Haters and Latter-Day Jim Crowers

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Mr. Deez, Nov 5, 2015.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    This is the sort of thing that keeps me on the Right. You can't have conscientiously opposed Houston's Proposition 1 on the merits. If you voted "No," then you must simply be a "hater" or at best, "ignorant." These Left-wing nuts mock the argument that's centered around not wanting men in the women's bathroom, while spouting a mess of ********. I'm generally pretty calm, but this issue is so blatantly absurd that it's hard for me not to draw the line.

    First, the ordinance absolutely would have authorized criminal action against those who wanted to keep men (or what we used to call "men") out of the women's bathroom. The argument was raised, because it was truthful. I know East Coat elites and bedwetters like to roll their eyes and scoff when opponents of this sort of thing raise the question of how we're supposed to know the "gender identity" of the person's entering the bathroom, but they never have an answer beyond the smugness and eye-rolling. If a person with a penis (since we can't call that a man anymore) enters the women's room, how do the persons with vaginas (formerly known as "women") inside know that the person with a penis who has entered the restroom is really a "woman" and therefore not a threat to them in spite of his/her anatomy and appearance? Furthermore, if the person with a penis is denied entry and files a criminal complaint, how does the prosecution carry its burden of proof and show that the person with a penis was actually woman and therefore discriminated against? And yes, questions like that should be asked. We're talking about enacting a law that's going to have real consequences in the courtroom and on the rights of individuals on both sides.

    Of course, it would also have subjected the cake bakers and caterers to criminal action if they didn't want to do business with the gay weddings. I know the Left is wholly unsympathetic to that issue, but they should respect the opinions of those who don't want that can of worms opened.

    Just to be clear, I do NOT equate the trans issue with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They are often lumped together but actually have very little in common. I could much sooner go along with an ordinance that protected gays from discrimination over this goofy trans nonsense.

    Second, the pro-Prop 1 people frequently bring up as a merit of the ordinance that it applies to protected classes beyond the transgender community. ******** argument, because with respect to those classes, the ordinance was almost entirely superfluous with other laws. Federal laws exist to protect those classes. However, if you don't want the hassle and expense of litigating in federal court, Texas has anti-discrimination laws of its own, so victims of discrimination can opt for the easier and less costly state court option. They don't need this stupid ordinance to seek justice. That whole angle was a ruse. The ordinance was about the LGBT issue and nothing else, and the advocates added other classes in order to obfuscate what they were actually trying to do.

    On most of the elections that happened this week, I was largely indifferent. I don't care about the GOP winning in Kentucky. I did kinda like seeing Terry McAulliffe not getting a majority in the Virginia Senate, because he's a worthless politician. However, I certainly did want to see this Prop. 1 garbage get voted down and see the Mayor of Houston discredited for her disgusting and abusive actions on this issue. Well done, Houstonians. If we do need a new criminal ordinance, it should be directed at mayors who use their power to crap on the constitutional rights of pastors who had the audacity to oppose their agenda.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I don't know enough about the Houston ordinance to comment. I do have issues with Transgender people using the opposite bathroom since I believe it infringes on the rights of the opposite gender's privacy which should be an expectation everyone has in a public bathroom.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. chango

    chango 2,500+ Posts

    So you're tellin us there's a chance? ;)
     
  4. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    It's a truly bizarre argument and one that seems completely inconsistent.

    Women should not keep a man who identifies as a woman from visiting the ladies' room because gender is fluid and not bound by biology. You shouldn't feel threatened by someone being in there with you just because he/she has a penis.

    Men who identify with women should not be forced to use the men's room, because they are actually women, and do not belong in the men's room, and it would be wrong to subject them to having to share that space with men. They should be able to go to the ladies' room where the other ladies go.

    So does gender matter or not?
     
  5. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    I said it before and I'll say it again.

    If you have 2 X chromosomes, you pee over there.
    If you have one X and one Y chromosome, you pee over here.

    It really is that simple.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. chango

    chango 2,500+ Posts

    .... nah ...
     
  7. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Of course there's a chance. Though I consider myself a social conservative (pro-life, etc.), I do understand that politicians who push those issues are usually using them as a diversion to avoid discussing more difficult issues. Furthermore, I try to stay rational and to keep those issues in perspective and understand that they're of limited importance when it comes to real governance for most offices. Accordingly, if a Democrat is at least indifferent on social issues, I will listen to him and consider voting for him. I frequently vote Democratic at the state level. In fact, I haven't voted for a GOP gubernatorial candidate since 2002 and actively support Democrats for judicial races. In short, I'm sorta the reverse of SH.

    However this kind of stick-it-in-your-face nonsense is a colossal turn-off, especially when it's coupled with a smug arrogance and sanctimoniousness when someone has the gall to ask practical questions about how it would work in practice.
     
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

  10. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    Or, what if a man is charged with entering a woman's bathroom with illicit intentions? Can he defend on the ground that he has gender conflict and was experimenting with how it felt to be a woman? What would the burden of proof be?

    I sympathize with those experiencing genuine gender conflict. We should make reasonable accommodations, and I would support a law that adds transgender to the list of protected classes for discrimination purposes -- so long as the list of rights is carefully circumscribed. But when the accommodations infringe too much on others' rights, as is the case with the Houston ballot proposal, it is too much.
     
  11. Horns11

    Horns11 10,000+ Posts

    I'll start by saying I'm all in favor of the "family" style of restrooms as a third option, but fully recognize that many places (schools) don't have the cash lying around or gumption to create third restrooms in different locations.

    But your premise implies that anyone who walks in to any restroom with a penis is a threat to the others in the restroom (presumably without penises). Is it because of the idea that men harm women in vulnerable locations? Or that people in various states of undress behind stall doors don't like the idea of others who may or may not be sexually attracted to them looking through the cracks? Or a combination?

    I think anyone who walks into any restroom in any sort of company feels "weird" about sharing poop space with anyone, regardless of gender identity. Ally McBeal (with their gender-neutral work space restroom) had an entire episode about this 15 years ago. I don't think the threat of privacy violations or physical harm are any different in the status quo. If a dude pretending to have female gender identity walked in and looked at a girl pooping through the crack, that's no different than a lesbian walking into the same space and looking through the crack. Or, heaven forbid, if that same guy pretending to be female walked in and assaulted someone, that's still the same thing that could happen today. Regardless of whether he was "allowed" to use the restroom.
     
  12. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I agree.

    Not at all. In fact, probably 95 percent of all people with penises could walk into the women's bathroom, do their business, and leave without incident. The physical threat issue is one of multiple reasons, but why take that gamble if you don't have to?

    It's a combination of factors that should be common sense to most people, which is why we started segregating bathrooms in the first place. First, yes, women who are in the bathroom are vulnerable to physical attack. That's a real thing. Second, they don't want to get leered at while they're peeing or taking a dump. Third, and I know this is becoming something modern culture scoffs at, most women are relatively modest. They don't want to pull their pants down, adjust their bras, change tampons, and perform appearance-related acts like fixing their hair, makeup, etc. with guys around. That's not unreasonable. It's normal.

    And at the risk of being gross and crude, men also have concerns about modesty. Personally, if some chick inadvertently or even intentionally saw my junk in the bathroom, I wouldn't care. However, suppose you're on a date with a girl, and you have to take a crap. Don't you want to be reasonably confident that she isn't going to walk in and hear, see, or smell you? Likewise, do you want to hear, see, or smell her? I don't.

    You are correct. Lesbians could leer at women in the bathroom, and dudes could still hide in women's bathrooms and attack them. The system's not perfect. However, I don't think women feel as threatened by lesbians for two reasons. First, lesbians are still women and aren't wired the same way as men are. Second, the physical disparity isn't as big of an issue. Your average man can physically dominate your average woman. Women know that, so naturally, they fear us and are physically intimidated by us more. Let's be real. Most of us don't rape women for moral, legal, and personal choice reasons, not because we physically can't.

    Like I said, the system's not perfect. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it makes the most sense to draw it based on objective criteria that everyone can easily understand and determine.
     
  13. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    And the single most objective, non-biased criteria out there is based on genetics.
    XX here, XY there.
    A free for all option is perfectly acceptable too as long as it is clearly marked as such and is not the ONLY option provided.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    I had a discussion last night about this with my 8th-grade daughter, curious about what she would say. Her responses were quite surprising to me.
    • For bathrooms, she was unconcerned. She never poops in a public bathroom because she is embarrassed by the presence of others, male, female, or in between. When she is peeing, she doesn't care who is in the room so long as she is behind a locked door. She would be okay if there was just one bathroom, shared by everyone.
    • For locker rooms, she was concerned -- but her concern was very different from what I expected. She was okay with changing in front of a male-born, trans female who not only identified as female but looked female (as most do). Her hesitation was changing in front of female-born, trans guys who look like guys. She said they should be changing in the guys room because their presence makes her uncomfortable.
    I don't know yet what to make of this, but thought I'd share it.
     
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Interesting anecdote, and with time, more people may agree with her. And for the record, I don't think anybody likes pooping in public bathrooms.
     
  16. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    I'm still not understanding why a woman should be expected to "get over" her discomfort about sharing intimate space with a biological man, but a biological man who identifies as a woman shouldn't be expected to share the same intimate space as men.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    In the PC hierarchy, a woman is a lower priority than a trans-anything. Basically, only a white, male, heterosexual man is beneath a woman.
     
  18. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    I'd be curious to know how teenagers already agree with her. Is this change going to happen as quickly as the gay-marriage change? Buckle your seat belt!
     
  19. Roger

    Roger 1,000+ Posts

    I'd be curious to wonder what a 15 year old girl would think of a young lady who was born a male and still has a penis changing in the locker room? If they are showering is the young lady able to keep her penis tucked so that no one notices? I know with the hormone therapy the likelihood of anything other than a flacid penis is remote.

    I'm a father of all boys and the oldest is 15 and he barely will even change clothes in the locker room as it is, yet alone take a shower. He looked at me like I was crazy when I asked what he would think if one of the boys in his class was born a girl and in the locker room. Of course he just assumed they would change in a private bathroom and no one would know. However the cases against schools have shown that not to be the case.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Most know that the gays have been going after the Boys Scouts for 20 years. Apparently now girls (not necessarily transgender) are coming after them too.
     
  21. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    This is the TRUTH.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    I wonder since Gay Marriage lost in 2008 to a public vote, why is it not put up for a public vote? Just curious since so many people have changed their mind in 7 years....not to mention you would think California would have voted it in almost uncontested......hmmmm
     
  23. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Why put it up for a vote when the Supreme Court can just pretend it's in the Constitution and force it on everybody?
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page