The "bathroom law" thread

[daveakl]

I think most people are OK with it. What most people don't want it some creep going into the women's locker room at the pool and starting to change while kids are in there and the people in charge basically saying it's his right to do so.

[Larry]

If we took a majority vote on abortion we would _______________.

If we took a majority vote on gay marriage, we would ________________.

 

But, at least to the politicians who pass the laws, it's not just about how many people vote a certain way, on a single question on a poll. 

 

They care a whole lot more about how people vote, at the ballot box. 

 

I think maybe the best example of this is "the gun show loophole".  (I really hate that term.  Because it's a terrible description of the problem.  But that's the label that the media has stuck us with.) 

 

The actual issue is that, right now, the law says that dealers have to run background checks on the purchaser, before selling a gun.  But, the law says that "private sellers" don't have to do that, only dealers. 

 

(I assume that it got labeled as "the gun show loophole", because lots of people at gun shows choose to claim that they're private sellers, and therefore are exempt from having to keep any records at all, no matter how many guns they might sell at their table, this weekend.) 

 

Well, one side of the gun debate wants to get rid of that exception, and require background checks on all sales, not just those who claim to be dealers.  One side opposes this. 

 

Public opinion polls say that getting rid of this exemption is overwhelmingly supported, in this country.  Here's a link to an article summarizing the results of one such poll.  Requiring background checks on all gun purchasers is supported by: 

 

83% of gun owners.

81% of Republican gun owners.

72% of NRA members

 

But, if a politician comes out in favor of a proposal to do that?  The number of voters who will switch their vote, and support him?  Is very small.  The number who will switch their vote, and oppose him is much larger. 

 

Politicians don't really care that much about people's opinions, unless those opinions are strong enough to cause people to change their vote.  So the result is that a small number of voters who will vote solely based on one issue, counts a whole lot more than a huge majority who may care about an issue, but it's not going to change their vote. 

[Major Harris]

Spot on larry.

[Springfield]

Please do come back to the thread and let us know, when it does.

Well as Dave pointed it, apparently it already has. Now I don't think that this is something that is widespread. My opinion is that the "fears" of the opponents to this law are misplaced. They are afraid of girls in the girls room. What they should really be fearful of is girls in the boys room, if they are going to be afraid of anything.

But then, why would they be afraid for girls in the boys room? That's what they get. (That is an entirely different comment that requires a new train of thought)

As to your last comment, Larry, about politicians... I think they are much less concerned about votes than they are about money, money needed to run a campaign to get votes. Basically, politicians are mostly just cash whores.

[tshile]

I think most people are OK with it. What most people don't want it some creep going into the women's locker room at the pool and starting to change while kids are in there and the people in charge basically saying it's his right to do so.

The school element is also a major concern. It's one thing to have this in the public restroom at the mall. It's another to have it in a school.

In addition to forcing kids to deal with something many parents either don't think is the school's place to bring up, or that they are too young for it just yet, (which from what I understand is more often a projection of the parents issues with the topic, than it is any actual evidence that children can't handle this or won't handle it well... I think studies show children handle this sort of social issue much better than their parents, but im not quite sure) you also have the issue of no adult supervision.

A parent might feel comfortable with the mall because they can accompany their child, or even just avoid the issue if they choose. There is no accompanying the child at school, there is no avoiding it (outside of homeschool/private school)

[Larry]

Possible idea has occurred to me.

To start with, a statement. I think that these bathroom laws, well, I'm not sure whether "goes way too far" or "pure evil" fits better.

But what I've seen about Obama's Decree says that maybe his heart's in the right place, but he absolutely doesn't have the right to unilaterally impose it. And it's at least debatable whether his policy goes too far, even if he had the authority.
 

But perhaps something that we can agree on. 

 

Larry's Proposal:  The decision as to which bathroom a person uses, should be made based on how said person is dressed. 

 

My reasoning is that making people chose based on their genitalia is wrong, because nobody in the bathroom is going to see the genitalia, anyway.  (Except maybe in the case of people with penises using a urinal, and if you see that, then you shouldn't have been looking there, anyway.)  And mandating that bathroom assignments be made based on DNA is taking it to even more ludicrous extremes. 

 

Whereas the people in the bathroom are going to see how Person X is dressed. 

 

I also like the notion of splitting the debate about bathrooms, off from the debate about locker rooms.  Also in the interest of finding something that people can agree on. 

[Zguy28]

Possible idea has occurred to me.

To start with, a statement. I think that these bathroom laws, well, I'm not sure whether "goes way too far" or "pure evil" fits better.

But what I've seen about Obama's Decree says that maybe his heart's in the right place, but he absolutely doesn't have the right to unilaterally impose it. And it's at least debatable whether his policy goes too far, even if he had the authority.

 

But perhaps something that we can agree on. 

 

Larry's Proposal:  The decision as to which bathroom a person uses, should be made based on how said person is dressed.

 

My reasoning is that making people chose based on their genitalia is wrong, because nobody in the bathroom is going to see the genitalia, anyway.  (Except maybe in the case of people with penises using a urinal, and if you see that, then you shouldn't have been looking there, anyway.)  And mandating that bathroom assignments be made based on DNA is taking it to even more ludicrous extremes. 

 

Whereas the people in the bathroom are going to see how Person X is dressed. 

 

I also like the notion of splitting the debate about bathrooms, off from the debate about locker rooms.  Also in the interest of finding something that people can agree on. 

How people dress changes over time. You can't define "this is how a woman dresses" anymore either, since this whole idea tossed that out the window and makes it impossible to define.

[Zguy28]

There's not even a mention of speaking with the kids parents. Just that if a child says they are something, all the adults have to nod their heads and question nothing.

I'm waiting for a kid to say "I identify as 21" when they are actually 15 due to age dysphoria. Then claim they can't charge them with underage drinking. In the last year we've already seen a woman put her eyes out with drain cleaner because she identified with being blind. Just nod and agree.

[Larry]

How people dress changes over time. You can't define "this is how a woman dresses" anymore either, since this whole idea tossed that out the window and makes it impossible to define.

 

Uh, not at all sure that I follow you.  Unless you're talking about "how a (person who was born genetically female) dresses". 

[twa]

communal restrooms, you have the sinks then the stalls for the squatters then urinals.

 

no showers except in your home, exposing yourself in public is already verboten. 

Uh, not at all sure that I follow you.  Unless you're talking about "how a (person who was born genetically female) dresses". 

 

so a male drag queen has to use the female restroom despite not identifying as female?....you insensitive beast

[Zguy28]

Uh, not at all sure that I follow you.  Unless you're talking about "how a (person who was born genetically female) dresses". 

A woman is "an adult human female." At least according to dictionaries.

 

How does a woman dress?

[Major Harris]

Isn't gender-typing part of the issue larry?

And i think your scenario causes the concerns others have about this issue way more valid.

[Larry]

Isn't gender-typing part of the issue larry?

Oh, I certainly think that if we could just eliminate all gender, then this problem goes away.

But to me, that's like saying we could solve racism by eliminating races. Might be a nice theory, but good luck with that.

Yeah, I suspect that just getting rid of all gender-specific things - bathrooms, locker rooms, clothes, behaviors - might be a nice utopia.  But I don't see it happening in reality any time soon. 

 

And i think your scenario causes the concerns others have about this issue way more valid.

I really don't get what you're saying, here.

[Major Harris]

Oh, I certainly think that if we could just eliminate all gender, then this problem goes away.

But to me, that's like saying we could solve racism by eliminating races. Might be a nice theory, but good luck with that.

Yeah, I suspect that just getting rid of all gender-specific things - bathrooms, locker rooms, clothes, behaviors - might be a nice utopia. But I don't see it happening in reality any time soon.

I really don't get what you're saying, here.

You'll have to bear in mind, i work with middle schoolers. I think if one could use the restroom that matches your clothes, kids would have a field day with it.

Also, does that mean you can wear a dress and use the women's room on Monday, and wear D1ckies and use the men's on tuesday?

[Zguy28]

You'll have to bear in mind, i work with middle schoolers. I think if one could use the restroom that matches your clothes, kids would have a field day with it.

Also, does that mean you can wear a dress and use the women's room on Monday, and wear D1ckies and use the men's on tuesday?

All the boys (I mean youth biological males who identify as boys and are straight...have to explain these days) would begin to claim its Scottish history month.

[Larry]

Not really "bathroom law" related.  But I think putting it here is batter than any other thread, or a new one. 

 

Kind of an interesting piece, from a rather unexpected source. (Given the political alignments involved.)

Baptist News Global: Seven things I’m learning about transgender persons

 

Most of it is things we've (or at least I've) already read.  (And I'm massively ignorant on the subject, myself, so that's saying something.)  But this one is new, to me: 

 

2. What you see is not always what you get. For the vast majority of humanity, the presence of male or female genitalia corresponds to whether a person is male or female. What you see is what you are. But for a small part of humanity (something less than 1 percent), the visible parts and the inner identity do not line up. For example, it is possible to be born with male genitalia but female chromosomes or vice versa. And now brain research has demonstrated that it also is possible to be born with female genitalia, female chromosomes but a male brain. Most of us hit the jackpot upon birth with all three factors lining up like cherries on a slot machine: Our anatomy, chromosomes and brain cells all correspond as either male or female. But some people are born with variations in one or two of these indicators.

 

 

 

Some of his other points, I'm not quite sure that he's made as well as I'd like.  Some of them, I've got a feeling that there's a huge gap between the scientific fact he's referencing, and his conclusions.  (And, like I said, I've never heard of this one I've quoted.) 

 

But still.  Thought it might be interesting. 

[tshile]

"Transgender persons are not pedophiles"

 

I'm so sick of stupid people.

[CBass1724]

 

Larry's Proposal:  The decision as to which bathroom a person uses, should be made based on how said person is dressed.

 

 

Here is a photo of Will Smith's son, Jaden, who is a male and identifies as a non-binary gender.

 

[Major Harris]

That just means they like to dress weird, right?

[Larry]

Here is a photo of Will Smith's son, Jaden, who is a male and identifies as a non-binary gender.

And therefore . . . ?

[Major Harris]

And therefore . . . ?

Which bathroom does (s)he use under Larry's Law?

At least i think that's the point.

[zoony]

Which bathroom does (s)he use under Larry's Law?

.

Bigot

[Major Harris]

Bigot

Funny, i was trying not to offend. Can't tell which direction is offensive anymore.

I don't identify as a bigot so i should be cool.

[Larry]

Which bathroom does (s)he use under Larry's Law?

1) Looks like a guy, to me.

2) And really? Your (his) point is "no matter what you do, somebody will try to break it. (Therefore, just outright criminalizing basic bodily functions, for a disliked minority, is the best solution)"?

[Major Harris]

1) Looks like a guy, to me.

2) And really? Your (his) point is "no matter what you do, somebody will try to break it. (Therefore, just outright criminalizing basic bodily functions, for a disliked minority, is the best solution)"?

Umm, you really do love putting words in people's mouths, especially for someone who gets mad at others for doing so.

Your proposal is people use the restroom according to how they are dressed. Now you say, well, he looks like a guy. If he had a blouse on would he look like a girl? Or did you just forget what your proposal was?

Only person that said anything remotely like what you said he (we) said was you.