Quote:The fight for HERO began last year in May, when a law was first established by the Houston City Council, effectively banning discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and city services based on race, religion, age, disability, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity and other characteristics.

Conservative groups, mainly led by religious leaders, launched an effort to force a repeal of the law, mainly through emotional ads under the slogan "No Men in Women's Bathrooms," suggesting that allowing transgender people to use the sex-specific bathroom reflecting their gender identity would allow sexual predators to camp out in women’s restrooms.

This past July, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the city to either repeal the law or place it on the ballot.

Anti-HERO activist Jared Woodfill said this is Houstonians’ "no" to men in women's bathrooms, Houston Public Media reported.

"This is what the mayor was afraid of," Woodfill said of the ballot referendum. "This is why she tried so hard to keep it from the people, because she knew if the people had an opportunity to exercise their voice on this through their vote, they would overwhelmingly reject it."

(11-05-2015, 02:44 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: AWESOME.  The LOL spammer is back.  LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

LEARN TO USE YOUR big boy words

(11-05-2015, 03:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it seems the people who opposed the law *kinda* lied about it to stir up "no" votes.





But hey, "something...something...shenanigans" might happen.  Right?

(11-05-2015, 07:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That commercial exactly spelled out what could happen. Not sure why it surprises anyone that people are more concerned for women's safety and whether are comfortable or not.... Over a man.

(11-05-2015, 07:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except there is zero evidence of this being an issue in cities that have laws like this.

(11-05-2015, 07:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is always a first and I am quite sure there is something out there ... Took me 5 mins a while back to find the one in San Diego .

Plus this whole issue is about safety and being comfortable where you are most at risk.

Glad you think this is a world where no one exploits another .... Or exploits a situation.

(11-05-2015, 07:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just don't support fear mongering with no evidence to back it up.

(11-05-2015, 07:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just don't support fear mongering with no evidence to back it up.

(11-05-2015, 07:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That commercial exactly spelled out what could happen.    Not sure why it surprises anyone that people are more concerned for women's safety and whether are comfortable or not.... Over a man.

(11-05-2015, 08:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Look up Jessica and women's shelters.

(11-05-2015, 08:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Look up Jessica and women's shelters.

Quote:[url=http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/15/a-sex-predators-sick-deception]From the Toronto Sun:


TORONTO – A convicted sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters could be declared a dangerous offender this month.

Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — has attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.
Justice John McMahon will decide Feb. 26 whether to declare Hambrook a dangerous offender, which carries an indefinite prison sentence.

The prosecution is asserting Hambrook, a former stripper and escort from Quebec, simply cannot control his deviant sexual urges and that locking him up indefinitely is the best way to protect the public.

Hambrook, 37, pleaded guilty in February 2013 to two counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment involving two women — a deaf and homeless Quebec woman and a Toronto survivor of domestic violence — while he was living at a Dundas St. W. shelter and the Fred Victor women’s shelter in January and February 2012.

All of the victims’ names are covered by a publication ban.

(11-05-2015, 09:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/christopher-jessica-hambrook-serial-rapist-sexually-assaulted-and-terrorized-women-after-being-placed-in-toronto-area-womens-shelters/

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/15/a-sex-predators-sick-deception][/url]

I did.  And?

(11-05-2015, 08:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I don't support unsafe conditions for women and children.  no little girl should be subjected to watching some dude dressed up as a woman whip out his hog and use the restroom like her father and brother.  

There can be mental issues for young children and causing confusion .

Besides do you think women want to deal with their toilet seats being pee'd on....

(11-05-2015, 09:39 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Seems really inconvenient and unfair for a transgender to have to go from a stall in the girl's room to a stall in the boy's room.  Psychologically traumatic.

(11-05-2015, 09:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is the part of the debate I can't grasp. "Shouldn't matter who uses what as there is privacy".

If that is so, then what is wrong with having someone use the facility that is prescribed for their body parts.

What does a trans-gender female do when it is that time of month and the only needed toiletries are in the female bathroom?