The Right Wing Paranoids Are Right Again

[inscrutable]

From the above quote:

“…on the basis of sex…”

Does the word “sex” mean the same as “gender” in this case?

How are these “bathroom bills” a civil rights issue? Everyone has a bathroom they can use, on the basis of their sex. There is no discrimination; there is equal protection.

[Sitnam]

@UltraVires

What? Who is doing the forcing here? I don’t recall any bill in Congress or in any state legislature giving rights to transgendered persons to use the bathroom of their choice.

This is a decree from on high from the President.

Gay marriage started the same way in Massachusetts and ultimately from the Supreme Court.

This font of rights is unlimited:

1. I and others like me want to do X.
2. I am not permitted to do X.
3. Just like slaves, then free blacks, women, and gays were treated differently because they could not do Y, I am exactly the same because I cannot do X.

Is there anything I cannot fit into that?

On this issue #2 is just not as clear as you are pretending.

I would love to read, one god damned time, EVIDENCE transgender people are causing problems in the bathrooms the bigoted claim they should not use. Should facts ever weigh in on policy? Wouldn’t it be nice to find a party supporting limited governmental intrusion on personal liberty?

[oft_wears_hats]

@inscrutable

From the above quote:

“…on the basis of sex…”

Does the word “sex” mean the same as “gender” in this case?

Well, since the anti-trans rights folks seem to equate “sex” and “gender”, turnabout is fair play, isn’t it? Then again, these are the same assholes who stepped in and told Charlotte what to do, who then complained when the federal government did the same to them. So I don’t expect very much consistency. It’s almost as though those dipshits in North Carolina just couldn’t wait to have another issue to fight about. They were so excited to be on the wrong side of history again that they called a special session just to pass this bill.

How are these “bathroom bills” a civil rights issue? Everyone has a bathroom they can use, on the basis of their sex. There is no discrimination; there is equal protection.

I don’t know about you and your definition of “equal protection,” but I personally love not being worried about getting the shit kicked out of me when I go to the bathroom. Or to have some nosy asshole start questioning whether I should really be there. The dipshits who have made this into an issue have basically guaranteed that it’s trans rights or bust at this point.

[John_Mace]

@oft_wears_hats

Well, since the anti-trans rights folks seem to equate “sex” and “gender”, turnabout is fair play, isn’t it? Then again, these are the same assholes who stepped in and told Charlotte what to do, who then complained when the federal government did the same to them. So I don’t expect very much consistency. It’s almost as though those dipshits in North Carolina just couldn’t wait to have another issue to fight about. They were so excited to be on the wrong side of history again that they called a special session just to pass this bill.

“Turnabout is fair play”? Is that a legal term of art? Can you cite some court cases than hinged on “turnabout is fair play”? Also, states are sovereign over cities in ways that the feds are not sovereign over states, so that analogy fails.

The issue, as stated earlier, is when did the term “sex” as used in Title IX become equated not with “gender” but “gender identity”. An adult transgendered person can have his or her sex legally changed. I’m not sure if a minor can do that or not, but I wold suspect not.

[Moriarty]

@UltraVires

This font of rights is unlimited

Not a fan of freedom, I take it.

[QUOTE=UltraVires]

1. I and others like me want to do X.
2. I am not permitted to do X.
3. Just like slaves, then free blacks, women, and gays were treated differently because they could not do Y, I am exactly the same because I cannot do X.

Is there anything I cannot fit into that?
[/QUOTE]

You have a misunderstanding of how the law works, at least in the United States. You appear to be under the misapprehension that “I and others like me” are only permitted to do what they wish when the government grants them that right, and that a person is obligated to point to some affirmative grant of authority for them to exercise their behavior.

I give you the 9th and 10th amendment to the Constitution:

[QUOTE=Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
[/QUOTE]

In other words, the Constitution presumes the freedom to do some act, notwithstanding any affirmative grant of a right to do the act, and unless or until that act is abrogated by the government. The Federal government is empowered to abrogate rights according to those powers granted to it by the Constitution (and is prohibited from certain subject matter by specific amendments). Local governments abrogate rights according to express powers delegated by States. And state governments abrogate rights according to those areas the law recognizes to be their purview (historically, IIRC, health, safety welfare, and - much to my chagrin, but to prove I’m not trying to bullshit you - morals).

The point is, the law obligates the State to justify its prohibition, and not the person to justify their action. That’s why I think your analysis falls short. You are aghast at the exercise of freedom in furtherance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and not holding those in power to their obligation to justify asinine discrimination.

Your attitude is downright un-American.

[Richard_Parker]

@John_Mace

The issue, as stated earlier, is when did the term “sex” as used in Title IX become equated not with “gender” but “gender identity”.

I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between “gender” and “gender identity” in this context. Once the civil rights laws protecting sex were extrapolated to gender, no further extrapolation or inference was necessary to make discrimination against transgender people illegal. Generally speaking, transgender discrimination involves discrimination based on one’s refusal to conform one’s “gender” to one’s “sex” as those terms are used under the law.

The Supreme Court first recognized gender characteristics as protected in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). This became explicit protection for transgender people in the late 90s and early 00s. E.g., Rosa v. Park W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213, 215–16 (1st Cir. 2000). Here’s a good description of the legal evoluation from Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted):

In order to determine whether Schwenk has alleged that gender was a motivating factor in the attack, it is first necessary to define what is meant by gender. In the context of Title VII, federal courts (including this one) initially adopted the approach that sex is distinct from gender, and, as a result, held that Title VII barred discrimination based on the former but not on the latter. Other courts held, more specifically, that “the term ‘sex’ in Title VII refers to an individual’s distinguishing biological or anatomical characteristics, whereas the term ‘gender’ refers to an individual’s sexual identity,” or socially-constructed characteristics.

Male-to-female transsexuals, as anatomical males whose outward behavior and inward identity did not meet social definitions of masculinity, were denied the protection of Title VII by these courts because they were the victims of gender, rather than sex, discrimination.

The initial judicial approach taken in [such] cases has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse. In Price Waterhouse . . . the Supreme Court held that Title VII barred not just discrimination based on the fact that Hopkins was a woman, but also discrimination based on the fact that she failed “to act like a woman” - that is, to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations.

What matters, for purposes of this part of the *Price Waterhouse *analysis, is that in the mind of the perpetrator the discrimination is related to the sex of the victim: here, for example, the perpetrator’s actions stem from the fact that he believed that the victim was a man who “failed to act like” one.

Legislation like North Carolina’s bathroom bill is explicitly targeted at people who fail to conform their gender to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

@John_Mace

An adult transgendered person can have his or her sex legally changed. I’m not sure if a minor can do that or not, but I wold suspect not.

At least in the states I’m aware of, a minor can have his or her sex legally changed on his or her birth certificate.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Richard_Parker

Legislation like North Carolina’s bathroom bill is explicitly targeted at people who fail to conform their gender to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Hmm…much as I oppose the bill, I’m not sure I understand this reasoning.

Earlier cases treated members of the same birth sex differently based on different adherence to gender norms. That was ruled illegal.

This case treats members of the same birth sex the same regardless of their adherence to gender norms. I’m not sure that’s the same thing.

However, it treats two people differently when they have the same adherence to a particular gender norm, and the different treatment is based 100% on their birth sex. That is, Mary’s birth certificate says “M”, and Sue’s says “F,” and because of that difference and no other (both Mary and Sue adhere to traditional female gender norms, both identifying as women), Mary is denied access to the bathroom that matches her gender identity, whereas Sue is not.

This disparate treatment seems to be a more clear-cut violation of anti-sex-discrimination laws than the “adherence to gender norms” cases do.

[lance_strongarm]

@astorian

In 2008, if I had stated on these boards, “Barack Obama will order schools to let transvestites to use the ladies room at all American schools, and will threaten any school that does not comply,” what do you think everyone would have said?

Czarcasm: “Cripes, Astorian, you need to lay off Fox News! It’s making you delusional.”

Miller: “Don’t be ridiculous. That will never, ever happen. That’s a typical deranged Rush Limbaugh fantasy.”
Well, today it is actually HAPPENING. SO, are any liberals sheepishly mumbling, “Er, gosh, I guess I was totally wrong?” Nope. They’re yelling, “YESSSSS!!! About damn time! And to all you stupid homophobic bigots: IN YOUR FACE!”

Czarcasm and Miller don’t speak for me, or for anyone else but themselves.

In 2008, my response would have been “so what?”

So since I didn’t get the chance in 2008, I hereby say it now: so what?

[John_Mace]

@Richard_Parker

I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between “gender” and “gender identity” in this context. Once the civil rights laws protecting sex were extrapolated to gender, no further extrapolation or inference was necessary to make discrimination against transgender people illegal. Generally speaking, transgender discrimination involves discrimination based on one’s refusal to conform one’s “gender” to one’s “sex” as those terms are used under the law.

The Supreme Court first recognized gender characteristics as protected in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). This became explicit protection for transgender people in the late 90s and early 00s. E.g., Rosa v. Park W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213, 215–16 (1st Cir. 2000). Here’s a good description of the legal evoluation from Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted):

Legislation like North Carolina’s bathroom bill is explicitly targeted at people who fail to conform their gender to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

At least in the states I’m aware of, a minor can have his or her sex legally changed on his or her birth certificate.

Thanks, RP. Just for clarification, I was not talking about the NC law, but about the administrations advice letter concerning schools. Would the law, though, not require that minor child have his or her sex legally changed? It seems like a stretch to say that a six-year-old (or a 12-year-old, for that matter) can tell adults which bathroom he or she is going to use based solely on his say so.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@lance_strongarm

Czarcasm and Miller don’t speak for me, or for anyone else but themselves.

Not even themselves. I know it looked like they were speaking, but really that was astorian putting on a pair of horn-rimmed glasses and a bowtie so he would look like Czarcasm, then quick-changing into a Corrosion of Conformity leather jacket and a liberty spikes wig so he would look like Miller. But don’t be fooled! Both times it was astorian under the disguise.

[Richard_Parker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Earlier cases treated members of the same birth sex differently based on different adherence to gender norms. That was ruled illegal.

This case treats members of the same birth sex the same regardless of their adherence to gender norms. I’m not sure that’s the same thing.

However, it treats two people differently when they have the same adherence to a particular gender norm, and the different treatment is based 100% on their birth sex. That is, Mary’s birth certificate says “M”, and Sue’s says “F,” and because of that difference and no other (both Mary and Sue adhere to traditional female gender norms, both identifying as women), Mary is denied access to the bathroom that matches her gender identity, whereas Sue is not.

This disparate treatment seems to be a more clear-cut violation of anti-sex-discrimination laws than the “adherence to gender norms” cases do.

These cases involve people whose gender identity does not conform the sex listed on their birth certificate. In the case of a transgender woman who wants to use the women’s bathroom, she is treated differently from other women solely on the basis of the sex listed on her original birth certificate. And the reason for that differential treatment is that her gender identity does not conform to what the government demands of a person with a male birth certificate. Generally, anti-discrimination laws examine both the nature of the classification (difference in birth certificate) and the reason for the differential treatment of that classification (gender identity mismatch).

By analogy, one could imagine a law that treats Iranians differently from Saudis out of the belief that Shia are dangerous. The law could be challenged because it treats people of different national origins differently, or because the reason for the differential treatment is an impermissible religiously discriminatory motive. In most cases, both arguments would be made.

@John_Mace

It seems like a stretch to say that a six-year-old (or a 12-year-old, for that matter) can tell adults which bathroom he or she is going to use based solely on his say so.

Why?

Even assuming for the sake of argument that there were a problem in assessing the sincere gender identity of someone who is still quite young (and I suspect that the vast majority of young kids requesting a seemingly non-conforming bathroom are the ones doing it for a good reason), you would need to balance that issue against the knowledge that identifying and treating a young child by the wrong gender can be psychologically harmful, and the sooner that stops, the better. Most of us would probably rather have a few confused or mischievous cis-gendered six-year-olds using the “wrong” bathroom if it means protecting six-year-old trans kids.

[Chimera]

When I was in kindergarten, the school I went to didn’t have separate restrooms for boys and girls. At least not the kindergarten classrooms. We had one restroom with several stalls and no urinals.

This was in suburban Los Angeles in the 60’s.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sitnam

Your statement confuses me. A slippery slope implies one event (transgender civil rights) must inevitably follow another (homosexual marriage). A slippery slope need not be negative as DrFidelius states, you could argue work place equality for women would involve legal protection for equal pay AND THEN paid maternity leave.

It’s the ‘concern’ you use that is strange. What concern do you have of this slippery slope since, as you say, you are nominally pro-gay marriage?

Its not my concern. It was the concern of the anti-gay folks. We didn’t address those concerns at the time because we thought they were far fetched. now that it turns out those concerns weren’t far fetched, doesn’t this mean that the concerns of the anti-gay folks were justified?

I don’t think anyone would have guessed how far gay rights would come in the last 5 years or so, except the right wing paranoids. The obvious question is whether we would have been able to make as much progress as we did if the public knew that once you acknowledge that there is such a thing as gay rights, the length and breadth of those rights are not constrained by popular opinion.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@QuickSilver

I suppose they would be free to vote their conscience. Much like they did when bathrooms and water fountains for the coloreds were being integrated. I have the sneaking suspicion that a non insignificant minority is still not over that one.

I guess the point is that we might not have gotten this far if people realized what would happen.

From your mouth to…

:dubious:

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Snowboarder_Bo

No, I don’t make getting gay rights recognized sound like anything because I never fucking mentioned getting gay rights recognized. Neither did you, so it wasn’t even a subject implied by what I wrote.
That’s what I got from your post, aye.

Then maybe you are just looking for a fight and don’t really care what the other guy has to say.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Hell no I’m not saying that. Why the hell would you make something like that up to attribute to me?

because of the post you were responding to. What other relevance is the fact that LGBT includes transgender have anything to do with the post you were responding to?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sitnam

On this issue #2 is just not as clear as you are pretending.

I would love to read, one god damned time, EVIDENCE transgender people are causing problems in the bathrooms the bigoted claim they should not use. Should facts ever weigh in on policy? Wouldn’t it be nice to find a party supporting limited governmental intrusion on personal liberty?

The knowledge that the guy in the stall next to you might have been born a woman is causing grievous emotional and spiritual injury that would not be caused if the transgender dude in the stall next to you was also breaking a law.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@oft_wears_hats

Well, since the anti-trans rights folks seem to equate “sex” and “gender”, turnabout is fair play, isn’t it? Then again, these are the same assholes who stepped in and told Charlotte what to do, who then complained when the federal government did the same to them.

Charlotte is not a sovereign power, they derive all their power from the state of North Carolina.

I don’t know about you and your definition of “equal protection,” but I personally love not being worried about getting the shit kicked out of me when I go to the bathroom. Or to have some nosy asshole start questioning whether I should really be there. The dipshits who have made this into an issue have basically guaranteed that it’s trans rights or bust at this point.

Its nothing of the sort. Legal support is not going to stop gay bashing. We are not going to “go bust” on gay rights of any sort. We are not going to turn back the dial on gay marriage or gays in the military. There is very little to be lost in this fight for transgender rights except the goodwill of homophobes.

[running_coach]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Charlotte is not a sovereign power, they derive all their power from the state of North Carolina.

There was no reason for the state to override the city’s ban on discrimination except for the fear that someone, somewhere was experiencing equality.

ETA: And the fact is, regardless of whether the state has sovereign power, in principle they were doing exactly what they complain about the federal gov. doing to the state.

[inscrutable]

@Richard_Parker

…treating a young child by the wrong gender can be psychologically harmful, and the sooner that stops, the better. Most of us would probably rather have a few confused or mischievous cis-gendered six-year-olds using the “wrong” bathroom if it means protecting six-year-old trans kids.

If six-year-old kids are too young to care if there is “mixed company” in the bathroom, why should six-year-old trans kids care?

But what about older kids? In talking with women about this issue, I have been assured that there are girls who WILL BE AFRAID to use the bathroom if there is a chance that boys (including mischievous ones) might be in there.

So then what happens to your Victim count: number of girls afraid to use the bathroom vs. number of actual transgenders?