N.E. Brigand Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 That is their [American Medical Association] position request, but it is not current law at the moment (most states). Right, but I was responding to your post that referred not to the law but the standards of the AMA and APA. As for the rest of your post, which parallels Phantombari1's post, I think it's basically reasonable. Right now, it's not a very big deal if some people, in this case transgendered people, have to use a restroom where they feel uncomfortable about the gender of the people around them (i.e., "Despite my anatomy being male, my brain tells me I'm female, and I don't like having to share a restroom with men"). Twenty years from now, it won't be a very big deal if some people, in that case the ever-diminishing crowd who are squeamish about transgendered people, have to use a restroom where they feel uncomfortable because a few others are transgendered. Someday we'll probably all be using unisex Ally McBeal restrooms anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Holland Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 OK kids. NONE of this is about rape. It's about joe average white dude in a suit's fear and ignorance. There is no reason this needs to be a law. There is no reason to use women's "safety" to justify your own fears. Knock it off. Or at least get with the times and deal with it. I would have though people in this forum would be more open minded, but really, I guess there is ignorance and fear in all walks of life. I'm not a fan of liberal gak, but this link below states everything that needs to be said. http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2016-04-stop-using-womens-safety-justify-transphobia/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 Or at least get with the times and deal with it. Well, this law wouldn't have passed if a fair number of people didn't think that "the times" were less friendly to transgendered people than others would like. (Nice article, though. Excellent point about how difficult this law is to enforce.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 Someday we'll probably all be using unisex Ally McBeal restrooms anyway. Kinda like the facilities in a person's own home............. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 The washroom thing is a sideshow to the more real issue of allowable public discrimination, promoting animus. Seems the only way to really impact the message of this to some is to write local church groups near where the corps will be practicing and show them picture of the color guards and explain what is really being taught to the kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 (edited) Even better yet, before we all know it, it will be June and we won't have to have 20 pages of discussions and 6,000 views on DCP anymore as to who should use what toilets. That alone is worth celebrating with the Macarena! Edited April 15, 2016 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 Right, but I was responding to your post that referred not to the law but the standards of the AMA and APA. As for the rest of your post, which parallels Phantombari1's post, I think it's basically reasonable. Right now, it's not a very big deal if some people, in this case transgendered people, have to use a restroom where they feel uncomfortable about the gender of the people around them (i.e., "Despite my anatomy being male, my brain tells me I'm female, and I don't like having to share a restroom with men"). Twenty years from now, it won't be a very big deal if some people, in that case the ever-diminishing crowd who are squeamish about transgendered people, have to use a restroom where they feel uncomfortable because a few others are transgendered. Someday we'll probably all be using unisex Ally McBeal restrooms anyway. Put shorts , tee's an sport bras on them and it could a bathroom break after a sectional..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 (edited) There is no reason this needs to be a law. Perhaps... but on the current roster of bills to be heard, no less than 13 additional states Legislatures are about to consider adopting the similar bill that North Carolina just passed thru their Legislature's Chamber then was signed into law by the State's Governor. not all the 13 states are in the South either. Despite the prevailing sentiment, not just " old white dudes in suits and ties " voted this thru the North Carolina's State Legislature. North Carolina by the way is no backwoods, backwater, state. Its comprised of lots of in -migration transplants, particularly in the Asheville, Raleigh- Durham, High Tech Triangle areas, ( Duke, UNC ) and similar. It has a diverse population. My own personal view is that this should have initially been tested out in the state in referendum process, where the voters ( women voters naturally included, it this policy effects them more then Men ). Had this law come thru that political process, then that would have been far better in my view than thru this bill being pushed thru by the legislative process. Still however, If the majority of North Carolinians are not happy with their elected officials enacting this law, they do have the ability to vote out the ones that voted for this ( or of course, provide them reelection votes if they agree with their work ). North Carolinians also can ask the Courts to look at this new law , to determine if the Law is Constitutional too. So in short order, other states will have to decide if they want to adopt into law what North Carolina just did, or if North Carolina is a fish out of order, and few of the other 13 states follow suit here with a similar laws as this one just implemented. As mentioned before on here, if a dozen or more states adopt a similar law, its hard to see any more boycotts taking place in those 13 or more states by Bruce Springsteen. " The Boss " used to boycott cities that had Nuclear Power Plants. He was against any use of Nuclear Energy via Power Plants back in the 70's,, But he stopped his quest on that over time, as Nuclear Power Plants are no longer the cause celebre of the Radical Left anymore. There are virtually no more large gatherings of public protests about this issue. Springsteen would go broke if he boycotted all the regions of the US that have Nuclear Energy today as one of its sources of energy. And nobody believes that " The Boss " doesn't like to keep his millions intact. Time does march on, but what is protested as " bad " once ( Nuclear Energy for example ) today is accepted by the vast majority of people as " not bad " at all any longer, and of no need now for further histrionics from the radical Left on the issue. Edited April 15, 2016 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everyfan Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 Typical BS. The argument wasn't about Transgender but about Pedophiles pretending to be transgender. . So, maybe the law should have just prevented pedophiles from using the bathroom. That would have had the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 So, maybe the law should have just prevented pedophiles from using the bathroom. That would have had the same effect. And how would this be verified? Pedophile police? Index finger/eye scan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts