individual lives for any perceived “worthy” and socially desired reason.

Perhaps some day Warren you may understand the difference between Liberty and Tyranny.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 24, 2016 5:35 PM
Comment #404260

Huh? I never said anything about “worthy” or “socially desired” reasons. All I said were were facts:

“Right to work” violates the freedom of contract.
Right to discriminate violates equal protection.
Right to destroy biological diversity violates property rights.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 7:37 PM
Comment #404261

RF,

Is it tyrannous that we have a government that keeps you from violating my rights?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 7:39 PM
Comment #404262

Your problem with understanding “rights” Warren; is that you believe they can selectively be conferred by government to the select among us at the expense of everyone else. Those are not “rights”; but rather, political payoff.

Our Constitutional rights come from a higher pay grade than mere politicians.

For the lib/soc, political power trumps all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 24, 2016 8:05 PM
Comment #404263

Yes, our rights our unalienable and endowed upon us by our Creator. Nothing I have written here contradicts that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 8:33 PM
Comment #404264

Are the freedom to contract and the right to equal protection nothing other than political payoffs?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 8:35 PM
Comment #404270

“Neither do I, but that’s no excuse to involve the government.”

It was the left that decided to get the gov’t involved in bathroom assignment when they passed laws that allowed anyone to use any restroom, by simply declaring themselves that gender. A grown man walks into lady’s restroom, and that’s just okay according to the left.

“We have a system that works perfectly fine on its own.”

Well, that was until the left got involved. Now all a pervert has to do is walk in, and when confronted say ” I consider myself a woman”. Personally I think anyone that does that deserves to have the S#!t beat out them.

Posted by: dbs at April 25, 2016 5:28 AM
Comment #404271

warren

Any other trigger words that I should be aware of ?

Posted by: dbs at April 25, 2016 5:31 AM
Comment #404272
It was the left that decided to get the gov’t involved in bathroom assignment when they passed laws that allowed anyone to use any restroom

This is not the result of any recent legislation. Choosing a bathroom has always been a matter of individual preference.

What happened recently is that some municipalities (such as Charlotte) passed ordinances that prevented businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ individuals. That is hardly a trigger for such an overreaction.

by simply declaring themselves that gender. A grown man walks into lady’s restroom, and that’s just okay according to the left.
Please educate yourself as you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A transwoman is something very different than a grown man. The transition from grown man to transwoman is a lot more involved than a simple declaration. There are hormone therapies and a variety of cosmetic surgeries involved to feminize the body.
Now all a pervert has to do is walk in, and when confronted say ” I consider myself a woman”. Personally I think anyone that does that deserves to have the S#!t beat out them.
Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2016 8:04 AM
Comment #404273

dbs,

Do you really want your wife and daughters sharing the bathroom with this guy?

https://twitter.com/_michaelhughes1/status/575655763248480256

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2016 8:22 AM
Comment #404274

dbs,

$ex is the only trigger that I am aware of.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2016 8:39 AM
Comment #404275

dbs, three or more links in your comment will also put a hold on it.

The real reason why the North Carolina ‘bathroom bill’ debate is center stage


When politicians start writing laws based on an individual’s feelings is when politicians need to get a real job.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 25, 2016 10:05 AM
Comment #404276


Yes, a slightly exaggerated representation, but the actions of today’s liberal party warrant such an image being cast upon them as a whole.

“The Democratic Party is the only party that supports individual liberty. The philosophy of individual rights is the central precept that grounds liberal ideology.”

That is one of the silliest things to ever be posted here.

As liberal ideology supports the desires of society over the rights of the individual, it is incompatible with our representative Republic and its Constitution.

On issue after issue, liberals legislate their beliefs onto everyone else in the name of supposed individual rights that they have created, trampling the individual rights of others while doing so.

To claim that today’s democratic party supports individual liberty, is to make a mockery of the true meaning of individual liberty.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2016 10:08 AM
Comment #404277

“Governments have absolutely no business passing unnecessary legislation like that.”

But yet, activists did indeed pass ‘a piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority’ to enter this part of our lives.

Warren tried and failed in addressing this, Phx8, perhaps you can do better?

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2016 10:20 AM
Comment #404278

Even a fox host agrees with the more sensible approach to stay away from legislating bathroom use.

It’s a solution in search of a problem.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 25, 2016 10:40 AM
Comment #404279

kctim,
I’m not following. In general, I would just observe that liberals usually favor laws that expand the recognition of rights that were always there in the first place. I don’t see why either side would find it necessary to legislate who should use what bathroom. It looks like a solution in search of a problem, and I suspect the basic idea was to discriminate against people, rather than provide some sort of non-existent security that was never threatened in the first place. As for the possibility of perverts cross-dressing in order to do something creepy in a public bathroom, like take pictures or otherwise harass people, that constitutes the kind of disruptive behavior I mentioned earlier. It is a far different from a transgender’s situation.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2016 11:20 AM
Comment #404280

Phx8,
You stated that government has absolutely no business passing legislation which defines bathroom use, but that is exactly what the activists used government to do in Charlotte. In fact, the need to clarify that males use areas designated for males and that females use areas designated for females, was in direct response to legislation stating otherwise.

Why would either side find it necessary to legislate who should use what bathroom, shower or dressing room?
Well, for the activists, it is to force the acceptance of the behavior. For average people, it is to protect their sense of privacy and security.

The activists seem to be the ones with a solution in search of a problem. Before this pandering ordinance, common sense was the norm. If you looked like a guy, you used the appropriate facilities, same if you looked like a chick. And while some may have gotten a questioning look sometimes, IF anybody was paying attention, it was never a big deal. So why did the activists believe there was a problem that demanded the solution of letting people use any restroom they wanted, with total disregard for everybody else?

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2016 12:19 PM
Comment #404281

Am I going to be sued for not putting the seat back down? I had to put it up, you know! What about shemales that pee on the seat? Are they immune?

This isn’t about equality. It’s about job security. Politicians need to feel relevant so they have to make up issues to address. Eventually we’ll have to put urinals in the lady’s rooms and sanitary napkin dispensers in the men’s rooms. We’ll also need security guards for all the thin skinned butterflies that get the funny looks.

There will be no end to the amount of money politicians are going to spend to accommodate this aberration. The news media will be able to use countless instances of people being accused of discrimination. Let’s not forget the endless discussions like this one that will further divide the left and the right and distract us from the increases in the cost of living, and our military killing innocent people around the world. Who gives a shit (get it?) about that when we have such overwhelming issues such as who uses what bathroom to worry about?


Posted by: Weary Willie at April 25, 2016 1:08 PM
Comment #404282

“Right to work” violates the freedom of contract.
Right to discriminate violates equal protection.
Right to destroy biological diversity violates property rights.
Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2016 7:37 PM

Freedom to work where qualified should not be conditioned upon joining a union. That is discriminatory tyranny.

It is not discrimination to follow one’s personal moral code in the market place. Must a Muslim butcher be forced to sell pork products? Must Christian clergy be prohibited from quoting Bible verses that offend some lifestyles?

It is tyranny to forbid the use of private property as the owner desires without just compensation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2016 1:36 PM
Comment #404283

Should states be forbidden to indicate the gender of a new born on a birth certificate to avoid charges of discrimination?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2016 1:40 PM
Comment #404285

Should states be allowed to be states at all? If we were all liberal wouldn’t states just be extensions of the federal government?

C’mon Royal Flush! You’re arguing with people who think the government is the highest authority they are subjected to. They think morals are a bludgeon used to beat their opposition with and someone’s feelings are more important than the constitution.

These are people who think their excuse for not being perfect is they’re allowing their political opponents to do harm. They are wallflowers that spend their entire lives whining about letting their opponents harm them!

Look at your query from their point of view, Royal Flush. They may seriously consider banning gender descriptors so one person can vote as a man and again as a woman!

They both have the right to vote, guaranteed by the constitution!

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 25, 2016 2:04 PM
Comment #404286

Weary, it is interesting to ponder what other attributes we are born with that can be changed later by a simple declaration.

Can I declare myself to be another race and have government records changed to afford myself special treatment of that race?

Can I declare myself to be a plant and demand others to recognize my need for more carbon dioxide?

Can I declare myself to be from another planet and receive alien benefits?

Can a man who declares himself to be a woman charge gender discrimination in the workplace.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2016 2:23 PM
Comment #404287

Democratics are forward thinking when they want something. However, I don’t think they have any idea what the repercussions of their actions can be in 30 or 50 years.

Take Social Security for instance. It started out as an insurance policy against the effects of a depression the Federal Reserve was supposed to control. What started out as a minuscule tax on the wealthiest of people turned into 8% of every dollar a working man makes. And now, when there are so many more people not working, it’s a program that is struggling. Social Security is nothing like what was described when Roosevelt was trying to sell it to the American People. It’s much like the ACA. They described the ACA like it was free. They lied about it’s specifics to get it passed and they couldn’t give a rat’s behind what the repercussions could be decades from now.

NPR’s Diane Reems interviewed some financial planners on her bias-dripping show a while ago. Both told her; when planning a young person’s strategy for retirement don’t count on SS being their. Plan like it won’t be there. They were adamant Social Security will not be a factor in their retirement.

So much for Democratics and their forward thinking. They’ve already proven to my eyes they can’t handle the big picture.


Posted by: Weary Willie at April 25, 2016 4:33 PM
Comment #404290

kctim,

Here is the relevant text from the ordinance passed in Charlotte:

“It shall be unlawful to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, $ex, marital status, familial status, $exual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.”

The underlined portion is the text that was added as a result of the ordinance, the rest of the text preexisted the recent municipal legislation.

Should government treat discrimination based upon those underlined things be treated any differently than discrimination based upon those things that are not underlined?

WW,
Dr. Keith Ablow completely misses the point. There is no conflict regarding “the fundamental way we Americans will define any truth—whether as something deeply felt by an individual, or something scientifically demonstrable and verifiable.” At stake is the question of discrimination, is it permissible to use violent legal action to enforce discrimination of restroom facilities on the basis of $ex as assigned at birth. Because the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides us with equal protection under the law, the answer is clearly no. Unless the discrimination passes strict scrutiny, it violates the 14th amendment. This isn’t a group right, it is an individual right. Specifically, it is the right of an individual to choose the most appropriate facility for him or her.

I certainly hope grown men continue to choose not to women’s facilities, just like I continue to hope that Americans of all sorts choose not to exercise their right to disseminate texts filled with hate such as Mein Kampf .

Under this framework, simply declaring oneself to be of a particular $ex does not obligate anyone else to recognize that person. Indeed, if you want to refer to Caitlyn Jenner as a man named Bruce, it is your right to continue doing so. It might hurt Jenner’s feelings if you do so, but Jenner does not have a right not to have feelings hurt.

RF,
Let me know when you finish demolishing those straw men and returning to planet Earth. This has nothing to do with “declaring” oneself to be a man or a woman and everything to do with equal protection under the law. Simply put, there is a high burden of proof that needs to be reached in order to justify discrimination against someone on the basis of $ex. If there was evidence that $exual predators were regularly preying upon women by exploiting protections intended for the transgendered, then North Carolina’s law would pass strict scrutiny. However, such evidence does not exist today, which is why the law is unconstitutional.

Freedom to work where qualified should not be conditioned upon joining a union. That is discriminatory tyranny.
I’m confused. If you believe it permissible to discriminate on the basis of $ex, why do you think union status is any different?
It is not discrimination to follow one’s personal moral code in the market place. Must a Muslim butcher be forced to sell pork products? Must Christian clergy be prohibited from quoting Bible verses that offend some lifestyles?
More strawmen. Pork products aren’t people with Constitutional Rights. Merely stating offensive Bible verses in a private Christian ceremony does not necessarily constitute discrimination.

However, I will ask you this. Historically, there have been men such as Theodore Bilbo who have earnestly believed that racial integration violated their own personal moral code. Does Mr. Bilbo’s personal moral code trump an individual’s right to equal access to public accommodations as protected by the 14th Amendment?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2016 6:51 PM
Comment #404291

I missed this one:

It is tyranny to forbid the use of private property as the owner desires without just compensation.

If the endangered animal is the private property of an individual, then that would be the case. However, if an individual owns a plot of land, but not the organisms that live upon it, then the situation is murkier as the organisms are owned by the public. We the people passed a law 43 years ago that governs how this public resource is to be managed. If you want to argue that the public should forsake its ownership in this property, that is your prerogative, but be mindful that you are in the minority on this issue.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2016 6:59 PM
Comment #404292

Warren, a loose definition of discrimination allows it to be used for any nefarious purpose such as you suggest.

My conscious and morality would not deny anyone the use of a public toilet. It is not difficult to determine biological $ex. It is difficult to determine motive.

The lib/soc position appears to be that the unknown mindset of an individual should trump known biological fact. They care not for the mental anguish imposed upon the many to assuage the mental aberrations of the few.

Question: Where should a prisoner, who has declared themselves a man or woman contrary to their biological gender, serve their sentence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2016 7:16 PM
Comment #404293

“We the people passed a law 43 years ago that governs how this public resource is to be managed.”

I have property upon which an endangered specie is found. I did not invite the animal. My property value has been reduced to practically nothing. I suffer financial consequences. The lib/soc believe I should not receive compensation.

Political and governmental tyranny.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2016 7:20 PM
Comment #404295

“Both told her; whenomi planning a young person’s strategy for retirement don’t count on SS being their. Plan like it won’t be there.”

Well, they are both wrong, Weary. SS will be an increasingly important retirement plan.

Defined benefit, private pension plans are going the way of the Dodo bird. That leaves the 401K defined contribution plans. What began as a supplement to traditional pension plans and SS have become the only option. The 401K plans are a very poor option as presently configured. They are voluntary, allow early withdrawals and loans, have fees and are subject to market downturns.

As this problem becomes increasingly clear, SS will be reformed again as it has been in the past. The last major reform was in 1983 during the Reagan administration. The changes will not be that difficult. Removing or raising the cap will address a major problem resulting from the skewing of income distribution since the 80s. The Greenspan Commission in 1983 assumed that the FICA tax would capture 90% of all income. That proved wrong as a greater percentage of income has become more concentrated in the higher income brackets escaping expected taxation. Modest means testing is another option that is available to manage anticipated shortfalls a few decades from now.

If we could make SS solvent for the baby boomers in 1983, we certainly can do it again.

Posted by: Rich at April 25, 2016 9:35 PM
Comment #404297

RF,
I’m pretty sure the endangered species was around long before you bought that property. You didn’t do your due diligence to figure this out beforehand and have no right to demand that I bail you out.

My conscious and morality would not deny anyone the use of a public toilet.

I’m sure Theodore Bilbo would say the same. But the fact of the matter is that the legislation you support denies equal access to public accommodations.

It is not difficult to determine biological $ex
What is the biological $ex of an XY individual with androgen insensitivity Syndrome? What is the biological $ex of someone who is inter$ex? What is the biological $ex of someone who has undergone $ex-reassignment surgeries? What is the biological $ex of someone who began hormone replacement therapy before puberty? What is the biological $ex of someone who undergoes surgeries to remove the genitals as a matter of medical necessity (rather than gender identity disorder)?

The list goes on. Do some research and you will discover that things are not as clear cut as you think them to be. It is not our responsibility to answer the questions above as the gender identity of another human being has no bearing on how you or I live our lives.

It is difficult to determine motive.
Actually it is really easy. In this country, there is no statistically significant pattern of men lying about their gender identity in order to commit crimes. This means there is hardly any reason to question the motives of the transgendered. Given the frequency in which legally purchased firearms are used to commit crime, I would say that we have far more reason to question the motives of people seeking to purchase firearms than we have to question the motive of someone wanting to use a particular bathroom.
Where should a prisoner, who has declared themselves a man or woman contrary to their biological gender, serve their sentence.
Because prisons cannot protect transwomen from being raped by male prisoners, gender neutral facilities need to be built for them. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2016 10:24 PM
Comment #404298

Hello! Dumbass! What stops people in gender neutral facilities from raping others in gender neutral facilities?

How ignorant can you be? Why must you always resist anything not Democratic?!

You are so blind, Warren Porter?

It really makes me sad you could spend so much effort making up excuses for our current situation. It’s so sad the Democratic’s obstruction is heralded as progress.


Posted by: Weary Willie at April 25, 2016 11:22 PM
Comment #404299

Like a three year old’s imaginary friend, conservatism is now the Democratic’s whipping boy for what your party’s 100 years of dominating the political process has wrought.

Weary you cannot have it both ways my friend. You call others Dumbass while making dumbass statements such as this! Weary we just went over this foolish notion of yours and found it to be without merit yet here you are still spouting the nonsense. IMHO you can spout the nonsense or you can call others dumbass but you cant spout this nonsense and call others dumbass it is just to much.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2016 1:05 AM
Comment #404300

warren

Trans gender people make up a minuscule percentage of the population. It is not our responsibility to adjust to them. It is their responsibility to adjust to us.

Posted by: dbs at April 26, 2016 5:34 AM
Comment #404301

dbs,

Who cares how many transgender individuals there are? An unalienable right is an unalienable right.

There are a minuscule number of Zoroastrians in this country. Does that mean they don’t enjoy the same freedom of religion the rest of us do?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 8:56 AM
Comment #404302
What stops people in gender neutral facilities from raping others in gender neutral facilities?

What happened to your brain? Has the thought not occurred to you that cisgendered people would be prohibited from gender neutral facilities?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 8:59 AM
Comment #404303

What? Now you say a group is prohibited from using a certain bathroom?

Make up your mind, Warren Porter!

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2016 9:03 AM
Comment #404304

Warren,
Thank you for acknowledging that LGBT activists used government to change existing legislation and that the state legislation was in response to that. The activists and media are intentionally lying that the state is responsible and most people, especially those on the left, falsely believe it.

So, apparently, it is liberals, not conservatives, who “are passing legislation that expands government’s power to regulate individual behavior such as which bathroom I choose to use.”
Unfortunately for your argument, this is but one small example of how liberals legislate in order to regulate and condition behavior.

“Should government treat discrimination based upon those underlined things be treated any differently than discrimination based upon those things that are not underlined?”

First, government has no business dictating how an individual operates their business. Especially when it picks and chooses when discrimination is ok or not ok, as it does today.

Second, if we are going to give government permission to discriminate, as we have already done, then yes, those in control of government get to set the rules. Which is exactly what the activists did.

So, yes, in order to balance out the emotional way that our government operates today with some common sense, it has to treat each of the lefts created voting blocks on a case by case basis.

Whether you guys want to admit it or not, the goal isn’t to willfully discriminate against that one person out of a thousand, it is to respect the lives of normal people.

The left’s ‘never compromise’ ‘all or nothing’ ‘only we know what’s best for everybody’ over the top attitude only reinforces the stereotype Keeley has presented here.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2016 10:19 AM
Comment #404306
quote textSo, apparently, it is liberals, not conservatives, who “are passing legislation that expands government’s power to regulate individual behavior such as which bathroom I choose to use.” Unfortunately for your argument, this is but one small example of how liberals legislate in order to regulate and condition behavior.

Reread the text from the ordinance text. Nowhere do I see an attempt to limit an individuals choice regarding their behavior. All I see is a common sense prohibition of unjustified discrimination.

First, government has no business dictating how an individual operates their business. Especially when it picks and chooses when discrimination is ok or not ok, as it does today.
Please clarify, are you arguing against the SCOTUS opinion from Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, which affirmed the Federal Government’s right to prohibit discrimination by private businesses.

I can agree that it is not good for government to arbitrarily pick and choose when discrimination is ok or not ok. This is why legalized discrimination has to pass a very high burden of proof, known as “Strict Scrutiny”.

Also, This is why the preexisting ordinance was troublesome. It protected some groups (racial minorities for instance), but not other groups (transgender people, for instance). The amended ordinance now treats all these groups the same way.

Second, if we are going to give government permission to discriminate, as we have already done, then yes, those in control of government get to set the rules. Which is exactly what the activists did.

So, yes, in order to balance out the emotional way that our government operates today with some common sense, it has to treat each of the lefts created voting blocks on a case by case basis.

I don’t dispute that those in government get to influence the rules. At issue is the fact that those rules have to face a high burden of proof to find a compelling state interest to justify the discrimination. If women and children were being raped left and right by individuals claiming to be transgender, then that would be a justification that could pass the strict scrutiny muster. The problem is that such a wave of rape is not happening.

WW,

What? Now you say a group is prohibited from using a certain bathroom?

Make up your mind, Warren Porter!
Last time I checked, prisoners don’t have the same rights as the rest of us.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 11:46 AM
Comment #404308
The left’s ‘never compromise’ ‘all or nothing’ ‘only we know what’s best for everybody’ over the top attitude only reinforces the stereotype Keeley has presented here.

Kctim I would suggest “Tu quoque” or appeal to hypocrisy is the logical fallacy you are attempting here. Your team, the repubs in general and the conservatives in the tea party specifically, in Congress have consistently refused to compromise using a winner take all strategy to make sure the country suffers under their principles.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/04/26/the-republican-definition-of-compromise


What you are doing here is called psychological projection. It is sad that you and many other conservatives cannot accept what is being done to the country in their name. Time to put the ego in check and wake up to facts not feel good sound bites.


SO we have seen our first amendment rights going downhill for years now yet here we are arguing about the use of a public bathroom! We have seen civil forfeitures become a booming business for cops yet we are arguing “Can I declare myself to be from another planet and receive alien benefits?” as if it had merit! My god Royal your taking about fraud not rights when you suggest you can call yourself and alien without being an alien.

So its down to use of bathrooms because of all the violent attacks on women in bathrooms by transgendered people. Only these attacks don’t exist which brings up another right, voting, and the fraudulent attacks by conservatives who would rather suppress the right to vote. Remember the overwhelming amount of voter fraud, yeah me neither yet I notice the MO amongst conservatives is the same as the bathroom argument.

Has anyone ever been to a public place and the lines to the women’s bathroom was very long while the mens line was short and after waiting for a while some of the women got in the mens line and used the stalls in the mens bathroom. Should these women be charged with some s*x crime and have to register as an offender or in the whole scope of things is it just not a big deal that we should have laws to dictate the use of bathrooms? Should little boys who go into the womens bathroom with Mom be charged as criminals, or the little girls who go with Dad to the mens room be considered s*x offenders? Or should Dad take daughter to the womens room and Mom take the son to the mens bathroom and subject themselves to some pervert charge?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2016 12:07 PM
Comment #404309

j2t2,

Hear! Hear!

What our conservative friends sorely need is a dose of common sense. If you see someone using a bathroom who doesn’t conform with your expectations regarding gender expression, don’t panic. Just MYOB and stop being so nosy. I’m sure the other person knows a lot more about his or her gender than you do.

And, if you do witness harassment or assault in such a bathroom, feel free to contact law enforcement. Harassment and assault are crimes irrespective of the gender expressed by the harasser or the victim.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 12:39 PM
Comment #404310

Warren responds; “I’m pretty sure the endangered species was around long before you bought that property. You didn’t do your due diligence to figure this out beforehand and have no right to demand that I bail you out.”

You bet Warren, spoken like a true Commie. This mindset prevails among today’s lib/soc party.

Demanding Social rights to private property is among the first signs of a decaying Republic and Constitutional irrelevance.

“It is not our responsibility (for gender identity confusion demanding infringement on the rights of others) to answer the questions above as the gender identity of another human being has no bearing on how you or I live our lives.”

Public toilets are for only one purpose and only the politically demented find confusion about which toilet to use.

“(Warren) It really makes me sad you could spend so much effort making up excuses for our current situation. It’s so sad the Democratic’s obstruction is heralded as progress.”

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 25, 2016 11:22 PM

I agree Weary…it is truly sad. The “Warren’s” of this country, and world, are a confused and dangerous bunch. They feed on discontent and social upheaval. Educated but morally baseless they flounder around tilting at every new windmill they can find or imagine.

Warren writes; “Who cares how many transgender individuals there are? An unalienable right is an unalienable right.”

More proof of lib/soc confusion and obfuscation. Individuals get to choose which existing biological attributes they will recognize and which they will deny. Recognition and accommodation of their mindset becomes an imperative to all of us under penalty of law. It is difficult to be more perverse that this.

j2t2; “My god Royal your taking about fraud not rights when you suggest you can call yourself an (a man or woman) alien without being (a man or woman) an alien.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2016 12:55 PM
Comment #404312

Warren

Access to a gender neutral bathroom is not an inalienable right. Or access to someplace you dont belong simply because you call yourself one thing when you are technically another.

Posted by: dbs at April 26, 2016 1:07 PM
Comment #404313

“Reread the text from the ordinance text. Nowhere do I see an attempt to limit an individuals choice regarding their behavior. All I see is a common sense prohibition of unjustified discrimination.”

By forcing people of one gender to share a shower with that of another gender, the ordinance was regulating how one individual acts or conducts oneself towards another.
Basically, in order to accommodate the trans group the ordinance treated the normal group differently. It replaced a fair and common sense practice with an unfair practice that treats everybody differently.

An individual has the right to run their business as they so choose. From who they employ, what they pay, what they provide, to who they target their services towards.

“It protected some groups (racial minorities for instance), but not other groups (transgender people, for instance).”

The lack of common sense in the ordinance is what’s troublesome.
A person isn’t going to feel violated showering and dressing with a white, Baptist married person with 3 kids in the room, but they sure as he11 are going to feel that way with somebody pretending to be the opposite gender.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2016 1:10 PM
Comment #404314

Using social entitlement to step on individual liberty, and property rights, the hallmark of modern progressivism. It’s way past time to put an end to it.

Posted by: dbs at April 26, 2016 1:19 PM
Comment #404315
You bet Warren, spoken like a true Commie. This mindset prevails among today’s lib/soc party.

Demanding Social rights to private property is among the first signs of a decaying Republic and Constitutional irrelevance.

Concepts such as “externalities” and “common pool resources” are the bread and butter of free market capitalism. No communism needed.

“It is not our responsibility (for gender identity confusion demanding infringement on the rights of others) to answer the questions above as the gender identity of another human being has no bearing on how you or I live our lives.”

Public toilets are for only one purpose and only the politically demented find confusion about which toilet to use.


Nobody is confused about which toilet to use. Most transwomen are quite confident that the woman’s room is where they should be. As for your parenthetical remark, there is no demand to infringe on any other person’s rights. Unless, you believe that private businesses have the right to discriminate against anyone they want, but this violates 50 years of legal precedent going back to Heart of Atlanta v. United States.
More proof of lib/soc confusion and obfuscation. Individuals get to choose which existing biological attributes they will recognize and which they will deny.

This isn’t a matter of recognizing some biological attributes and denying others. This is a matter questioning why we even care about biological attributes in the first place. Nobody’s legal rights should be preconditioned upon possession of a particular anatomy. That’s the whole point about a right being unalienable. They shouldn’t be subject to the whims of Pat McCrory and a bunch of Republican legislators.

Recognition and accommodation of their mindset becomes an imperative to all of us under penalty of law. It is difficult to be more perverse that this.
There’s no recognition or accommodation here. Just a simple prohibition on discrimination just as was the case with racial integration 50 years ago. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 1:38 PM
Comment #404316

Royal,wearing a tin foil hat doesn’t make you an alien. Instead of trying to defend your nonsensical comments why not answer my question in my previous comment?

Demanding Social rights to private property is among the first signs of a decaying Republic and Constitutional irrelevance.

Weary, I’m not sure I understand your thought here. I mean government is a social contract amongst the people isn’t it? What are you referring to when you say “social rights to private property”. Wouldn’t the natural rights of animals be as important as the legal rights of the property owner? The Constitution says “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” not property as the “certain inalienable rights”. I don’t want to down play the importance of property as we have exalted it considerably over time (rightfully so it seems), but it is one of many rights to consider when talking about endangering a species.

Social rights are listed in the Constitution so why would you think they are the first signs of a decaying republic?


Posted by: j2t2 at April 26, 2016 1:52 PM
Comment #404317

Sadly, Warren won’t; or can’t; recognize that public toilets are already available to everyone. He is simply and arrogantly arguing that all should be uni$ex. Why? To accommodate the few at the anguish, embarrassment and discomfort of the many.

Using his logic, gender is not biological, but merely a chosen mindset. Once again I will ask, can I choose to be a different race using the same logic?

Must life insurance companies use the same mortality tables for either gender?

If I was hired as a male, change my mind and choose to be a female; can I sue my company for discrimination in pay since women supposedly are paid less then men for the same work?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2016 2:00 PM
Comment #404318

dbs,

Access to a gender neutral bathroom is not an inalienable right.

The unalienable right at stake is equal protection with regards to public accommodation, not “access to a gender neutral bathroom”. This means men cannot be legally prohibited from entering women’s bathrooms and women cannot be legally prohibited from entering men’s bathrooms without a justification for the discrimination. The Supreme Court has written many opinions discussing circumstances when discrimination is justified and when it is not. Look up “strict scrutiny” on a legal education site and teach yourself.

Or access to someplace you dont belong simply because you call yourself one thing when you are technically another.
“Don’t belong” is a term devoid of legal meaning here. Neo-Nazis distributing copies of Mein Kampf “don’t belong” on a public sidewalk outside a Synagogue, but they still have a right to be there nonetheless.

I will add that “technically another” is a terminology that reflects complete ignorance of what it means to be transgender. While you have a legal right to believe whatever you want, please bear in mind that this is an extremely rude insinuation. Speak to a transgender individual and educate yourself as I cannot help you here.

Using social entitlement to step on individual liberty, and property rights, the hallmark of modern progressivism. It’s way past time to put an end to it.

I agree 100%. The “social entitlement” of cisgendered people should not step on the individual liberty of transgender individuals.

kctim,

By forcing people of one gender to share a shower with that of another gender, the ordinance was regulating how one individual acts or conducts oneself towards another.

Except the ordinance doesn’t say anything of the sort! I posted the text above. Nowhere is there anything mentioning that anybody should be forced to bathe or shower with anyone else. All that is prohibited is discrimination in public accommodations. That is, no one can refuse to serve someone else solely on the basis of a person’s gender identity. That’s it. There’s nothing else to it.

Basically, in order to accommodate the trans group the ordinance treated the normal group differently. It replaced a fair and common sense practice with an unfair practice that treats everybody differently.
How did the ordinance change the old practice, which you described thusly: “If you looked like a guy, you used the appropriate facilities, same if you looked like a chick. And while some may have gotten a questioning look sometimes, IF anybody was paying attention, it was never a big deal.”

Under the old system, private businesses sometimes used the bathroom issue to unjustly discriminate against transgender people. For instance, they would call the police when there was no disturbance of any sort. Or, they may sexually harass the transgender person as a result of using a public toilet.

An individual has the right to run their business as they so choose. From who they employ, what they pay, what they provide, to who they target their services towards.

Yes, to an extent. There is an exception whereby we prohibit discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, $ex, marital status, familial status, $exual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin”. For instance, a private business owner cannot choose to fire all male employees just because she wants an all-female company.

A person isn’t going to feel violated showering and dressing with a white, Baptist married person with 3 kids in the room, but they sure as he11 are going to feel that way with somebody pretending to be the opposite gender.

I’m pretty sure David Duke would feel violated showering with a Black man. However, that doesn’t give David Duke the right to exclude Black men from a public shower that he wishes to use. Likewise, David Duke cannot legally prohibit a transman from using a shower he wishes to use, even if he feels violated to share a shower with such a person.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 2:16 PM
Comment #404319

J2,

As I have stated before, refusing to give the left 100% of what they demand by tossing out core principles, is not an unwillingness to compromise. Disagreeing with liberal policy is not some covert plan to make sure the country suffers.

“It is sad that you and many other conservatives cannot accept what is being done to the country in their name.”

Such as?
And facts please, not biased opinions.

“SO we have seen our first amendment rights going downhill for years now yet here we are arguing about the use of a public bathroom!”

Yes, the courts have basically nullified our free exercise of religion, our freedom of speech is under constant attack for being the wrong speech, and our right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government is pretty much a joke. Glad we can agree on that.

“My god Royal your taking about fraud not rights when you suggest you can call yourself and alien without being an alien.”

How is a guy calling himself an alien any different than a guy calling himself a chick?

“So its down to use of bathrooms because of all the violent attacks on women in bathrooms by transgendered people.”

Actually most people are concerned about personal privacy and non-trans perverts taking advantage of the ability to use women’s facilities to violate women and children.

And it’s not down to actual transgender folks using the bathroom that fits their looks, it’s down to men and women using the bathrooms, showers and dressing rooms of their choosing.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2016 2:20 PM
Comment #404320
Sadly, Warren won’t; or can’t; recognize that public toilets are already available to everyone. He is simply and arrogantly arguing that all should be uni$ex.

Legally speaking, all public toilets were unisex before NC passed its law. Gender segregation has traditionally been only a matter of unwritten taboos. I continue to believe that unwritten taboos can continue to govern behavior regarding public toilets, but it would be a violation of the 14th amendment to codify them in the law.

Why? To accommodate the few at the anguish, embarrassment and discomfort of the many.
I’m sure there were plenty of people who suffered anguish, embarrassment and discomfort when bathrooms were racially integrated 50 years ago. Yet, that would be a poor justification for continuing those Jim Crow laws.
Using his logic, gender is not biological, but merely a chosen mindset. Once again I will ask, can I choose to be a different race using the same logic?

Strangely, I have not commented here as to whether or not a transwoman is the same thing as a cisgender woman or whether a transman is the same as a cisgender man. While I do have an opinion on this matter, I will not share it as I believe it is irrelevant. Even if there was no such thing as a transgender person, people would still have the right to use whichever toilet facility they want. I will readily admit that it is very rude for a grown man to use a woman’s facility, just like it is very rude for a man to stand outside a Synagogue and distribute copies of Mein Kampf. However, it is not the role of government to prohibit people from exercising their rights in a rude manner.

Must life insurance companies use the same mortality tables for either gender?

I’m certain that this is an issue that passes the “strict scrutiny” burden necessary to justify discrimination.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 2:29 PM
Comment #404321
Actually most people are concerned about personal privacy and non-trans perverts taking advantage of the ability to use women’s facilities to violate women and children.

And it’s not down to actual transgender folks using the bathroom that fits their looks, it’s down to men and women using the bathrooms, showers and dressing rooms of their choosing.

Yet, other people are more concerned about the harassment and assault experienced by transgender people when they use facilities that match the $ex assigned at their birth rather than their current gender identity. Likewise, still more people are concerned about the impact transmen, many of whom are nearly indistinguishable from grown cisgender men from the waist up, will have upon cisgender women and children.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 2:43 PM
Comment #404322

“Except the ordinance doesn’t say anything of the sort! I posted the text above.”

Yes, you did, and thank you for doing so:
“It shall be unlawful to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, $ex, marital status, familial status, $exual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.”

They aren’t just talking about serving ice cream to guys dressed in drag here, Warren.

“Nowhere is there anything mentioning that anybody should be forced to bathe or shower with anyone else.”

So exactly how would a male expressing himself as a female be able to enjoy the gym locker room facilities, if he is denied equal access to the female locker room and showers? He can’t, and it is unlawful to deny him access to the female locker room.
So, where does that leave those who are actually female, Warren?

“How did the ordinance change the old practice”

The ordinance opened the door to just ‘feeling’ or even pretending, to be the opposite gender.

“Under the old system, private businesses sometimes used the bathroom issue to unjustly discriminate against transgender people.”

If they do witness harassment or assault in such a bathroom, they are free to contact law enforcement. Harassment and assault are crimes irrespective of the gender expressed by the harasser or the victim.
Sound familiar?

“Yes, to an extent. There is an exception whereby we prohibit discrimination”

Which is why we have the false sense of entitlement and privilege that we have today, Warren. Why everybody thinks everybody else should be forced to make special exceptions for them.

“I’m pretty sure David Duke would feel violated showering with a Black man.”

And I’m pretty sure David Duke would know it’s a black dude before he dropped his drawers and plopped his junk in his face.
Silly example, Warren.

“However, that doesn’t give David Duke the right to exclude Black men from a public shower that he wishes to use.”

Of course it doesn’t. But it does give him the freedom to choose to shower where and with who he feels comfortable.

“Likewise, David Duke cannot legally prohibit a transman from using a shower he wishes to use, even if he feels violated to share a shower with such a person.”

Can David Duke be legally prohibited from using any shower he wishes to use, even if the women feel violated to share a shower with a male?

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2016 3:09 PM
Comment #404323

“still more people are concerned about the impact transmen, many of whom are nearly indistinguishable from grown cisgender men from the waist up, will have upon cisgender women and children.”

No need to flower it up Warren.

Most women are uncomfortable being close to a strangers visible penis, and most men and women don’t think four year old girls need to see an adult penis.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2016 3:27 PM
Comment #404324
So exactly how would a male expressing himself as a female be able to enjoy the gym locker room facilities, if he is denied equal access to the female locker room and showers? He can’t, and it is unlawful to deny him access to the female locker room. So, where does that leave those who are actually female, Warren?.

The person with a female gender expression chooses whichever locker room she wants and the cisgender woman chooses whichever locker room she wants. Nothing is forced and nothing is coerced. The presence of a transgender woman in one locker room or the presence of cisgender men in another locker room does not deprive the cisgender woman of her right to equal enjoyment of those facilities. If the presence of those people in those rooms means the woman chooses to forgo the use of those facilities that is her problem.

If they do witness harassment or assault in such a bathroom, they are free to contact law enforcement. Harassment and assault are crimes irrespective of the gender expressed by the harasser or the victim. Sound familiar?
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. I have read plenty of anecdotes in which police were being called in the past even when a transgender person was acting responsibly and without harassing cisgender people. Wasting police resources needs to be discouraged.

Conversely, I have also read anecdotes whereby transgender people were victims of sexual assault or harassment that was perpetrated by cisgender people. Transgender people have a right to choose the facility that enables them to avoid this sort of assault or harassment.

It is my understanding that many transwomen do not feel safe using men’s facilities. For instance, some of them undergo hormone replacement therapies before they reach puberty. This means they have a penis, but none of a man’s secondary sexual features such as increased stature or increased muscle mass. Instead, these people have taken female hormones for many years so that they have the breasts, curvy hips and other characteristics of a woman. Such a person can be easily victimized in a men’s restroom, which is why they only feel safe using a woman’s room.

Which is why we have the false sense of entitlement and privilege that we have today, Warren. Why everybody thinks everybody else should be forced to make special exceptions for them.
I don’t know how you twist a prohibition on discrimination into entitlements, privileges and special exceptions. Individuals have an unalienable right to equal treatment. Period. A business owner may want to pay black workers 90% of what white workers are paid, but that is illegal for the reasons I have stated.
And I’m pretty sure David Duke would know it’s a black dude before he dropped his drawers and plopped his junk in his face.
I don’t know what the distinction is here. Foreknowledge of the black dude’s race isn’t going to assuage Duke’s mental anguish.
But it does give him the freedom to choose to shower where and with who he feels comfortable.
And how is this different from the cisgender woman who is hypersensitive to the prospect of sharing a facility with a transgender woman? Like I said above, nothing is forcing her to share the public facility and she retains the right to choose to shower somewhere else where she feels comfortable.
Can David Duke be legally prohibited from using any shower he wishes to use, even if the women feel violated to share a shower with a male?

No. Such a legal prohibition would violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.


“still more people are concerned about the impact transmen, many of whom are nearly indistinguishable from grown cisgender men from the waist up, will have upon cisgender women and children.”

No need to flower it up Warren.

Most women are uncomfortable being close to a strangers visible penis, and most men and women don’t think four year old girls need to see an adult penis.

Transmen typically don’t have pensises, so I don’t know what you meant by this.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2016 5:10 PM
Comment #404325
As I have stated before, refusing to give the left 100% of what they demand by tossing out core principles, is not an unwillingness to compromise.

You have said many foolish things over the years kctim this is but one of them. I suppose you didn’t bother to read the link on the repub definition of compromise because if you would have you wouldn’t be making statements with such a lack of merit.

You guys on the right use such hyperbole “refusing to give the left 100% of what they demand” and hide behind such noble but misleading excuses “by tossing out core principles” to hide the extremism you labor under. But you are still wrong. What the repubs in general and the conservative tea baggers in particular are doing is the definition of unwillingness to comprise.

Disagreeing with liberal policy is not some covert plan to make sure the country suffers.

Well lets start with the obvious - politics is compromise and it has worked in this country for 200 plus years. When nothing gets done because members of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress refuse to do their job because “their principles don’t allow them to” it is overt not covert and the country suffers.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2016 12:48 AM
Comment #404326
Yes, the courts have basically nullified our free exercise of religion

Well I wasn’t thinking specifically of that part of the first amendment kctim. Probably because it isn’t the courts that has nullified religious freedom it is religious activist seeking to force their will upon others that have caused the backlash against their attempts to make the country a christian nation. It is repub candidates that have threatened religious freedom not the courts.

our freedom of speech is under constant attack for being the wrong speech

Oh brother you must think your rights are being violated because you face being ridiculed by your neighbors for voicing what ever prejudicial name you wish to call someone. Well I hate to tell you this kctim but the 1st amendment protects your rights to free speech from government interference.

How is a guy calling himself an alien any different than a guy calling himself a chick?

I don’t know kctim why don’t you go tell the nearest cop you are an alien and insist he take you to his leader, then when you get out go to the nearest cop and tell him you are a chick. Maybe then the difference will become clear.

OK well seriously I’m not an expert on the transgender thing but if you call your self a chick it doesn’t mean you are a chick but that isn’t the issue with transgendered people, it is more complicated than that. Which is why the foolish comparison Royal attempted to make isn’t worthy of discussion.

The alien comparison is insulting on different levels IMHO kctim. One level is those that would believe they are aliens but in fact are not have a mental issue they need to seek help for. Making fun of the mentally ill may make you guys feel better about yourselves but it just obfuscates the discussion when it comes to transgendered people.

Another level is the comparison is wrong because transgender people have a medical and psychological condition not a mental illness. Why would you want to confuse the two?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2016 1:28 AM
Comment #404327

Warren,
A woman chooses the female locker room because she is most comfortable around other women. When men enter that locker room they are violating her sense of privacy, security, and all around level of comfort. That does not change just because a man is pretending to be a woman.
The ordinance forces women to accept and endure behavior that violates their sense of comfort. If the woman does not have that sense of comfort, her right to equal enjoyment of those facilities no longer exists.

You say big deal, it’s her problem and she can go elsewhere to shower and dress. You do realize that is the exact same answer given to those suffering from problems of gender identity and expression?

“I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.”

That was your answer to those concerned about crimes being committed by transgenders and those pretending to be trans. You then expressed concern about crimes committed against transgender folks in order to justify the ordinance.
One group gets special treatment while the other gets ‘tough cookies, call the cops.’

I have read plenty of anecdotes in which police were being called in the past even when a transgender person was acting responsibly and without harassing cisgender people. Wasting police resources needs to be discouraged.
Conversely, I have also read anecdotes whereby transgender people were victims of sexual assault or harassment that was perpetrated by cisgender people.

“Transgender people have a right to choose the facility that enables them to avoid this sort of assault or harassment.”

So in this case, the presence of those people in those rooms does not mean the transgender person can choose to forgo the use of those facilities?

And, if I have this right, you are using anecdotes to validate that sort of assault or harassment against trans folks, but yet don’t support the use of anecdotes used to validate that sort of assault or harassment against non-trans folks?

“It is my understanding that many transwomen do not feel safe using men’s facilities.”

And it is common knowledge that women and children do not feel safe showering and dressing with male adults.

“Such a person can be easily victimized in a men’s restroom, which is why they only feel safe using a woman’s room.”

Such a person would also probably have the common courtesy to be aware of their surroundings and to be thoughtful and discrete when needed. But you and I both know that those are not the ones people are worried about.

“I don’t know how you twist a prohibition on discrimination into entitlements, privileges and special exceptions.”

I’m not twisting anything, I am simply pointing out that it is wrong to use discrimination you approve of to fight discrimination you do not approve of.

“I don’t know what the distinction is here. Foreknowledge of the black dude’s race isn’t going to assuage Duke’s mental anguish.”

You’re kidding, right?
As soon as anybody enters a locker room, they know the race of those in the room and those who enter or leave the room.
When does a woman and her four year old daughter know the gender of those in the room?

“Can David Duke be legally prohibited from using any shower he wishes to use, even if the women feel violated to share a shower with a male?
- No. Such a legal prohibition would violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.”

So, there is no need for gender specific regulations, or for the state to protect the fundamental right of privacy? Are you willing to apply that to everything?

“Transmen typically don’t have pensises, so I don’t know what you meant by this.”

‘Transmen’ aren’t the ones wanting to use the female locker room. You know, where the women and little girls are.

You know what I meant, you are just blinded by the agenda and didn’t want to acknowledge it.

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2016 10:52 AM
Comment #404329
It is sad that you and many other conservatives cannot accept what is being done to the country in their name.” Such as? And facts please, not biased opinions.

Sure no problem… but when I do this I expect you to acknowledge these facts….
Lets start with economics…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/04/20/a-graphical-assault-on-supply-side-tax-cuts/?tid=a_inl

Now be aware the facts are in the graphs and charts so you will need to read the article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/04/25/how-falsehoods-flourish/

This link is a continuation that demonstrates how these myths conservatives call principles continue to damage the country.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 27, 2016 11:10 AM
Comment #404330

J2,
That link provided nothing but a biased opinion.

The left demanded that another huge government program be the starting point for discussing health care reform. Huge government programs, especially those meant to redistribute wealth, are not a core principle of those on the right, which is why no Republicans signed onto it.

If “politics is compromise,” then it is obvious that liberals in Congress definitely refused to do their job and there is no doubt that the country is suffering for their actions.

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2016 11:12 AM
Comment #404331

“it is religious activist seeking to force their will upon others”

Respecting a persons religious freedom is not them “forcing their will upon others.”

“Oh brother you must think your rights are being violated because you face being ridiculed by your neighbors for voicing what ever prejudicial name you wish to call someone.”

Not at all. I really don’t worry myself over such petty stuff. I don’t care what others say, and I don’t care what they think of what I have to say.

“but the 1st amendment protects your rights to free speech from government interference.”

It is also charged with protecting our free speech rights and from clear and present danger. When it is done in the selective way it is done today, it is picking and choosing.

“if you call your self a chick it doesn’t mean you are a chick but that isn’t the issue with transgendered people, it is more complicated than that.”

Actually, it’s not. People of one gender think they should be the opposite gender, so they pretend to be that gender. Even those who go through surgery are still the same gender they were born as.

The issue isn’t with trans folk who look like the opposite gender physically, it’s with the activists demanding the total acceptance and embracing of those who simply think they are the opposite gender.

“Making fun of the mentally ill may make you guys feel better about yourselves but it just obfuscates the discussion when it comes to transgendered people.”

I have not made fun of trans folk. Having a daughter who is gay, I have gotten to meet and even know trans folk and I have no desire to “make fun” of them.
So again, you are debating what you think in order to avoid what actually is.

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2016 11:54 AM
Comment #404332

J2,
I actually enjoy reading Bernstein every now and then, but I’m not quite sure of the point you are trying to make here.

I support the lowest possible taxes needed for government to run government, and only government. I care about individual rights, not the economic activity that excessive taxation may or may not result in. I have no problem with any tax cut being done on my behalf, or the results they produce.

If you expect me to acknowledge the fact that one way to grow revenue is by collecting more revenue, then done. I acknowledge it.
If you expect me to acknowledge that Republicans are wrong to try and grow revenue with tax cuts and no serious cuts in spending, then done. I acknowledge it.

I don’t care about collecting more revenue to pay for more spending, I care about what we are losing in the process.
That is why I rarely reply to those types of subjects.

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2016 12:45 PM
Comment #404333
You say big deal, it’s her problem and she can go elsewhere to shower and dress. You do realize that is the exact same answer given to those suffering from problems of gender identity and expression?

There is a distinction here. The cisgender woman who goes elsewhere to shower and dress is making a decision of her own volition. The public facilities are still available to her if she wants to use it. The transgender person’s situation is entirely different. The North Carolina Law legally compels her to go elsewhere. Only a conservative would confuse voluntary decision-making with governmental coercion.

That was your answer to those concerned about crimes being committed by transgenders and those pretending to be trans. You then expressed concern about crimes committed against transgender folks in order to justify the ordinance. One group gets special treatment while the other gets ‘tough cookies, call the cops.’
I still don’t understand the link. One is concern about hypothetical harassment while the other is a concern about actual harassment. I think you misunderstood my original comment about the police. I was referring to anecdotes shared by transgender people. These people have been subjected to harassment including frivolous calls to the police simply for using the toilet. One study found a whopping 70% of transgender people have been, “denied access, verbal harassment, and/or physical assault when trying to access or while using gendered public restrooms”. As far as I know, there fewer than three instances of the sort of crimes feared by conservative activists.
Such a person would also probably have the common courtesy to be aware of their surroundings and to be thoughtful and discrete when needed. But you and I both know that those are not the ones people are worried about.

Au Contraire These are exactly the people targeted by NC’s recent law. Heck, these are also the people who are on the receiving end of harassment that necessitated Charlotte’s ordinance in the first place. The idea that this is mostly about grown men who simply don woman’s attire is a complete farce. Being transgender is not the same thing as transvestism.

I’m not twisting anything, I am simply pointing out that it is wrong to use discrimination you approve of to fight discrimination you do not approve of.
This has nothing to do with what I “approve of”. Discrimination can only be legally codified if it survives strict scrutiny by demonstrating a compelling state interest. For instance, some laws discriminate on account of age because there are compelling reasons to treat adults and children differently in our legal system. The relevant Charlotte Ordinance does not legalize any forms of discrimination as far as I am aware.
You’re kidding, right? As soon as anybody enters a locker room, they know the race of those in the room and those who enter or leave the room. When does a woman and her four year old daughter know the gender of those in the room?
If it is a woman’s room, then everyone using it has a female gender, by definition. Some of them may have a male $ex in addition to the female gender, but unless this hypothetical cisgender woman and her daughter are peeping toms, they’ll never find out. And even if they do, how would foreknowledge have changed anything?
So, there is no need for gender specific regulations, or for the state to protect the fundamental right of privacy? Are you willing to apply that to everything?
Gender specific regulations are only allowed when there is a compelling state interest that passes the legal burden of strict scrutiny. Labeling birth certificates passes this burden because identifying a person’s physical characteristics is necessary for a birth certificate to be of any use as an identification document; meanwhile, there is no burden placed on an individual simply because a piece of paper says “M” or “F”. Preventing sexual assault is a compelling state interest and if it were demonstrated that ordinances like Charlotte’s were putting cisgender people risk of assault and harassment, then a law like North Carolina’s may pass strict scrutiny. Of course, the law would have to be tailored as narrowly as possible in order to accomplish this state interest. For instance, it may be necessary to restrict transwomen’s bathroom rights while leaving transmen free to use whichever bathroom they choose.
“Transmen typically don’t have pensises, so I don’t know what you meant by this.”

‘Transmen’ aren’t the ones wanting to use the female locker room. You know, where the women and little girls are.

You know what I meant, you are just blinded by the agenda and didn’t want to acknowledge it.

Honestly, if you aren’t using words in accordance with their definitions, I am not going to be able to understand you. I was the one who brought up transmen because the NC law impacts them just as much as it impacts transwomen. I already explained above that transmen are often indistinguishable from cisgender men from the waist up, which should have been enough to let you know that these people usually don’t have penises. On the topic of definitions, I would suggest reviewing the meanings of the words gender and $ex as you seem to be conflating the two quite a bit. Likewise, the correct term for someone whose gender identity matches the birth $ex is cisgender.

Anyway, the NC law forces these transmen to use women’s restrooms and bathrooms. I don’t think many women are going to be comfortable sharing facilities with a person who has all the secondary $ex characteristics of a man including facial hair, increased stature and increased muscle mass.

Unlike transwomen, transmen don’t face the same issues of harassment and assault, so I don’t think they care as much about which bathroom they use, but they would prefer to be able to make that decision by themselves without the help of Pat McCrory or the NC legislature. That said, forcing these people to use women’s facilities kinda undermines the whole argument that this law is about assuaging the fears of cisgender women instead of simply giving transgender people a hard time.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2016 1:09 PM
Comment #404334
The issue isn’t with trans folk who look like the opposite gender physically, it’s with the activists demanding the total acceptance and embracing of those who simply think they are the opposite gender.

That’s strange. The ordinance in Charlotte said nothing about accepting or embracing anyone. It just said that transgender people have the same right to pee that everyone else has.

And, as I stated above, the law targets people who have all the secondary $ex characteristics of their preferred gender as a result of hormone therapies no differently than it targets a perverted transvestite. If this is a mistake, then it needs to be rewritten in order to make this clear. However, I doubt that was the case as even transgender people who have the secondary $ex characteristics of their preferred gender found themselves the victims of assault and harassment when trying to use public restrooms. Being discrete may keep others from seeing a transwoman’s penis 99% of the time, but no amount of discretion is going to work 100% of the time; especially when dealing with cisgender women who may be too nosy for their own good.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2016 1:20 PM
Comment #404339

“There is a distinction here.”

Not really.
Before the ordinance, the real woman and the man thinking he is a woman BOTH had access to public facilities. Nobody was being denied the use of public facilities. BOTH had the choice to use the public facilities, or to go elsewhere.

“Only a conservative would confuse voluntary decision-making with governmental coercion.”

Yes, you are losing the argument, Warren, but you are bigger than having to resort to insults.

“I still don’t understand the link. One is concern about hypothetical harassment while the other is a concern about actual harassment.”

Look beyond the agenda, Warren.
Male perverts are constantly being caught for assaulting and harassing females in areas designated for females. To give them open and unquestioned access to these ‘female safe places,’ is to knowingly invite more such offenses.
Your answer though, is to call the cops.

On the other hand, male perverts and a-holes sometimes also assault and harass men in areas designated for men, but your answer for it this time is to pass legislation.

This is where common sense and compromise should come into play. The ordinance was bad because it was intentionally vague so as not to offend those who simply ‘feel’ like the opposite gender. The NC law in response to the ordinance was bad because it only addressed the birth and did not acknowledge transitioning in any way.
There is a workable solution, but neither side wants to go there.

“Au Contraire These are exactly the people targeted by NC’s recent law.”

The law, yes. And I believe they worded it in the worst way. I was unclear in that I meant average people.

“can only be legally codified if it survives strict scrutiny by demonstrating a compelling state interest.”

Then the courts will decide if the expected rights of privacy and security that gender specific facilities provide, demonstrates a compelling state interest.

“If it is a woman’s room, then everyone using it has a female gender, by definition.”

Only if everyone using it has “the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between and from masculinity and femininity.” Thinking you are a woman is not a feature or quality belonging typically to a woman, nor is it a characteristic that identifies you as woman.

“but unless this hypothetical cisgender woman and her daughter are peeping toms, they’ll never find out.”

If a person has to be a ‘peeping tom’ to notice another’s gender, why would a trans woman feel the need to be in the woman’s locker room?

“And even if they do, how would foreknowledge have changed anything?”

It would have given them a choice. Like it or not, some people aren’t comfortable being nude around the opposite gender.


“Transmen typically don’t have pensises, so I don’t know what you meant by this.”
‘Transmen’ aren’t the ones wanting to use the female locker room. You know, where the women and little girls are.

You know what I meant, you are just blinded by the agenda and didn’t want to acknowledge it.

Honestly, if you aren’t using words in accordance with their definitions, I am not going to be able to understand you.

“I was the one who brought up transmen because the NC law impacts them just as much as it impacts transwomen.”

Yes, you did say ‘transmen’ and my response was about ‘transwomen.’ With the issue being ‘transmen’ using male facilities and ‘transwomen’ using female facilities, it makes no sense for regular women and children to be concerned about the impact of ‘transmen’ in the male locker room.

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2016 3:40 PM
Comment #404342

kctim,
Again, you muddle the definitions of gender and $ex. Please learn them before you make your next comment.

Not really. Before the ordinance, the real woman and the man thinking he is a woman BOTH had access to public facilities. Nobody was being denied the use of public facilities. BOTH had the choice to use the public facilities, or to go elsewhere.

No, before the ordinance transgendered people were denied the opportunity to use the public facilities that they preferred to use. They were harassed, assaulted and discriminated against for no reason other than their gender identity. After the ordinance, EVERYONE had EQUAL rights to use whichever facility they wanted.

Yes, you are losing the argument, Warren, but you are bigger than having to resort to insults.

Do you not understand the difference between the NC law, which threatens punishments for its violation, with the voluntary decision of a transphobic woman to avoid a particular facility?

Male perverts are constantly being caught for assaulting and harassing females in areas designated for females. To give them open and unquestioned access to these ‘female safe places,’ is to knowingly invite more such offenses.
Men are caught harassing and assaulting women everywhere, in places designed for females and places designed for everyone. I understand that giving cisgendered men open and unquestioned access to some areas may be dangerous, which is why I support the continuation of social taboos against such behavior. I would shame and shun any grown man who insisted upon exercising his legal right to use a woman’s facility. However, I would not support involving the government in the situation.
On the other hand, male perverts and a-holes sometimes also assault and harass men in areas designated for men, but your answer for it this time is to pass legislation.
I was not talking about harassment or assaults upon men. I was discussing harassment and assaults upon transgender people, who are not men. Men have physical characteristics such as increased stature and muscle mass to help them protect themselves against harassment and assault. Transgender people often do not have this privilege because they have the secondary characteristics of women, not men. They have reduced stature, reduced muscle mass, breasts and curvy hips. Also, because transgender people have female secondary characteristics, that means they are targeted by the much larger heterosexual male population rather than the much smaller homosexual one.
This is where common sense and compromise should come into play. The ordinance was bad because it was intentionally vague so as not to offend those who simply ‘feel’ like the opposite gender.
The ordinance is as clear as it gets. There’s nothing vague about extending the same protections that we have for other groups. No mention of avoiding offense either.
If a person has to be a ‘peeping tom’ to notice another’s gender, why would a trans woman feel the need to be in the woman’s locker room?
Because a transwoman has a gender that is undoubtedly female even though her $ex is male. The female gender of the transwoman makes her feel the need to use the woman’s locker room.
It would have given them a choice. Like it or not, some people aren’t comfortable being nude around the opposite gender.
Again, you have confused $ex and gender. If people don’t want to use the same facility as someone of another $ex then they don’t have to. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If we are able to have racially integrated facilities without forcing David Duke to share facilities with a Black Man, then I am confident we can do the same when we integrate transgender people into those same facilities.
it makes no sense for regular women and children to be concerned about the impact of ‘transmen’ in the male locker room.

My point is that cisgender women and children might be concerned with the NC law, which forces transmen out of the men’s locker room and into the women’s locker room.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2016 6:29 PM
Comment #404348
No, before the ordinance transgendered people were denied the opportunity to use the public facilities that they preferred to use. They were harassed, assaulted and discriminated against for no reason other than their gender identity. After the ordinance, EVERYONE had EQUAL rights to use whichever facility they wanted.

Problem is none of this ever happened Warren.

There is a coalition of LGBTQ (don’t forget to add the Q) groups in NC led by EqualityNC. They’ve taken a very gorilla approach to implementing their agenda and have targeted several city councils including Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem. Because the councils are small it only takes one or two turns on the body to get their issue raised. Once they get a negative vote they go to press and shame the decision. Much like certain people do here on Watchblog, they basically call you a bigot if you don’t support their position.

This is what they said about the now “historic” Charlotte City Council when things didn’t go their way last year:

“For the second time in our city’s history, Charlotte City Council has shown it does not have the courage or the conviction to stand for full fairness and equality. More than two decades ago, Council members shamelessly rejected similar public accommodations protections. In repeating that sad legacy on Monday, Council chose to listen to the divisive, prejudiced rhetoric of out-of-town special interests who have been behind recent attacks on the rights of LGBT people across the state and across the country. They have proven they will stop at nothing to malign and discriminate against LGBT citizens and residents.”

Using this approach they have been able to have LGBTQ inclusions added to existing city ordinances. This wasn’t much of a story in Greensboro when the inclusions were added to fair housing but when it got added to the public facilities in the Charlotte it made it caught the eye of conservative activists in Raleigh and the pooop started hitting the fan. I’m guessing Equality NC and their coalition couldn’t be any happier.

Problem is there’s nothing real about any of this. This was not a problem in Charlotte before and it won’t be any better if Raleigh passes their bill. There was not teeth to the Charlotte ordinance and without enforcement at most you would get civil complaints. This is political activism (on both sides) and nothing more, and it’s doing nothing to help the traffic around my office the speeding in the school zones.

Posted by: George in SC at April 28, 2016 9:29 AM
Comment #404349

You’re right, George in SC. It does nothing to help. It’s a non-issue used to distract from the tangible problems the government avoids. This discussion is straight out of South Park, and you all criticized me for posting about South Park. I’m going to return the favor.

When the female cleaning woman wants to clean the men’s room she knocks on the door and asks if anyone is in there. If there is she waits until they are done and then enters to clean the room. She doesn’t start crying and passing laws to allow her unlimited access. She’s actually polite and respects the men’s privacy. The same goes for males cleaning the lady’s room.

There are usually two bathrooms. One is for women and one is for men. If not, the same respect and manners apply when both genders use it. Contrary to what this discussion implies there are also just two genders. One is a man and one is a woman. This trans and cis stuff is a product of people unhappy with themselves. Insisting there are genders other than male and female is breaking with reality.
Breaking with reality is a mental issue, not a physical one.

Here you go, folks. This is what you all are acting like. I hope you’re proud of yourselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cissy

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 28, 2016 10:50 AM
Comment #404350

Now that I think of it, this discussion represents what it would be like if everyone agreed with liberals! Constant bickering about things that don’t matter to mentally healthy people.

Actually, everyone agreeing with liberals is a contrariety. Liberals need controversy to remain relevant.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 28, 2016 11:03 AM
Comment #404351

Warren,
As it is not governments duty to legislate attitudes and feelings, there is no need to dwell on politically correct terminology.
The fact is that you are born either male or female, and the issue is if thinking or pretending to be the opposite somehow entitles you to special treatment.

We the people gave government the power to regulate facilities based on being male or female. You claim that “before the ordinance transgendered people were denied the opportunity to use the public facilities that they preferred to use,” but the fact is that ALL people were being denied that ‘opportunity.’

This conflict is the result of what happens when you give government power it should not have in the first place. People claim they don’t want government involved but then they start using government to make feel-good exceptions.

“I was not talking about harassment or assaults upon men.”

‘Transwomen’ are male, all males do not have the stature or muscle needed to protect themselves and I am sure they would laugh at your claims of their supposed privilege.
And yes, how a person looks, dresses and acts can result in them being targeted by others. It has always been that way, and it always will be.

“The ordinance is as clear as it gets.”

No, it is not.
Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself.”
Gender expression refers to the “…way in which a person acts to communicate gender.”
That is about as vague as you can get, Warren.

“The female gender of the transwoman makes her feel the need to use the woman’s locker room.”

That does not trump the feelings of the female gender of an actual woman and her need to use the woman’s locker room.

“Again, you have confused $ex and gender.”

I am addressing the actual concerns people have with the issue, with no regard for politically correct guidelines, just as they have. People who only care if you are male or female, not which one you think you are.

“My point is that cisgender women and children might be concerned with the NC law, which forces transmen out of the men’s locker room and into the women’s locker room.”

Was this a problem before the ordinance? No.

And why do you think a woman would be more concerned about a manly looking chick with the right plumbing being in the same locker room, than she would be with a male with his penis swinging around in front of her and her daughter?
Come on man.

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2016 11:19 AM
Comment #404352

WW,

I agree. Politeness and good manners should be all that is necessary to permit everyone to use the restroom that is most suitable for an individual’s needs. Getting the government involved in the form of the bill passed into law by Pat McCrory and his Republican legislative allies was completely unnecessary.

There are usually two bathrooms. One is for women and one is for men. If not, the same respect and manners apply when both genders use it. Contrary to what this discussion implies there are also just two genders. One is a man and one is a woman. This trans and cis stuff is a product of people unhappy with themselves. Insisting there are genders other than male and female is breaking with reality. Breaking with reality is a mental issue, not a physical one.

This is your opinion. Unfortunately it is founded upon fairy tales society told to you when you were young instead of congruing with the facts at hand.

George in SC,

Problem is none of this ever happened Warren.

Wrong, in the absence of ordinances like that passed in Charlotte, transgender people face sexual harassment and assault for the simple crime of trying to pee like any other human being. In fact, 70% of transgender people report, “denied access, verbal harassment, and/or physical assault when trying to access or while using gendered public restrooms”. If these things were happening to me, I sure as hell would form an activist group to pass laws to protect my right not to be assaulted, harassed or discriminated against.

Problem is there’s nothing real about any of this. This was not a problem in Charlotte before and it won’t be any better if Raleigh passes their bill.
I would consider all the anti-Trans harassment, bullying and assault that is happening to be “a problem”. If cisgender people would just let transgender people pee in peace, none of this would be happening.

Why can’t North Carolina just grow up and join Massachusetts and the rest of the civilized world? Massachusetts has protected a transgender individual’s right to choose the most appropriate facility since 2011 and there have been zero incidents of transgender people abusing this right to harass or assault cisgender people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2016 11:34 AM
Comment #404355

Warren, what does that study have to do with Charlotte, NC? You’d be better off lobbying the U.N. for accommodation laws if your target is the civilized world.

There are 17 States with explicit protections along with 200 cities. I’m sure you can show that the quality of life for the LGBTQ person is better there, that they face less harassment there, and that they have far fewer exclusions there than in Charlotte, NC. Because Charlotte didn’t add the language demanded by Equality NC in 2014 and 2015 it proved the cit would “stop at nothing to malign and discriminate against LGBT citizens and residents.”

Oh and now they are going after Asheville NC as bigoted and discriminatory. That’s one of the most inclusive communities you will find outside of San Fransisco.

This is nothing more than activism and the corresponding activism in the state legislation is just as bad. And you wonder why people don’t want more government.

Posted by: George in SC at April 28, 2016 1:01 PM
Comment #404386
As it is not governments duty to legislate attitudes and feelings, there is no need to dwell on politically correct terminology. The fact is that you are born either male or female, and the issue is if thinking or pretending to be the opposite somehow entitles you to special treatment.

Male and female are descriptions of $ex not gender. This isn’t a matter of political correctness, it is a matter of correctness. When you take a butcher’s knife to the English as you have done, you make yourself poorly understood and it impedes fruitful discussion of the issues. I feel that your confusion between the definitions of $ex and gender may be intentional and politically motivated, but I hope that is not the case.

We the people gave government the power to regulate facilities based on being male or female. You claim that “before the ordinance transgendered people were denied the opportunity to use the public facilities that they preferred to use,” but the fact is that ALL people were being denied that ‘opportunity.’

That’s strange. I have not encountered any reports that any cisgender people have ever been denied access to the public facility they prefer to use, if you have any evidence of this, I would like to see it. However, to address your first sentence, unless the 14th amendment was repealed recently, we the people have not granted the government to regulated facilities on the basis of $ex.

This conflict is the result of what happens when you give government power it should not have in the first place. People claim they don’t want government involved but then they start using government to make feel-good exceptions.
I don’t want the government involved in anyone’s decision as to which facility they use. I also don’t want some business or company making that decision for me either. The decision is mine and mine alone.
No, it is not. Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself.” Gender expression refers to the “…way in which a person acts to communicate gender.” That is about as vague as you can get, Warren.

Strange, those definitions come from the APA page that I shared, but not from Charlotte’s ordinance. Anyway, there is no vagueness. All one needs to do is ask. A person communicating a masculine or feminine gender will make the answer readily apparent.

That does not trump the feelings of the female gender of an actual woman and her need to use the woman’s locker room.

This is precisely why Charlotte’s ordinance did not prohibit cisgender women from choosing the facility they feel best serves them.

I am addressing the actual concerns people have with the issue, with no regard for politically correct guidelines, just as they have. People who only care if you are male or female, not which one you think you are.
If you think a person’s $ex is all that matters and that gender is meaningless, I have no problem with you arguing that. However, please get your terminology right. Otherwise, it is very confusing to read the word gender when you actually mean the word $ex.
And why do you think a woman would be more concerned about a manly looking chick with the right plumbing being in the same locker room, than she would be with a male with his penis swinging around in front of her and her daughter? Come on man.

Probably because transmen are not “Manly looking chicks”? They have a masculine gender and if I had a daughter or wife I would not be surprised if they were uncomfortable sharing facilities with someone so big and strong that they would have little ability to defend themselves in the event of an attempted assault.

By the way, phrases such as “right plumbing” don’t really make any sense if we are talking about protecting people from harassment or assault. Assault occurs or doesn’t occur based upon the attitude and character of a person. “Right plumbing” or “wrong plumbing” has nothing to do with it. Yes, most people are sexually attracted to one gender and not attracted to the other, but homosexuality is so prevalent these days that it is inevitable that people will share facilities with someone who is sexually attracted to their $ex or gender.

As for your last point, cisgender men swinging their penises around in front of a wife or daughter is not a likely consequence of Charlotte’s ordinance. Firstly, the cultural taboo against cisgender men entering a woman’s locker room would remain. Secondly, this behavior would result in a quick response from law enforcement, which ought to deter most would-be perverts.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 30, 2016 12:03 PM
Comment #404387
Warren, what does that study have to do with Charlotte, NC? You’d be better off lobbying the U.N. for accommodation laws if your target is the civilized world.

OK, so are you claiming that Charlotte treats its transgender community better than Washington DC treats its community? If Charlotte were the oasis of equality that you claim, then I would submit that the ordinance was superfluous. However, I suspect that the complaints found by the DC study are not restricted by geography.

There are 17 States with explicit protections along with 200 cities. I’m sure you can show that the quality of life for the LGBTQ person is better there, that they face less harassment there, and that they have far fewer exclusions there than in Charlotte, NC. Because Charlotte didn’t add the language demanded by Equality NC in 2014 and 2015 it proved the cit would “stop at nothing to malign and discriminate against LGBT citizens and residents.”

Oh and now they are going after Asheville NC as bigoted and discriminatory. That’s one of the most inclusive communities you will find outside of San Fransisco.

If you want me to criticize the tactics taken by the activists, I will freely do so. It is rather unfortunate that this is what is necessary to pass a common sense law giving each person equal right to public accommodations.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 30, 2016 12:21 PM
Comment #404430

I have to ask, what is a right?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 2, 2016 8:32 AM
Comment #404432

Good Question. I am apt to agree with John Locke’s Answer:

Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

In essence, the use of force to compel people to heed another person’s wishes is extremely limited to instances when another person’s life, liberty, etc are threatened.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 2, 2016 9:33 AM
Comment #404483

Ok, but how is demanding to use someone else’s property become a right? You say gay people have a right to use any bathroom they choose. They, in fact, do harm to the owner of that bathroom because of the cost of providing and maintaining that bathroom is bore by the owner.

My right to free speech is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the first amendment of the Constitution. It’s actually written down and recognized world wide. I have a right to speak.

If we were to follow your example I could ignore the rules of participation and say whatever I want using the WatchBlog forum. If we held the editor of WatchBlog to the same standard you hold business owners we’d have a lot of offended Democratics here, wouldn’t we?

Why should the WatchBlog editor be allowed make and enforce rules of participation? Shouldn’t I be able to use his forum the way I choose? I actually have a documented and official right. I choose to exercise that right here on WatchBlog. Where is the difference?

If we follow your logic we could file a class-action lawsuit against WatchBlog to represent the many people that have been banned and censored from WatchBlog? This lawsuit would have even more standing than the gay guy in the woman’s bathroom would have in court. I have an actual, enumerated right to speak. The gay guy doesn’t have an enumerated right to use someone else’s bathroom.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 3, 2016 7:19 PM
Comment #404501

And now the people of North Carolina will have to pay legal fees to defend stupidity.

This is what happens to unnecessary stupid laws passed by an ill-advised legislature.

Posted by: Speak4all at May 4, 2016 4:41 PM
Comment #404503

WW,

Charlotte’s ordinance refers to “public accommodations”, a phrase with a particular legal definition. WatchBlog is not a “public accommodation”, so its rules for participation are not subject to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 4, 2016 5:20 PM
Comment #404525

No, you’re wrong. The public uses WatchBlog just like the public uses Target, WalMart, or any other private business open to the public.

You can’t have it both ways, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 5, 2016 9:31 AM
Comment #404532
quote text The public uses WatchBlog just like the public uses Target, WalMart, or any other private business open to the public.

That’s not true. Retailers like those are considered “public accommodations”, which is defined thusly. There are twelve categories of public accommodations, retailers call under category “E”. None of the categories mention internet weblogs, or any analogous offline establishment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2016 11:59 AM
Comment #404542

You’re hiding behind the law, Warren Porter. Now you throw lawyer employers out there to define what you call a right? We have to define who and what is affected by this right?

Can’t you see how your logic, that the use of a public restroom is a right, is so convoluted it can’t stand up?

What you define as a right is simply a law that gives the government permission to use force against anyone who disagrees with the law.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 5, 2016 4:54 PM
Comment #404545

People have a right to equal protection regarding public accommodations. People do not have equal rights to post comments on a private platform such as Watchblog. I do not see any convolution. The separate treatment of public accommodations and private property stems from English Common Law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2016 6:56 PM
Comment #404548

Since when do right pertain to certain groups, Warren Porter?

People don’t have rights that pertain to the public and rights that pertain to private.

What constitution are you referring to, Warren Porter?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 5, 2016 9:16 PM
Comment #404549

WW,

You obviously do not understand what I wrote.

I never claimed groups have rights.

People don’t have rights that pertain to the public and rights that pertain to private.

What do you mean by “pertain to the public” or “pertain to private”? All I said was that people have a right to equal access to public accommodation, but that this right does not apply to purely private property.

All of my comments are based upon the US Constitution and the body of English Common Law that underlies it. I also refer to the work of enlightenment philosophers, such as John Locke, who were profoundly influential upon this nation’s founders.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2016 10:42 PM
Comment #404550

WW,

Do you believe that the owner of a public accommodation has the right to segregate his bathrooms by race in addition to $ex? Does the owner have the right to prohibit people of a particular race from this property entirely?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2016 10:46 PM
Comment #404575

We’re not talking about race, Warren Porter. You’re born into your race. A man is not born into a woman’s body. They do that to themselves. It’s a choice.

To be quite honest, if a man can pull off looking and acting like a woman and can pass as a woman who are we to say she can’t use the ladies bathroom. However, if a man with broad shoulders and body hair goes into a woman’s bathroom simply because he’s wearing a dress, then demands everyone in that bathroom treat him like a woman, even though it’s obvious he isn’t, we shouldn’t accommodate that. It’s abnormal. It goes against accepted norms. Trying to change those norms is counter productive and pointless.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 6, 2016 6:13 PM
Comment #404576

Do you believe a shoe store should be forced to sell women’s size 14 shoes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 6, 2016 6:16 PM
Comment #404579
We’re not talking about race, Warren Porter. You’re born into your race. A man is not born into a woman’s body. They do that to themselves. It’s a choice.

You tell me people are born into their race. However, you also tell me people are born into their $ex. A transman is born into a woman’s body. Whether or not you or I choose to accept that transman as a man or a woman is immaterial to the issue I raised. Essentially, discrimination based upon race and discrimination based upon $ex are both examples of discrimination based upon a body’s appearance. In one instance, the amount of melanin in one’s skin determines the discrimination. In the other instance, the amount of prenatal androgen in one’s endocrine system determines the discrimination.

Fundamentally, I do not believe a transwoman has any more right to use a woman’s rest room than a man does. I think all people have a right to equal access to these sorts of public facilities, regardless of $ex or gender. Now, that doesn’t mean I endorse the idea of cisgender men using women’s rest rooms. Just because one has a right to do something does not mean it is advisable to exercise that right.

To be quite honest, if a man can pull off looking and acting like a woman and can pass as a woman who are we to say she can’t use the ladies bathroom. However, if a man with broad shoulders and body hair goes into a woman’s bathroom simply because he’s wearing a dress, then demands everyone in that bathroom treat him like a woman, even though it’s obvious he isn’t, we shouldn’t accommodate that. It’s abnormal. It goes against accepted norms. Trying to change those norms is counter productive and pointless.
I agree with this 100%. Established norms ought to make it taboo for a transwoman with broad shoulders and body hair from entering a woman’s room. However, my liberal sensibility tells me that these norms should not be codified into law. The government cannot be trusted with this sort of power. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 6, 2016 9:30 PM
Comment #404581
The government cannot be trusted with this sort of power.

Precisely. You hit the nail on the head. Too bad you’re about one-hundred years too late in seeing it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 6, 2016 10:24 PM
Comment #404582

Huh, you are the one here advocating putting the government in charge of who can use which facility. I have consistently said that it should be up to the individual to determine what to use.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 6, 2016 11:23 PM
Comment #404586

I actually compared this entire conversation to a cartoon. I thought it was stupid. I’m glad you’ve finally come around.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 7, 2016 7:41 AM
Comment #404589

My opinion remains unchanged from the onset of this thread. Government has no business telling people which restroom they should use. That decision is up to the individual and the individual alone.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 7, 2016 1:57 PM
Comment #404596

It’s actually up to the person who owns the restroom.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 7, 2016 11:34 PM
Comment #404597

SCOTUS opinion in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States states otherwise.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 8, 2016 9:44 AM
Comment #404600

Again, we’re not talking about race.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 8, 2016 4:37 PM
Comment #404601

Can a business owner have only a women’s bathroom?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 8, 2016 4:39 PM
Comment #404602

Any individual has the right to use any bathroom in a public accommodation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 8, 2016 5:18 PM
Comment #404603

You still haven’t distinguished between race and $ex. You say race is genetically inherent, but the same can also be said of $ex. The question as to whether transgederism is natural or the result of mental disorder is immaterial.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 8, 2016 5:23 PM
Comment #404604

Your faux right to a bathroom is false. I know many businesses with signs stating there are no public restrooms, even when they do have restrooms. Could they be arrested for letting their friend use it on occasion?

I know for an absolute fact that when children are born they have no idea what gender they are, even what a gender is. As they get older they learn about the birds and the bees and things are different. Nobody is born gay, or straight. It’s learned. How you learn about it should be the focus, but without standards and norms it’s difficult to focus.


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 8, 2016 6:06 PM
Comment #404605
Your faux right to a bathroom is false.

Did I say right to a bathroom? No, I didn’t. I did say right to equal access to restrooms in public accommodation. If the public accommodation chooses not to provide a restroom, equal access is not abrogated because all members of the public are denied equally.

I know for an absolute fact that when children are born they have no idea what gender they are, even what a gender is. As they get older they learn about the birds and the bees and things are different. Nobody is born gay, or straight. It’s learned. How you learn about it should be the focus, but without standards and norms it’s difficult to focus.
Our opinions on what is natural and what is learned are immaterial to the matter. I really do not know if sexual orientation or gender identity are fixed at one’s birth, but I would not accept the late expression of these as evidence. It would not be a far stretch to hypothesize that hormones play a critical role here. Hormonal levels can be predetermined by genetics at birth yet they may not be expressed until puberty. Of course, with epigenetics and all, environmental factors might play a role too. Still, I really cannot claim to know anything and neither can you. Besides, as I said above, it really doesn’t matter if gender is a choice or if it is fixed. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 8, 2016 7:01 PM
Comment #404608

So…

How are Democratics going to muck up the works next time, Warren Porter?

Do people who think they’re Superman have a “right” to change their cloths in a phone booth?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 9, 2016 8:37 AM
Comment #404609

No, but they do have the right to use the payphone inside.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 9, 2016 9:16 AM
Comment #404613

You’re saying they have a “right” to think they are Superman?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 9, 2016 2:09 PM
Comment #404614

I wouldn’t criminalize someone just because they thought something, nor would I deny them their unalienable rights.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 9, 2016 4:28 PM
Post a comment