Transgender Bathroom/Locker Room Question

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2016, 06:43 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote:  Sorry bub but that is a slippery slope.

And a slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-25-2016, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No irony.  They are defining "sex" as the "sex" they identify as.

That's part of the problem, "sex" can not be redefined, it is what it is, not what an individual thinks that it is or wants it to be.

Gender roles can be redefined, but that only makes you a masculine or feminine male/female, in the end, you are still either a Male or a Female, until you have a surgery that changes that.

[Benton]

(04-24-2016, 11:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the state responded to a law passed by a city.

It appears you are not a fan of "big guvermint", how far down do you think laws should be enacted without repercussions? 

Depends on the issue. Wages (which is the driving motivator behind the state law, the bathroom issue was a misdirection) should be more local. In Kentucky, someone working in Possum Trot and someone working in Louisville have a very different cost of living. It's not unrealistic for a larger city like that to have a higher minimum wage, but it is for more rural parts.

Civil rights issues, that should be pretty high up the line. Unless it's a local issue that needs more definition that what state or federal laws cover. I can't say if the bathroom issue was one Charlotte was experiencing.

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2016, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If I identify as African American, should I have access to the additional Educational benefits afforded the community and if not, aren't you discriminating against me based on my race?

This is a very complicated question.  I'll try to make my answer as brief as possible. 

The educational benefits afforded African Americans is above and beyond what is afforded to white people.  That is different from just asking to be treated equally.  The benefits accorded to African Americans are intended to level the playing field for an entire race of people, whereas the issue of transgenders being allowed to use the restroom of choice is about an individual right.

On the other hand if a white person who identified as a black person was denied a job based on race then I think that person would have a case for damages based on discrimination.

The difference is between "individual rights to be treated equally" and "special benefits for a specific class".  I don't think a white person identifying as a black person should be entitled to special benefits, but at the same time that person should be protected against discrimination based on race.

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2016, 06:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That's part of the problem, "sex" can not be redefined, it is what it is, not what an individual thinks that it is or wants it to be.

Gender roles can be redefined, but that only makes you a masculine or feminine male/female, in the end, you are still either a Male or a Female, until you have a surgery that changes that.

Exactly.

And the question is "Should bathroom access be based on 'sex' or 'gender identification'?".  That is what people are fighting over.

If we let the fear mongers make laws based on the chance of someone seeing your wiener then next they will be banning homosexuals men from mens' public restrooms and calling it a "religious freedom" issue.

[*Nately120*]

(04-25-2016, 06:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you have no issues with a mentally handicapped person exercising their Second Amendment Rights? 

Just because you don't let folks do everything they want to do; doesn't mean you are discriminating them. The ironic thin with this is folks saying they are being discriminated based on sex; when they, themselves are denying their sex. 

Show me in the Constitution where it says retards have no rights.

DROPS MIC

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-25-2016, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.

And the question is "Should bathroom access be based on 'sex' or 'gender identification'?".  That is what people are fighting over.

If we let the fear mongers make laws based on the chance of someone seeing your wiener then next they will be banning homosexuals men from mens' public restrooms and calling it a "religious freedom" issue.

Having GID is a YOU issue, when you make it a ME issue, I will keep it simple and tell you it's a Sex issue, not a Gender issue.

It's been so long now since I've actually seen the NC law, but was it written specifically with citing religion as the reason for this? Or was religion nothing more than a reference by the Lawmaker or by those that oppose it to garner support against it?

[*bfine32*]

(04-25-2016, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a very complicated question.  I'll try to make my answer as brief as possible. 

The educational benefits afforded African Americans is above and beyond what is afforded to white people.  That is different from just asking to be treated equally.  The benefits accorded to African Americans are intended to level the playing field for an entire race of people, whereas the issue of transgenders being allowed to use the restroom of choice is about an individual right.

On the other hand if a white person who identified as a black person was denied a job based on race then I think that person would have a case for damages based on discrimination.

The difference is between "individual rights to be treated equally" and "special benefits for a specific class".  I don't think a white person identifying as a black person should be entitled to special benefits, but at the same time that person should be protected against discrimination based on race.

But if I identify with that race shouldn't I be entitled to all the rights of that race of people or are you saying because of my physical make up I am not entitled?

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2016, 07:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Having GID is a YOU issue, when you make it a ME issue, I will keep it simple and tell you it's a Sex issue, not a Gender issue.

Then you have no reason to oppose a law that has no effect on which bathroom you use, correct?

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2016, 07:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But if I identify with that race shouldn't I be entitled to all the rights of that race of people or are you saying because of my physical make up I am not entitled?

No.

Laws intended to benefit a race should only go to people of that race.

But laws to protect individual rights should apply to any individual that identifies with that race.

They are two totally different type of laws with different purposes.  One is a benefit.  The other is just about equality for all individuals.

[*bfine32*]

(04-25-2016, 08:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.

Laws intended to benefit a race should only go to people of that race.

But laws to protect individual rights should apply to any individual that identifies with that race.

They are two totally different type of laws with different purposes.  One is a benefit.  The other is just about equality for all individuals.

So you're saying that a transwoman shouldn't be able to file a sexual discrimination suit claiming she was passed over for promotion because she is a woman? Because sexual discrimination laws are put in to benefit a whole sex of people

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2016, 08:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're saying that a transwoman shouldn't be able to file a sexual discrimination suit claiming she was passed over for promotion because she is a woman? Because sexual discrimination laws are put in to benefit a whole sex of people

No they are not.  They are put in place to ensure equality of individual rights.

There is nothing about sexual discrimination laws that give a benefit above and beyond the rights everyone else has.  They are about "equality".  They are not a benefit above "equality".


But there is a lot more to the issue of racial identity as opposed to gender identity.  As far as I know there is no recognized "racial identity disorder"  So this entire discussion is really just a red herring thrown out to deflect conversation away from the real subject of this discussion.

[Bengalzona]

[*bfine32*]

(04-25-2016, 08:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they are not.  They are put in place to ensure equality of individual rights.

There is nothing about sexual discrimination laws that give a benefit above and beyond the rights everyone else has.  They are about "equality".  They are not a benefit above "equality".


But there is a lot more to the issue of racial identity as opposed to gender identity.  As far as I know there is no recognized "racial identity disorder"  So this entire discussion is really just a red herring thrown out to deflect conversation away from the real subject of this discussion.

I guess you are right; we have to draw the line some where. Racial identity most likely isn't as prevalent as the less than 3 in 1000 people than identify as Gender confused, but we probably shouldn't just dismiss them. Doesn't that NAACP exec from Washington suffer from Racial Identity? Should we just discriminate against her because she was born a race that she does not identify with?   

[*bfine32*]

(04-25-2016, 10:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:

I've also been sharing the road with drunk drivers. So....

[*Nately120*]

(04-25-2016, 11:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've also been sharing the road with drunk drivers. So....

So SURELY you have the same amount of statistical evidence that transgendered people are as life-threatening to innocent people as drunk drivers are...right?

[Rotobeast]

(04-25-2016, 08:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  As far as I know there is no recognized "racial identity disorder"

Which is why I wear my avatar, to raise awareness !

[Vas Deferens]

(04-25-2016, 11:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've also been sharing the road with drunk drivers. So....

Ahh. Let the stone casting begin. 

(04-26-2016, 12:15 AM)Nately120 Wrote: So SURELY you have the same amount of statistical evidence that transgendered people are as life-threatening to innocent people as drunk drivers are...right?

B b b b b b b b ingo 

[*bfine32*]

(04-26-2016, 12:15 AM)Nately120 Wrote: So SURELY you have the same amount of statistical evidence that transgendered people are as life-threatening to innocent people as drunk drivers are...right?

Assuming you missed the point. That being, that just because something happens that you are not cognoscente of doesn't mean we should make it legal.

Folks might be peeping in your windows at night; should we make it legal?  

[*bfine32*]

(04-26-2016, 12:32 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Ahh. Let the stone casting begin. 


B b b b b b b b ingo 

It is amazing that you can predict posts after they happen. It must be your Super Power; gots to be up there with flying