Political fallout of transgender bathroom issue

[running_coach]

@Peremensoe

Nobody I know in North Carolina (or elsewhere) was concerned about anyone creeping up on them in bathrooms before this law. Now they’re wondering if some self-appointed gender policeman is going to make a scene.

Already happened.

A Dallas woman was questioned about her gender by a man who followed her into a bathroom because he said she was “dressed like a man.”

Jessica Rush told KXAS-TV she filmed the last seconds of the encounter on her cell phone Thursday afternoon at the Baylor Medical Center in Frisco, Tex.

“My first thought was ‘I’m about to be attacked’ just because I am 5 [foot]3, female,” Rush said. “I understand one thing if you are like a cop of the Dallas Police Department, but just some random guy coming in I think is absolutely absurd and inappropriate.”

So he followed her into the women’s room.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Do_Not_Taunt

Sorry, Johnny, but the ruling is final. A lower message board has already made it clear that Title IX doesn’t cover gender identity. Until a higher message board overturns that ruling, we’re stuck with it. Unless, maybe, random posters’ ill-formed opinions have no bearing on actual law…

LOL…

So who’s Chief Moderator of the United States?

I wanna complain.

[Trinopus]

@D_Anconia

. . . Where’s your cite that it is a “constitutional democracy”, or did you make that term up?

Yes, I made that term up. However, yes, the U.S. is a constitutional democracy: we’re democratic in form, and are run under a constitution.

It isn’t a term of art in law or politics: it’s simply a fact. We are, in fact, a constitutional democracy. We’re also a people’s republic, a federated state, and a “democracy in a republic.” (The House of Representatives made that one up.)

Can you provide a cite that the U.S. is not a constitutional democracy? Remember that synonyms do not have the property of exclusivity.

[Trinopus]

@octopus

Interpretating the constitution or law to get whatever desired outcome one wishes is, practically speaking, making law.

Actually, I would agree with that. Notice the specific term “whatever desired outcome one wishes.” So, yes, if someone took the Establishment clause, and said, “Oh, that doesn’t apply to Islam or Judaism, only to Christianity,” one would, in effect, be “making law.”

However, interpreting the law according in a way that is consistent with the constitution is not “making law.” The law is already there, implicit in the constitution. Obergefell did not “make law,” but agreed that the Equal Justice clause applied to gays.

(Scalia trying to permit Arkansas to teach Creationism in public schools…well, he was trying to “make law.” Scalia was a real shit that way.)

[Trinopus]

By the way, just in case anybody gives a wet damn… Constitutional Democracy.

[lance_strongarm]

@DerekMichaels00

how bout just do stuff that people in our country want done or work to it, instead of deal with transgenders, who are what, like 1 in 1000 people??

Why don’t YOU take your own advice? If transgenders are such a small population, the rightwingers should stop worrying about them and stop passing laws trying to keep them out of bathrooms and do stuff that people want done.

[lance_strongarm]

@MaxTheVool

Right up front, let me say that I’m absolutely in favor of transgender rights. People should be able to use bathroom facilities of their identified gender, period, end of story.
That said…

Funny how some people around here can’t handle the idea of discussion like that.

[txst16]

The reality is this…
The issue here is a waste of time that congress takes to avoid fiscal policy, immigration reform, and labor laws.

[Chronos]

What does Congress have to do with any of this?

[octopus]

@Johnny_Ace

You display such a deep knowledge of the judicial system! Which state bar do you hold a license from?

Here’s some very brief commentary from a Supreme Court justice. http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/scalia_sees_link_between_judicial_activism_and_nazi_germany

Here’s president Obama hoping that the Supreme Court does not engage in the left’s favorite method of agenda advancing. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-04-02/obama-health-care-activism/53955636/1

So a Supreme Court justice and a current president/constitutional lawyer warning against judicial fiat. What are your credentials?

[D_Anconia]

@Trinopus

Yes, I made that term up. However, yes, the U.S. is a constitutional democracy: we’re democratic in form, and are run under a constitution.

It isn’t a term of art in law or politics: it’s simply a fact.

So you made it up, but it’s still a fact? How is that even possible?

[Trinopus]

@D_Anconia

So you made it up, but it’s still a fact? How is that even possible?

Someone once made up the phrase, “A nation of immigrants.” Yet it is a fact.

Someone once made up the phrase, “Separation of church and state.” Many people believe it to be a fact.

Gosh, how is that even possible?

[running_coach]

@Trinopus

Someone once made up the phrase, “A nation of immigrants.” Yet it is a fact.

Someone once made up the phrase, “Separation of church and state.” Many people believe it to be a fact.

Gosh, how is that even possible?

How can that be accurate?
I was born here.

Your entire posting history is discredited.

[Pantastic]

@DerekMichaels00

how bout just do stuff that people in our country want done or work to it, instead of deal with transgenders, who are what, like 1 in 1000 people?? Or at least not act like the opponents of transgender ideology don’t exist.

I think this kind of attitude is going to work against conservatives far more than they expect. “They’re like, 1 in 1000 people, who cares if we treat them like crap?” rhetoric really turns people off, and makes it clear that conservatives are just looking for an easy target to bully. The fact that it turns up constantly in comments and discussions makes it a lot harder to disavow too. The fact being transgender is a medical condition that is really tough for someone to live with also means that anyone with empathy who gets even a cursory education on the issue is not going to have any respect for opponents of ‘transgender ideology’ is another big obstacle.

And liberals need to stop looking for The New Civil Rights movements. Its like they’d rather not win battles. LGB rights already won, as did racial civil rights, which is good! There are no equivalent ones to fight today, except ones they make up.

It’s perfectly legal to fire refuse to rent/sale housing to someone for being LGBT in the majority of states in the US. I would say that LGB rights have far from ‘already won’, and the people I know who have been fired for being gay would agree with me.

[Johnny_Ace]

@octopus

Here’s some very brief commentary from a Supreme Court justice. http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/scalia_sees_link_between_judicial_activism_and_nazi_germany

Here’s president Obama hoping that the Supreme Court does not engage in the left’s favorite method of agenda advancing. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-04-02/obama-health-care-activism/53955636/1

So a Supreme Court justice and a current president/constitutional lawyer warning against judicial fiat. What are your credentials?

Credentials? Read 'em and weep.

http://www.wral.com/read-the-justice-department-letter-regarding-house-bill-2/15682478/

Nazi Germany? Really? You have heard of precedent, right?

As for the other link, I can’t even read it. All I get is a paywall page.

[octopus]

That letter isn’t signed Johnny Ace.

[bienville]

@Trinopus

Scalia trying to permit Arkansas to teach Creationism in public schools…well, he was trying to “make law.”

The precise legal term is interpretive jiggery-pokery.

[lance_strongarm]

@Pantastic

It’s perfectly legal to fire refuse to rent/sale housing to someone for being LGBT in the majority of states in the US. I would say that LGB rights have far from ‘already won’, and the people I know who have been fired for being gay would agree with me.

Then perhaps he’s still right, in a sense - liberals need to focus more on the larger issue, which is that discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender ID in general, not just in bathrooms.

[lance_strongarm]

I support transgender access to restrooms corresponding with their gender.

That said, I am still amused that many people can’t seem to construct an argument for transgender access to the existing segregated, sexist system of dual restrooms that doesn’t also call for ending that system and just having unisex bathrooms. For instance, ever hear “Stop worrying about who is peeing next to you!” Well, if we shouldn’t care who pees next to us, why do we even have gendered restrooms? Why do transgender people want access to the one that corresponds to their gender like everyone else – couldn’t they “not care who pees next to them” too?

It’s so weird seeing people argue to preserve, or disrupt, a system that fundamentally discriminates and segregates in the first place. It’s a bit like arguing that biracial people should have their choice of whites-only or blacks-only restrooms. It’s awkward.

[iiandyiiii]

@lance_strongarm

That said, I am still amused that many people can’t seem to construct an argument for transgender access to the existing segregated, sexist system of dual restrooms that doesn’t also call for ending that system and just having unisex bathrooms.

I’ve done this many times – you just don’t like my argument. It doesn’t mean that I didn’t construct one.