• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trans Bathroom issue easily explained.

What behavior?
People have their sexual orientation and gender identity with or without behavior.

Yep. And until they keep it to themselves it is not behavior.
 
You have seriously wierd views... there is a reason 99.999% of the people walk around IN CLOTHES. The reason just escapes a few people like you and that is the irony. You want to force the vast majority of people to be uncomfortable in order to save a tiny minority from being uncomfortable. That is delusional hypocrisy at its core.

There are lots of reasons we walk around clothed. So that people don't think about sex really isn't one of them or at least not a reasonable one. Protection, warmth, hygiene, to draw attention, laws that mandate it, are but a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Arlen Specter, who finally acknowledged he was a Democrat at heart, had a lot to do with the getting of Judge Bork, which was a sort of warm-up by collectivist thugs for their attempt to lynch Clarence Thomas. Specter had the sort of third-rate mind that is typical of pseudo-liberals. He was just too damned dumb to understand the reasoning behind the views Bork had expressed in various writings. He reminds me of the shame of Syracuse Law School, the plagiarist and liar Joe "The Delaware Dunce" Biden. Neither of them was ever fit to have shined Robert Bork's shoes.

I'd be interested to know what Judge Bork would have said about laws designed to protected transgendered persons. I'm pretty sure he would have said this was entirely a matter of state law, with states free to give these persons lots of legal protection, flagrantly discriminate against them, or do anything in between those extremes, however the will of a majority in a state might dictate. It's for damn sure nothing in the Constitution of the U.S. prevents any state from discriminating against their conduct.

I don't like to use the term 'discrimination' when it comes to the transgendered issue though. I personally think the Constitution protects the transgendered in the right to be who and what they are as much as any other person. But I do think Bork would say that common sense should prevail. A state or community certainly has the right to say where smoking is disallowed for instance, but the Constitution gives the federal government no authority over something like that EXCEPT within federally owned buildings and institutions. The federal government and SCOTUS could rightfully step in and say that it would be unacceptable discrimination to say that transgendered people cannot use any public restroom just as it would rightfully be unacceptable to deny black people or any other minority that civil right. But based on long time settled law re sensible segregation of men and women in public restrooms, locker rooms, etc. he would certainly rule that any state, community, or local business should have the right to say that people born male use this, people born female use that, and leave it up their decision whether they will make all unisex or provide accommodations for transgendered people.
 
I don't like to use the term 'discrimination' when it comes to the transgendered issue though. I personally think the Constitution protects the transgendered in the right to be who and what they are as much as any other person. But I do think Bork would say that common sense should prevail. A state or community certainly has the right to say where smoking is disallowed for instance, but the Constitution gives the federal government no authority over something like that EXCEPT within federally owned buildings and institutions. The federal government and SCOTUS could rightfully step in and say that it would be unacceptable discrimination to say that transgendered people cannot use any public restroom just as it would rightfully be unacceptable to deny black people or any other minority that civil right. But based on long time settled law re sensible segregation of men and women in public restrooms, locker rooms, etc. he would certainly rule that any state, community, or local business should have the right to say that people born male use this, people born female use that, and leave it up their decision whether they will make all unisex or provide accommodations for transgendered people.

What constitutional authority do you think Congress could rely on to make a law prohibiting discrimination against transgendered persons in the use of public restrooms? I can't see any.

Under the standard the Supreme Court has established, a state or local law which discriminated against them would be unconstitutional if the sole reason for it was animosity--or "animus," to use the Court's term. The specific part of the Constitution involved is the Fourteenth Amendment, probably the Equal Protection Clause, although the Court has sometimes mingled the Due Process Clause into its analysis. A government action has to be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose, and obviously one that is based on nothing but sheer hostility toward a particular group doesn't meet that test.
 
What constitutional authority do you think Congress could rely on to make a law prohibiting discrimination against transgendered persons in the use of public restrooms? I can't see any.

Under the standard the Supreme Court has established, a state or local law which discriminated against them would be unconstitutional if the sole reason for it was animosity--or "animus," to use the Court's term. The specific part of the Constitution involved is the Fourteenth Amendment, probably the Equal Protection Clause, although the Court has sometimes mingled the Due Process Clause into its analysis. A government action has to be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose, and obviously one that is based on nothing but sheer hostility toward a particular group doesn't meet that test.

it is out of animosity and unequal treatment. That's the entire motive and result in north carolina, and that is argued at length in the ACLU lawsuit which is being tried now. I just wish that politicians who pass unconstitutional laws were automatically removed from office. That would put a stop to this nonsense
 
Naw. You pay for it. I am not interested in this particular frivolity.

lol get outta here, you're the one who wants to mandate that the current bathrooms are off limits so YOU pay for it
 
Proponents of various forms of sexual deviance tend to subscribe to a view Robert Bork called "radical individualism." That is, they elevate the imagined rights of the smallest group--even of a single individual in some cases--over the legitimate rights of thousands or even millions. They want to misuse government to force the vast majority that is not like them to accommodate their strident demands. That is why I see them as undemocratic people with a totalitarian bent, and why I believe they should be confronted.

if democracy means needlessly ****ting on minorities, you're damn right, except swap out "legitimate rights" for "irrational hatreds"
 
Are you aware that there are men who claim a trans identity - transvestites or cross dressers - who are heterosexual males, maybe long-time married with children, whose primary sexual gratification is geared toward seeing themselves as women? They may present as men and hold down regular jobs as men, and confine themselves to dressing up in women's underwear and other garments at home. Fine and dandy. But how about when they go out?

According to you, when they go out on the town or to special events 'en femme', they deserve some right to use the women's bathroom?

Umm, no

The laws being discussed would allow transgendered people to use the bathrooms for the gender they identify with. These laws do not apply to transvestites as their identified gender is the same as their biological sex. Transvestites don't identify as the opposite sex; they merely like to dress up and pretend they are of the opposite sex
 
because it's unreasonable to cater to prejudice. She can change her attitude a hell of a lot easier than anyone can change their gender identity

And he can use the bathroom he was born to use. It has nothing to do with prejudice. Men in dresses don't belong in women's bathrooms.
 
lol get outta here, you're the one who wants to mandate that the current bathrooms are off limits so YOU pay for it

Nope. I was only trying to be helpful by pointing out how many different toilet facilities we will need to be politically correct.
 
if democracy means needlessly ****ting on minorities, you're damn right, except swap out "legitimate rights" for "irrational hatreds"

Ummm...what rights are we talking about here?
 
And he can use the bathroom he was born to use. It has nothing to do with prejudice. Men in dresses don't belong in women's bathrooms.

well then you should oppose the north carolina law, because it forces "men" in dresses who have undergone sex changes to do exactly that!
 
What constitutional authority do you think Congress could rely on to make a law prohibiting discrimination against transgendered persons in the use of public restrooms? I can't see any.

Under the standard the Supreme Court has established, a state or local law which discriminated against them would be unconstitutional if the sole reason for it was animosity--or "animus," to use the Court's term. The specific part of the Constitution involved is the Fourteenth Amendment, probably the Equal Protection Clause, although the Court has sometimes mingled the Due Process Clause into its analysis. A government action has to be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose, and obviously one that is based on nothing but sheer hostility toward a particular group doesn't meet that test.

The Equal Protection Clause is so misused and abused that I wish it had never been passed. It has done more damage to the original concept of the Constitution as any other. I am 100% convinced the framers of that amendment never ever thought the court would interpret it as it has done. And Congress may or may not pass a law re transgenders but I do see the worst application of what constitutes 'discrimination' from a left leaning SCOTUS. All those on the left will almost certainly see it as our left leaning friends on message boards see it--no different than discrimination against black people and other such stupidity.
 
The same 'right' that the tranny has to go into a woman's bathroom. I mean, if it isn't about being conformable, then what IS it about?

So you can't answer for the statement that you made? got it. When you figure it out please let us know what right you are referring too because I never heard of it. Thanks
 
Originally Posted by Jane

Are you aware that there are men who claim a trans identity - transvestites or cross dressers - who are heterosexual males, maybe long-time married with children, whose primary sexual gratification is geared toward seeing themselves as women? They may present as men and hold down regular jobs as men, and confine themselves to dressing up in women's underwear and other garments at home. Fine and dandy. But how about when they go out?

According to you, when they go out on the town or to special events 'en femme', they deserve some right to use the women's bathroom?

Umm, no

The laws being discussed would allow transgendered people to use the bathrooms for the gender they identify with. These laws do not apply to transvestites as their identified gender is the same as their biological sex. Transvestites don't identify as the opposite sex; they merely like to dress up and pretend they are of the opposite sex

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are. Well, I could, but for now, I won't. I think you need to educate yourself.

1.) Could you point to what specific laws are being discussed in this thread? I do have some shouters on Ignore, so I can't swear that I haven't missed some mention, but I'm pretty sure no gender protection law from any political jurisdiction in the U.S. was specifically referenced, much less discussed, as you claim.

2.) Which law can you name - any one in the U.S. will do - which protects "transgendered people" as you put it? You may be sure if that term is used, it will have to be defined in the legislation.

3.) While we're at it, can you point to some law written specifically and solely to grant bathroom choice to transgendered individuals? I don't think that is how protection for classes of people works.

The above should get you started. Pay particular attention to references to gender identity or gender expression, then - and this is big, too - note how often you'll find words like "actual or perceived" or similar. Are you beginning to catch on yet?
 
Last edited:
People keep confusing the issue here. Bathrooms are segregated by sex. I mean, I would say male/female but that has been obfuscated recently by the recent fabrication of gender as a separate thing. Your mental feelings don't make you the opposite sex of what you are so the video definitely falls flat. That aside, the delivery wasn't appropriate for children to watch, not that that was honestly the intent of the video, as that was obviously just to tell people how stupid they are.

The reality is, there is no such thing as transgender. There could be what is called transsexual but gender is a social construct. You don't trans a social construct.
 
I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are. Well, I could, but for now, I won't. I think you need to educate yourself.

No, you can't tell me, and you won't even try
1.) Could you point to what specific laws are being discussed in this thread? I do have some shouters on Ignore, so I can't swear that I haven't missed some mention, but I'm pretty sure no gender protection law from any political jurisdiction in the U.S. was specifically referenced, much less discussed, as you claim.

All of the laws which allow transgenders to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity

2.) Which law can you name - any one in the U.S. will do - which protects "transgendered people" as you put it? You may be sure if that term is used, it will have to be defined in the legislation.

Umm, you are wrong for thinking that "law" means "legislation". Court decisions and regulatory agencies finding are as much "law" as any legislation

ANd you can be sure that legislation need not define the term "transgender". Can you identify any law which requires the law to define the term?


3.) While we're at it, can you point to some law written specifically and solely to grant bathroom choice to transgendered individuals? I don't think that is how protection for classes of people works.

You once again make the mistake of equating "law" with "legislation"

The above should get you started. Pay particular attention to references to gender identity or gender expression, then - and this is big, too - note how often you'll find words like "actual or perceived" or similar. Are you beginning to catch on yet?

What references to gender identity and gender expression are you referring to?
 
Hey kids! Are you butch, femme, a cross-dresser, or my favorite: gender gifted?:2razz: Then next time you're in New York City, you won't have to wear a wig or tuck your tackle. You can rest easy 'cause your rest room choice is entirely up to you! Print this gender card out and stick it in your pocket, or purse. It's all explained at the link.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GenderID_Card2015.pdf
 
No, you can't tell me, and you won't even try


All of the laws which allow transgenders to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity



Umm, you are wrong for thinking that "law" means "legislation". Court decisions and regulatory agencies finding are as much "law" as any legislation

ANd you can be sure that legislation need not define the term "transgender". Can you identify any law which requires the law to define the term?




You once again make the mistake of equating "law" with "legislation"



What references to gender identity and gender expression are you referring to?

I'm losing patience with you now.

You indicate you reside in the state of New York. I suggest you pull up the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) §466.13, Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity. Pay particular attention to the definition of gender identity. Oh heck, I'll quote it:

"Gender identity means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth."

I couldn't resist bolding the part that indicates you're protected even if some schmo misperceives who/what you are. Anyway, read the whole regulation. Transvestites are most definitely covered. Hell, you're covered if you just look extra butch or effeminate.

No apology needed. You're welcome.
 
Let's play your game then. If there is no right to feel comfortable in a public restroom, then why bother with male/female designations in the first place? I'll tell you why...comfort. Just because a right isn't written down anywhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'll even put it another way. What gives a man pretending to be a woman the same access to a designated bathroom that a real woman has?
 

What is there not to understand? A while back there was a school that was informed that boy in their school was a transgender that would need accommodations made for them. One the decisions that was made to make these accommodations was to put the boy in a separate changing area away from the girls or boys, but as it turns out the family of the boy and the boy himself was not happy with this arrangement and demanded he be allowed in the girls locker room. This of course put the school in a tough spot because it was very likely the parents were going to sue and cause problems, so they did as they wished and allowed the boy in the girls locker room. When they did this the girls walked out of the school and started to protest his presence in their locker room. I don't know how it turned out, but I know the girls refused to go back into the school until their demands were meet. I imagine they were ignored like students usually are though.

All of the girls were protesting his presence and your position seems to state that non of their opinions are worth giving a **** about.
 
Last edited:
What is there not to understand? A while back there was a school that was informed that boy in their school was a transgender that would need accommodations made for them. One the decisions that was made to make these accommodations was to put the boy in a separate changing area away from the girls or boys, but as it turns out the family of the boy and the boy himself was not happy with this arrangement and demanded he be allowed in the girls locker room. This of course put the school in a tough spot because it was very likely the parents were going to sue and cause problems, so they did as they wished and allowed the boy in the girls locker room. When they did this the girls walked out of the school and started to protest his presence in their locker room. I don't know how it turned out, but I know the girls refused to go back into the school until their demands were meet. I imagine they were ignored like students usually are though.

All of the girls were protesting his presence and your position seems to state that non of their opinions are worth giving a **** about.

Of course. Girls should learn early and often that men always get their way. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom