'Transgender' is NOT an actual gender, so the N.C. bill isn't discrimination based on gender

[iamwhatiseem]

And BTW - this is a FINE example of why progressives so desperately want to stack the deck on the Supreme Court...they want the court to start basing decisions on fairy tale ideals on what they want...rather than rule of law or factual basis.

 

[bucs90]

And BTW - this is a FINE example of why progressives so desperately want to stack the deck on the Supreme Court...they want the court to start basing decisions on fairy tale ideals on what they want...rather than rule of law or factual basis.

Oh absolutely.

THAT IS the key here. The Feds are gonna start filing all sorts of absurd lawsuits like this.

WHY?? Get the case on the docket now and go through 2 years of deliberation and depositions. Stack the courts next year.

Then....a 7-2 liberal court hears them.

Expect a flood of federal civil rights cases to be filed this year.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And BTW - this is a FINE example of why progressives so desperately want to stack the deck on the Supreme Court...they want the court to start basing decisions on fairy tale ideals on what they want...rather than rule of law or factual basis.

Oh absolutely.

THAT IS the key here. The Feds are gonna start filing all sorts of absurd lawsuits like this.

WHY?? Get the case on the docket now and go through 2 years of deliberation and depositions. Stack the courts next year.

Then....a 7-2 liberal court hears them.

Expect a flood of federal civil rights cases to be filed this year.

It will be a new day in America.
The highest court in the land will be deciding landmark decisions based solely on their personal opinions rather than legal basis.

 

[rcfieldz]

There are only two genders, male and female. So how can the feds say the bathroom law is discriminating based on gender? Doesn't matter if you're a dude wearing a dress and acting feminine, you are still MALE. Doesn't matter if you're a butch bull dyke with a short haircut and sporting clothing meant for men, you are still a female.

Thems the breaks, trannies.

That is not what federal law says, whether you like it or not.

Then clarify.

Does the federal law recognize 3 genders? Or just 2?

It's men, women...and confused. That's how it will always be.

You realize you only think the way you think because of chemistry, right?

It's genetics you dope. Transgenders are the result of evil doctors and crazy psycho docs.
With the media and porn industry thrown in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are only two genders, male and female. So how can the feds say the bathroom law is discriminating based on gender? Doesn't matter if you're a dude wearing a dress and acting feminine, you are still MALE. Doesn't matter if you're a butch bull dyke with a short haircut and sporting clothing meant for men, you are still a female.

Thems the breaks, trannies.

That is not what federal law says, whether you like it or not.

Then clarify.

Does the federal law recognize 3 genders? Or just 2?

It's men, women...and confused. That's how it will always be.

You realize you only think the way you think because of chemistry, right?

It's genetics you dope. Transgenders are the result of evil doctors and crazy psycho docs.

Genetics are chemistry.

 

[rcfieldz]

That is not what federal law says, whether you like it or not.

Then clarify.

Does the federal law recognize 3 genders? Or just 2?

It's men, women...and confused. That's how it will always be.

You realize you only think the way you think because of chemistry, right?

It's genetics you dope. Transgenders are the result of evil doctors and crazy psycho docs.

Genetics are chemistry.

You can still say stupid blanket statements but it shows your ignorance.

 

[bodecea]

Simple...

Then the question of whether a post-op gash they have to stick bags of sand into so it doesn't close up like every other wound qualifies as a vaginer will come up.

^ A wonderful example of a USMB Christer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then clarify.

Does the federal law recognize 3 genders? Or just 2?

It's men, women...and confused. That's how it will always be.

You realize you only think the way you think because of chemistry, right?

It's genetics you dope. Transgenders are the result of evil doctors and crazy psycho docs.

Genetics are chemistry.

You can still say stupid blanket statements but it shows your ignorance.

If you want to dispute that genetics are based on chemistry go ahead.

 

[rcfieldz]

It's men, women...and confused. That's how it will always be.

You realize you only think the way you think because of chemistry, right?

It's genetics you dope. Transgenders are the result of evil doctors and crazy psycho docs.

Genetics are chemistry.

You can still say stupid blanket statements but it shows your ignorance.

If you want to dispute that genetics are based on chemistry go ahead.

I just turned on my NYcarbineer filter. bye...

 

[Silhouette]

And BTW - this is a FINE example of why progressives so desperately want to stack the deck on the Supreme Court...they want the court to start basing decisions on fairy tale ideals on what they want...rather than rule of law or factual basis.

Oh absolutely....THAT IS the key here. The Feds are gonna start filing all sorts of absurd lawsuits like this...WHY?? Get the case on the docket now and go through 2 years of deliberation and depositions. Stack the courts next year....Then....a 7-2 liberal court hears them....Expect a flood of federal civil rights cases to be filed this year.

Well yeah. Both Trump and Hillary will appoint liberal Justices. So we're all screwed either way. The only way a total social cataclysm won't happen is if by some miracle Trump doesn't get the nomination and someone who polled consistently beating Hillary in the Fall on the GOP side gets the nomination instead. And no, Canadians who the same liberal Court will crucify this September in a rushed Order, don't count.

 

[hadit]

There are only two genders, male and female. So how can the feds say the bathroom law is discriminating based on gender? Doesn't matter if you're a dude wearing a dress and acting feminine, you are still MALE. Doesn't matter if you're a butch bull dyke with a short haircut and sporting clothing meant for men, you are still a female.

Thems the breaks, trannies.

As we saw with obamadon'tcare, the actual wording of a law is irrelevant. All that matters is who is attacking whom.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The only sign on a bath room door should be BATHROOM. Or for the illiterate an image of a toilet bowl.

No need for figures of male or female.

Inside, there should be no cubicles. Just a wide open place where one can sit and do business. And since urinals discriminate against women and Caitlin Jenner, and can be used predominantly by males (with the exception of shemales) they should be banned.

We seem to be heading in that direction. Next step in this evolution will be doing the elimination of bath rooms altogether.

Just read an article by EU traveler and that seems to be what is happening over there......almost embarrassed herself couple times because there were no facilities for the public....if she hadnt been with a local she would have been in trouble

 

[jknowgood]

It's a huge can of worms to open. If we end up with case law....probably a SCOTUS ruling....saying a person can choose their gender....then it opens it up to being able to choose ALL previously permanent physical traits. Like race or age...When how we FEEL overrides what a scientist would clinically say we ARE....it's some twilight zone shit....Statutory rape?? Nope. The 35 year old who banged your 16 year old daughter "identifies" as a 16 year old high school kid. So....it's not rape....The African American scholarships? Smart Asian and White kids took them. They "identify" as black...That racist white cop??? Nope. When he's on duty he identifies as a black female Muslim. So it wasn't a civil rights violation when he stopped all those black people.

This is why Loretta Lynch was visibly sweating yesterday. She knows. She's a lawyer and knows there is no hope of providing a real explanation of how men thinking they are women "are a protected class".

She knows. And it's fucking with her BIG TIME. Like I said before, the cult of LGBT's cards have been called on the table and all they've got is a pair of 2s against NC's royal flush.

They are currently protected by law in Title VII.

Let NC State be bold and forge ahead without its billion a year in Federal funds.

Which includes funding for schools, I thought liberals thought that there is no reason that school funding should be cut? Oh if it goes against what you want, then screw the children. We see you really don't care.

 

[rcfieldz]

So will there be a run on missing transgenders found in ditches?

 

[Tresha91203]

public accommodations are open to ALL of the public...

that some people happen to be different than the norm, does not make them harmful...

the bathroom hysteria is based in fear and loathing of "those people" and not based in reality.

transgender people do not ACTUALLY make anyone less safe in the bathroom.

The right was fine with transgendered using whichever stall they want. There were few issues, and those generally involved adolescent boys and children who are not mature enough to make said choice.

The right objects to the law allowing men into the ladies' room because it allows any man who says he feels like a woman to do so, including non transgendered there for nefarious purposes.

We didn't care if Rue Paul used the ladies' room and understood it was more appropriate for him to do so while in drag. We do care if ALL males are allowed in with a statement of feeling. We know the difference and did not complain about the status quo, which was working just fine. We do not want transgendered attacked in men's rooms. We also do not want those same men who would attack transgendered LEGALLY allowed into the ladies' room to attack women, children and transgendered there.

It was the left that insisted on laws to regulate a nonproblem. The right was then forced to object to the language of the law. The right suggested separate, neutral bathrooms. The left will not accept that. Businesses also note the cost and the long lines that would result. The truth is that even if the law states penises in men's rooms and vaginas I ladies' rooms, the women on the right would not attack a transgendered in the ladies' room, as we understand they are safer with us than with some of the men in the men's room. Why do you want to open the ladies' room to those same men? It is dangerous! Surely, you know that.

 

[Valerie]

"it allows any man who says he feels like a woman to do so, including non transgendered there for nefarious purposes."



the real problem is when a hetero poser walks into the ladies room because they feel like being nefarious.

the law does not "allow" nefarious behavior in public restrooms, it just looks beyond dress to behavior.

when someone gets harassed or treated like a criminal just because they LOOK different, that's hysteria...


the city of charlotte passed a simple local ordinance to protect trans citizens from that treatment ^

the response was all sorts of fantasy how hetero men can now suddenly pretend to be women too.

fact is, nefarious men will be nefarious one way or another without much regard for any laws.

nothing was ever stopping those with a penchant to be nefarious posers from being nefarious posers.


there is no legitimate justification to block anti-discrimination statutes in order to stop posers.

the way to tell the difference between nefarious posers and legit trans is their actual behavior.

when hetero men commit crimes in the bathroom they get held accountable just the same as ever.

including men who would harass young boys in the men's room...

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Which includes funding for schools, I thought liberals thought that there is no reason that school funding should be cut? e.

You thought wrong, because you're stupid.

 

[Tresha91203]

"it allows any man who says he feels like a woman to do so, including non transgendered there for nefarious purposes."



the real problem is when a hetero poser walks into the ladies room because they feel like being nefarious.

the law does not "allow" nefarious behavior in public restrooms, it just looks beyond dress to behavior.

when someone gets harassed or treated like a criminal just because they LOOK different, that's hysteria...


the city of charlotte passed a simple local ordinance to protect trans citizens from that treatment ^

the response was all sorts of fantasy how hetero men can now suddenly pretend to be women too.

fact is, nefarious men will be nefarious one way or another without much regard for any laws.

nothing was ever stopping those with a penchant to be nefarious posers from being nefarious posers.


there is no legitimate justification to block anti-discrimination statutes in order to stop posers.

the way to tell the difference between nefarious posers and legit trans is their actual behavior.

when hetero men commit crimes in the bathroom they get held accountable just the same as ever.

including men who would harass young boys in the men's room...

The city of charlotte was having no problems with the status quo. It was a nonproblem. The wording of the law was broad and vague and would allow men into the ladies' room on an honor system. Women would have no recourse when a nontransgendered male is in the ladies' room. Since there was not a problem with the status quo (trans were not being harrassed or assaulted in the ladies' room), there was no compelling interest.

It was a feel good law. Somehow, we don't care if a state clearly doesn't feel good about the law. Chaz Bono was not being run out of the men's room and Rue Paul was not being run out of the ladies' room. We know a drag queen or transgendered when we see them, but there was no uproar. It was not an issue. We would object to a nontransgendered though, but you'd take that away from us. Why?

We were policing just fine before the law and transgendereds used the potty of their choice without issue. It comes across like an FU to people who were showing no disrespect. It also removes the defense of calling cops when a nontransgendered is creeping people out in the toilet. Now, we can't question him without being demonized and perhaps sued. So, yes, normal people are going to resist, not just "phobics" and bigots.

 

[jknowgood]

[
Which includes funding for schools, I thought liberals thought that there is no reason that school funding should be cut? e.

You thought wrong, because you're stupid.

So the federal government doesn't fund schools?

 

[Valerie]

"it allows any man who says he feels like a woman to do so, including non transgendered there for nefarious purposes."



the real problem is when a hetero poser walks into the ladies room because they feel like being nefarious.

the law does not "allow" nefarious behavior in public restrooms, it just looks beyond dress to behavior.

when someone gets harassed or treated like a criminal just because they LOOK different, that's hysteria...


the city of charlotte passed a simple local ordinance to protect trans citizens from that treatment ^

the response was all sorts of fantasy how hetero men can now suddenly pretend to be women too.

fact is, nefarious men will be nefarious one way or another without much regard for any laws.

nothing was ever stopping those with a penchant to be nefarious posers from being nefarious posers.


there is no legitimate justification to block anti-discrimination statutes in order to stop posers.

the way to tell the difference between nefarious posers and legit trans is their actual behavior.

when hetero men commit crimes in the bathroom they get held accountable just the same as ever.

including men who would harass young boys in the men's room...

The city of charlotte was having no problems with the status quo. It was a nonproblem.

The wording of the law was broad and vague and would allow men into the ladies' room on an honor system. Women would have no recourse when a nontransgendered male is in the ladies' room. Since there was not a problem with the status quo (trans were not being harrassed or assaulted in the ladies' room), there was no compelling interest.

It was a feel good law. Somehow, we don't care if a state clearly doesn't feel good about the law. Chaz Bono was not being run out of the men's room and Rue Paul was not being run out of the ladies' room.


We know a drag queen or transgendered when we see them, but there was no uproar. It was not an issue. We would object to a nontransgendered though, but you'd take that away from us. Why?

We were policing just fine before the law and transgendereds used the potty of their choice without issue.

It comes across like an FU to people who were showing no disrespect.

It also removes the defense of calling cops when a nontransgendered is creeping people out in the toilet.

Now, we can't question him without being demonized and perhaps sued.

So, yes, normal people are going to resist, not just "phobics" and bigots.

i understand your points but i disagree with some of your assumptions... namely, that there was never any problem for trans people... just because you personally never encountered a problem, you assume none ever existed. also, you claim victims would have no recourse when there would actually be recourse if there was an offense in behavior, beyond being only an "objection" based on the way someone looks or makes you feel when you see them. reality is, the honor system and policing remain unchanged by a simple anti discrimination statute. so why should so-called 'normal people' object to a default status quo that respects the public accommodation of all citizens...?