Pop23
Gold Member
In my opinion many that support the idea that transsexuals should be allowed to use the restroom of the gender that they are transitioning to are using a twisted and dangerous logic.
These folks appear to think that , for example, a male transgender can be permitted into a woman's restroom and still prohibit non transgender males.
This is known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
They believe that transgendered should granted this right because the Trans Male is "similarly situated" to the Woman..
"similarly situated" is the legal concept that allowed Blacks all rights that Whites have and, curiously enough, to overturn Same Sex Marriage bans.
Where this gets dangerous is when the attempt is made to grant a right to one group and not all "similarly situated" groups.
Once a trans male is granted, as a group, access, other groups can claim they are similar to that group, and the second groups denial appears to becomes an illegal discrimination.
The argument to deny access to non transsexual males is that somehow a male with a penis is somehow different than a male with a penis?
If true, and it is found that one can be denied, even though physically the same, how can the USSC findings, overturning same sex marriage survive unchallenged?
Surely, if two males, both with a penis are determined to be so different that denying one access isn't illegal discrimination, how can one, with a straight face, say the State can't deny a Same Sex couple a marriage license when they are remarkably different by comparison to an opposite sex couple.
Looks to me that the LGBT should be supporting the North Carolina law which actually supports the concepts that brought down Same Sex Marriage bans.
Note, I make a distinction between pre-op and post-op transsexuals
These folks appear to think that , for example, a male transgender can be permitted into a woman's restroom and still prohibit non transgender males.
This is known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
They believe that transgendered should granted this right because the Trans Male is "similarly situated" to the Woman..
"similarly situated" is the legal concept that allowed Blacks all rights that Whites have and, curiously enough, to overturn Same Sex Marriage bans.
Where this gets dangerous is when the attempt is made to grant a right to one group and not all "similarly situated" groups.
Once a trans male is granted, as a group, access, other groups can claim they are similar to that group, and the second groups denial appears to becomes an illegal discrimination.
The argument to deny access to non transsexual males is that somehow a male with a penis is somehow different than a male with a penis?
If true, and it is found that one can be denied, even though physically the same, how can the USSC findings, overturning same sex marriage survive unchallenged?
Surely, if two males, both with a penis are determined to be so different that denying one access isn't illegal discrimination, how can one, with a straight face, say the State can't deny a Same Sex couple a marriage license when they are remarkably different by comparison to an opposite sex couple.
Looks to me that the LGBT should be supporting the North Carolina law which actually supports the concepts that brought down Same Sex Marriage bans.
Note, I make a distinction between pre-op and post-op transsexuals
