Author Topic: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC  (Read 4451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3740
  • Darwins +257/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #435 on: May 20, 2016, 06:36:25 AM »
What is the strategy for dealing with gay male pedophiles waiting to reveal themselves to little boys in men's washrooms?

Don't let your little boy go alone!  Geez!  A taser will work without taking a life. 

This bill is an agenda.  McCrory used people's fears to pass laws concerning minimum wage and discrimination lawsuits.  Please explain what these 2 things do to protect our children. 

I honestly believe protecting your children in the bathroom is your responsibility. 

Laws don't protect sh!t people do with intelligence.

You can not have a "REAL" discussion about HB2 while leaving out 2/3 of the equation.  Why the heck are these 2 other things doing there?  NC already is a work here at your own risk state.  You can be fired for any reason except age, sexual orientation or disability.  All the employer has to say is it's not a good fit and they are operating within the law.  It is very hard to prove discrimination unless the employer out right says we are dismissing you because you are gay or too old or wrong color.   They are not that dumb.
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7384
  • Darwins +980/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #436 on: May 20, 2016, 01:25:27 PM »
I had to kind of laugh. You say this: "the police must have received a fairly large number of complaints" without providing any supporting evidence and then immediately call me out for doing it: "you have not yet provided evidence to back up your assertion that women are more likely to report inappropriate conduct."
You undoubtedly know as well as I do that the police don't just do whatever they please.  There are simply not enough of them for them to decide to station plainclothes officers inside of bathrooms for extended periods of time just because, especially in a large city like New York.  They have to be able to justify that decision to others, which means being able to point to evidence that supports that decision.  The primary means by which they get evidence like that is by getting complaints from people of inappropriate behavior.  So my statement was a reasonable deduction based on the facts as reported in the article.

Until this post, you had not provided any evidence to support your assertion that women are more likely to report inappropriate conduct.  You hadn't even shown that your conclusion is a reasonable deduction from the evidence, as I did.  You just said it without providing any support for it; surely you can understand why I would want you to show that there was reason to believe it before accepting it as a generally true statement?

Quote from: BibleStudent
Anyway....
"Overall violence, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, and serious violent crimes were more likely to be reported to the police when the victim was female. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rcp00.pdf

It's not as profound as I suspected but there is a difference. There is no way to know what the statistics might show with regards to the differing responses between men and women when they feel they are the victim of indecent exposure because it does not appear anyone is tracking such a specific thing....unless it falls under the category of something like simple assault??
First off, thank you for providing support for what you were saying.

Second, I did some checking, and indecent exposure is generally considered a misdemeanor[1].  The exceptions are when the person is convicted repeatedly, or when a child is involved; it can be treated as a sexual assault if touching is involved.  The report you provided tended to focus on violent and property crime and thus they wouldn't have worried about things like indecent exposure which was neither.  I suspect there haven't been too many studies on indecent exposure except under certain circumstances.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I read a study that indicated women are three times more likely than men to experience anxiety and fear than men when it comes to being assualted. This would seem to make sense. I'm six feet tall and weigh 185lbs. My wife is a petite five feet tall. I stand a much better chance of being able to ward off a physical assault than my wife. Point being, women are generally aware of the increased vulnerability they have with fighting off an accoster due to physical differences....and, as a result, are more cautious about avoiding the potential for that to happen. Women are generally found to be more law abiding too which probably has something to do with the higher reporting rates.
You also shouldn't discount the effects of shame.  Women aren't expected to defend themselves, whereas men are, so men feeling ashamed at being unable to might also play a part in the difference.  However, as you yourself noted, it isn't all that significant of a difference - a few percent, depending on the specific circumstances. 

Quote from: BibleStudent
Plus, it seems to be a rather common occurrence for a woman to visit a men's restroom yet I can't find anything that indicates men are filing police reports. Yet, you can find several reports where a male or a transgender M->F was confronted for entering a women's restroom. I think this is why you find so many male transgender imposters using disguises. I cannot locate one incident where a female disguised herself as a guy to gain access to a mens-only space and was caught doing something indecent. There may be, but I could not locate anything.
If I had to guess, that's probably because a woman is only going into the restroom to use the facilities, and makes a point of seeking privacy and leaving fairly quickly.  I suspect that a man who's just there to use a toilet is going to act similarly.  That sort of thing is not at all likely to be reported - it's when the person starts acting in an unusual manner that it's more likely to be reported.  You may well be right that men are more likely to do that (act in an unusual manner) than women, but it's worth reiterating that this sort of thing is already happening.  it's also worth reiterating that simply claiming to be transgendered isn't likely to make others overlook such behavior.  If anything, it's less likely to do that, because it'll sound like an excuse to justify intentional behavior.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I'm not claiming that such things do not already occur. There are plenty of incidents where a man has cornered a lone young girl or woman in a female restroom and assaulted her. What I have been demonstrating is how the access laws open the door to additional opportunities for predators and voyeurs to be in the presence of women and appear innocent while doing it. I would like to see some incidents prior to the access laws where men were in a women-only space and exposed themself and walked away scot-free. Again, I couldn't find anything but if it happens, it must be incredibly infrequent.

With regards to your opinion that some of the people arrested were probably not in a location where specific gender laws existed, that may very well be the case. That's why they were charged with public indeceny instead.
Actually, no, you've not yet demonstrated that a person will be able to take advantage of transgender access laws to do inappropriate things, claim innocence due to being transgendered, and get off scot-free.  What makes you think that someone will be able to get away with something like indecent exposure simply by claiming to be transgendered?  I'm quite serious here.  This is another of those underlying assumptions that you've made but not supported.  Again, I hope you can understand why I'm not willing to just assume you're correct.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I hope you're right about this but, personally, I think you're being naive. I think you are in danger of underestimating the nature and creative cleverness of some predators.
Naivete has absolutely nothing to do with it.  I'm well aware that people who want to do things that break the law can be extremely inventive in coming up with ways they think will let them get away with it.  But that doesn't justify your assumption that other people will let them.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one of these sexual predators you keep talking about does some inappropriate things, like exposing themselves to a little girl, while talking about how being transgendered means it isn't anything to worry about.  I can tell you quite plainly that if I heard of something like that, I would not go, "oh, they're transgendered, so that makes it okay".

My response would be more akin to "he's lying about being transgendered".  I sincerely doubt most people would let a claim like that get in the way of reporting inappropriate behavior to the police, either.  Which is the point I keep trying to make.  It wouldn't be about the bathroom they were in or whether they were transgendered, it would be about the things they did while in the bathroom.  Take that story you posted a few days ago about the guy who claimed to be transgendered in order to get into women's shelters to commit sexual assaults - and who was jailed indefinitely as a result of those acts (and his history of committing sexual crimes).  You posted it to underscore your concerns...when this case actually shows that claiming to be transgendered isn't going to excuse people who try to use it as cover to commit crimes.

There are two things that seriously bother me about the attitude that because some people will abuse laws like those, they therefore shouldn't be laws and there should instead be laws forbidding it at all as a precautionary measure.  First, it's essentially profiling transgendered people as being more likely to commit sexual crimes; instead of presuming innocence, you presume guilt.  Second, it presents a false dilemma; either you have to forbid transgender access to a restroom, or else you're allowing sexual predators access and giving them a ready-made excuse to use to avoid the consequences.

As the situation I just posted shows, the latter is certainly false - the man in question certainly did not avoid the consequences for his actions.  And while the former is not false, I would argue that the danger for having laws which forbid access is greater, because many openly transgendered people will not appear (clothing, mannerisms, appearance) to be their birth sex.  As one of Jag's examples showed, laws like this will be applied subjectively, if at all, and some people who have every right to be in a particular bathroom will end up being removed, forcibly if necessary, while people who can pass as that gender will be ignored.

The point is that this is a trade-off; either way, you're going to end up with people getting harmed.  All policies have drawbacks and can cause unintended harm.  So the question needs to be which causes less harm.  And to be blunt, that isn't a question that can be answered yet.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I maintain my position here. I am not claiming that the access laws will override other laws that are still in place. I've never said such a thing. The other laws will still be available as a deterrent. What I am suggesting is that it will be more difficult to make a charge of public indecency.
Which you have yet to provide evidence for.  The example you cited where a man walked into the women's locker room at a Seattle pool doesn't count, because apparently he walked in wearing board shorts (a type of swimwear) and a shirt, and the only thing he actually took off is his shirt.  In short, he doesn't appear to have committed indecent exposure, and furthermore didn't actually identify himself as transgender, simply claiming that the law now allowed him to do that, even though it didn't.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/washington/seattle-man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45248512 - I checked several other news stories, and none of them contradicted this one.

Quote from: BibleStudent
It would have been more accurate for you to say "some creepy men you're so worried about" rather than suggesting all creepy men behave the same way. The fact that many men have used disguises is indicative of the fact that different men will use different means.
Please don't nitpick.  It's not helpful especially when you use it to imply things about me that aren't actually true.

Quote from: BibleStudent
It would be more helpful to validate your point if you could simply describe the means for determining if someone is a transgender imposter or not in a womens-only space. If he is an imposter and is there for viewing pleasure only, he is invading the privacy of the women present and violating the law. How are you going to determine that?
It isn't that hard to figure out.  A person who is there for a legitimate purpose will tend to focus on completing the business they went in there for.  For example, someone who needs to use the restroom will do so, (usually) wash and dry their hands, and then leave; they might engage other people in casual conversation, but they won't, for example, attempt to peer at other people inside or expose themselves to others.  Someone who isn't in there for a legitimate purpose will act oddly by comparison.  For example, trying to peek through gaps surrounding a toilet stall, or using a camera for the same reason.  So that's one way to identify someone who's there for a good reason versus a bad one.  I trust that's sufficient?
 
Quote from: BibleStudent
While not directly related to the issue of criminal sexual misconduct, why is that the NCAA, for example, require that transgender students provide evidence that they are undergoing hormone therapy before they are allowed to participate in the athletic programs provided for the gender they identify with? Why is that? One of the primary reasons is to prevent M->F imposters from participating in female sports programs and dominating. It's also done to keep imposters from taking roster spots from women who would have otherwise had the opportunity....the very athletic opportunities women have been fighting for.  The nice thing about this is that is also prohibits an imposter from gaining access to the locker room and other facilities or spaces designated for women....although I do not believe that is stated as a reason. The point in me bringing this up to illustrate that even the NCAA recognized how an imposter could blur the lines of separation.
And, more to the point, it also illustrates how the NCAA dealt with it in an effective way rather than simply saying, "nope, we have to ban it entirely".  I could see their solution working for places with locker rooms, for example.

Quote from: BibleStudent
As an aside, I find it rather perplexing that the college and professional sports prohibits the use of human growth hormone but allows hormone therapy for transgenders.
Because the former is used to gain an advantage over other competitors, while the latter is not.  It's a matter of fair play, in other words.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Here is another example. It is my understanding that in Californian, prior to AB 1266, both San Francisco and Los Angeles schools required that a transgender's identity be consistently and exclusively asserted at school. Why would they have such rules in place? Because they too recognized the risk  of imposters who may wish to gain access to spaces that were designated as female-only or male-only spaces. School policy alsoo required that students have access to single stall gender nuetral restrooms if privacy was a concern. So here again, you have two very large school districts who, for awhile at least, recognized that an imposter could blur the lines of separation and abuse the priveleges being afforded to authentic transgender students.
I'm not sure why you keep posting examples which undercut your own points.  First the NCAA thing, and now this.  Both of them serve as ways in which you can tell if someone's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex.  So I honestly have to ask why you asked me to provide an example by which you could tell someone who was transgendered apart from someone who just wants thrills, when you already knew of two.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I'll point to one last story to illustrate my point. You may be familair with this one. An ABC newsman named Don Ennis showed up to work one day wearing a balck dress and a wig. He informed everyone that he was transgender and changed his name to Dawn. He then began using spaces designated for females. Sometime later, I don't recall how long it was, he announced that his transgender bout was the result of some sort of amnesia that made him believe it was 1999 and that he was a woman. He is back to being a man....after, of course, he gained access to womens facilties. You see how convenient this whole escapade could be for someone who claims one day he is transgender and get into a space reserved for women and then the next day he is back to being a guy. "oops, not sure what happened there. I woke up last week feeling like a woman but today I don't."
I'd never heard of it, actually.  But if he claimed to have amnesia, then that could have been medically verified by a doctor.  If it wasn't, it suggests he was lying, in which case he could be fired and/or arrested.  Furthermore, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to ask him to show that he'd been seeing a doctor regarding being transgendered (since in order to undergo HRT, you have to have a doctor's authorization due to hormones being controlled substances); if he hadn't, that would also suggest he was lying.  To the best of my knowledge, someone can't just claim out of the blue that they're transgendered; they have to see a doctor for some time (I think two years) before they can start undergoing HRT, for example.  And more to the point, they can't just go, "oops, I don't feel that way anymore" and expect to get away with it, simply because the process of changing your sex is not something to be taken lightly.

Quote from: BibleStudent
You're right. They don't care if they abide by societal norms or not. They only care about getting caught which is central to the point I have been making all along. No disguise needed any longer for a guy who wants to gain access to a women-only space to indulge his pervy pleasure of watching women in various stages of undress. I believe it's called voyeurism and most women are not real excited about being the subject.
Leaving aside the fact that transgendered people want to dress, look, and act the part of the sex they're trying to present, do you seriously think women are just going to blithely change clothes in front of someone who looks male?  Because that's what would be required for your scenario above to happen.  It isn't a reasonable conclusion, in other words, despite what you may think.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Part of any legitimate planning process is to create potential scenarios to minimize glitches and other defects that would have otherwise not been considered. That's what I am doing here.....considering possible ways for predators and voyeurs to exploit the law. The Christopher Holmbrook story I linked to earlier in the thread is a very good example of what I am talking about.
Not to sound rude, but a legitimate planning process doesn't just consider negative scenarios, they come up with ways to deal with them as well.  So far, you've done the former, but have basically ignored the necessity of doing the latter.  Even you've admitted that the one 'solution' you've come up with so far isn't feasible.  You have to come up with actual workable solutions rather than just pointing out problems before you can effectively plan.

Quote from: BibleStudent
This should have already been done by our wonderful political representatives on both sides of the debate. Not AFTER the law went into effect.
Ideally, you'd analyze all the positive and negative factors in advance, then craft a law that strikes the best balance between them, but that's not always possible.  Furthermore, due to the nature of human heuristic biases, it's not always possible to properly foresee problems; supporters of something will often downplay problems, while detractors will play them up.  We're seeing that to some degree here in this topic.  There's no such thing as a perfect no-risk policy, either; no matter what you do, there will be unforeseen problems and risks that pop up.  Sometimes, you just have to let things play out and see how they work in practice, preferably on a small scale, before instituting them on a large scale.  That's kind of what's happening with these laws - some places are instituting more permissive access laws, while others are instituting more restrictive ones.  As a result, we can see whether we should lean more towards permissiveness or restrictiveness.

Quote from: BibleStudent
The fact that you aren't even disputing what would have happened five years ago (as I laid out) is indicative of the fact that you are still failing to fully comprehend my point. Furthermore, while your assertion that a true transgender person may be much more careful and respectful towards those around him/her might be true, that is not likely to be the case in all situations...and it certainly isn't going to help law enforcement weed out the fakes. It's really an irrelevant point you are making.
Ahem, no.  I do in fact understand the point you're making; it's just that I don't agree with it.  So please stop trying to tell me that I'm not comprehending your point simply because I still disagree with it.

And in point of fact, I really didn't think much of your laid-out example.  I've just found that being really blunt about my opinions regarding your posts tends to sidetrack the discussion, which I'm trying to minimize so as to keep things more or less on subject.  For example, you talked about a guy waggling his genitals in front of a woman's face would have gotten him in trouble (either by being slapped or in legal trouble), but what do you think would happen to a guy waggling his genitals in front of another guy's face?  Basically, the same thing would have happened - he would have gotten hit, or else been called out on indecent exposure.

Besides from which, you're still not acknowledging the point I keep trying to make.  What makes you think that someone will be able to get away with things like that just by claiming to be transgendered?  You've given no reason to believe that; all of the examples you've given have either been people getting in legal trouble, or getting called out for doing something.  Please either give examples - actual examples that exist in reality, not hypotheticals, because you're not the only one who knows how to work with hypotheticals, and we'll get nowhere if we focus on those - to support your argument that people will be able to get away with things like indecent exposure by claiming to be transgendered.

Quote from: BibleStudent
It would have been helpful if you would have answered some of the questions I asked.
I'll be honest here, I thought I was answering your questions.  This is the first time you've so much as mentioned that you thought I wasn't.  Please direct me to the questions you're referring to.

Quote from: BibleStudent
This isn't making sense. What does the alibi part have to do with having an understanding about what it means to be transgendered? Could you please elaborate a bit on this so maybe I have a better idea what you are getting at.
Having a better understanding of what it means to be transgendered means that you'll be able to understand that these alibis you've been referring to are ones that simply would not be used by transgendered people.  I suppose it's marginally possible that a few would, but based on what I've learned I'd find it exceedingly unlikely that any given transgendered person would.  For example, there's no reason at all to believe that a transgendered person is ever going to show off their genitals and talk about how they have a right to be in the bathroom anyway, simply because transgendered people are so uncomfortable with the fact that their biological sex doesn't match their gender identity.
 1. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/indecent-exposure-law.htm
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10844
  • Darwins +1780/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #437 on: May 20, 2016, 02:15:05 PM »
^^^Behaving like a pervy jerk is not excused away by saying you are transgender. As if trans gender people are treated with so much respect and acceptance. Right.

It is like the conservative pundits who posit that women, people of color, gays, people on welfare, atheists, immigrants, refugees or some other group has it easier and better than people not of those groups.

All the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (statistical data, economic data, health indicators, income data, etc.) is ignored in favor of a few anecdotes, often unsubstantiated. People remember stories and react more emotionally to them, especially to more outlandish ones, so they think that the one outlier proves who is really more often cheated or the victim of crime or discriminated against, etc.

The mass of numbers saying that there is no danger does not have a chance when set against one teenage girl who feels uncomfortable in her school locker room with a trans girl there. :-\

But like with anti-gay attitudes, this will also die out-- when the young people who grow up knowing trans gender folks are in charge.
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #438 on: May 20, 2016, 08:14:35 PM »
You undoubtedly know as well as I do that the police don't just do whatever they please.  There are simply not enough of them for them to decide to station plainclothes officers inside of bathrooms for extended periods of time just because, especially in a large city like New York.  They have to be able to justify that decision to others, which means being able to point to evidence that supports that decision.  The primary means by which they get evidence like that is by getting complaints from people of inappropriate behavior.  So my statement was a reasonable deduction based on the facts as reported in the article.

It wasn't that big of a deal to me that you hadn't provided something to support your claim. I just thought it was kind of humorous how those two similar sentences fell so closely together along with your critique of my unsupported assertion. That's all.

Quote
First off, thank you for providing support for what you were saying.

You're very welcome!

Quote
You also shouldn't discount the effects of shame.  Women aren't expected to defend themselves, whereas men are, so men feeling ashamed at being unable to might also play a part in the difference.  However, as you yourself noted, it isn't all that significant of a difference - a few percent, depending on the specific circumstances.

I agree. Seems we are on the same page here.
 
Quote
If I had to guess, that's probably because a woman is only going into the restroom to use the facilities, and makes a point of seeking privacy and leaving fairly quickly.  I suspect that a man who's just there to use a toilet is going to act similarly.  That sort of thing is not at all likely to be reported - it's when the person starts acting in an unusual manner that it's more likely to be reported.  You may well be right that men are more likely to do that (act in an unusual manner) than women, but it's worth reiterating that this sort of thing is already happening.  it's also worth reiterating that simply claiming to be transgendered isn't likely to make others overlook such behavior.  If anything, it's less likely to do that, because it'll sound like an excuse to justify intentional behavior.

At this point, I have my doubts that anyone is going to be acting unusually in a restroom....especially men, transgender M->F, and transgender imposters. This issue has hit a sensitive nerve and there are many, many upset and disappointed folks out there. Some angry, too, I suppose. I suspect that anyone who is contemplating something sneaky might be thinking twice right now due to the elevated emotions and watchful eyes that are monitoring the comings and goings of places that have been reserved for women only.

I would imagine that even transgendered folks are anxious right now and questioning if it is worth the risk to be confronted by some highly suspicious husband/father who is standing outside the door waiting to chomp on the first male looking female. I can tell you that someone who fits that description is going to get a stare down from me if I'm standing outside a restroom where my wife and one or both of my daughters are in.

I suspect that if it was already dangerous for transgender folks, it is possibly even a little more volatile for them right now.

Quote
Actually, no, you've not yet demonstrated that a person will be able to take advantage of transgender access laws to do inappropriate things, claim innocence due to being transgendered, and get off scot-free.  What makes you think that someone will be able to get away with something like indecent exposure simply by claiming to be transgendered?  I'm quite serious here.  This is another of those underlying assumptions that you've made but not supported.  Again, I hope you can understand why I'm not willing to just assume you're correct.

I gave an example in my last response to you but I'll run another similar one by you:

Guy goes into a women's locker room where there are open showers. He sits on a bench and begins undressing all the while he is subtly glimpsing at the nude women in the shower. Now, he walks over to the sink and starts shaving. He is nude intentionally to satisfy some pervy gratification that comes from being nude amongst women....whether it's just one, three, or ten of them. Nothing wrong with being nude in a locker room, right?He knows he is an imposter. He knows he is there illegally.

How do bust this perverted voyeur and exhibitionist? He is breaking the law yet he knows that if someone confronts him, he has a perfect alibi. How do you charge this guy with indecent exposure?...or any other crime for that matter?

Quote
Naivete has absolutely nothing to do with it.  I'm well aware that people who want to do things that break the law can be extremely inventive in coming up with ways they think will let them get away with it.  But that doesn't justify your assumption that other people will let them.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one of these sexual predators you keep talking about does some inappropriate things, like exposing themselves to a little girl, while talking about how being transgendered means it isn't anything to worry about.  I can tell you quite plainly that if I heard of something like that, I would not go, "oh, they're transgendered, so that makes it okay".

I think it would help the conversation if we agreed that this situation involves more than just restrooms.   

Where I see a problem with what you've spelled out is that you aren't considering what drove that predator into the restroom in the first place. Maybe he honestly thought he could get away with it. Maybe he is a really stupid perv who thought his little alibi about being a transgender would stick if he got caught. Maybe he thought he could just go waltzing into a female restroom with no disguise and pull off his revolting act. And here is the most concerning aspect: maybe he never even considered trying such a thing until he learned of the access laws. While he was an idiot and was ultimately arrested and charged, the damage was done and some little girl has experienced something frightening that she'll never forget...and who knows how it will affect her growing up?

Quote
Take that story you posted a few days ago about the guy who claimed to be transgendered in order to get into women's shelters to commit sexual assaults - and who was jailed indefinitely as a result of those acts (and his history of committing sexual crimes).  You posted it to underscore your concerns...when this case actually shows that claiming to be transgendered isn't going to excuse people who try to use it as cover to commit crimes.

Yes, but jaime, the damage he did to those women is done. It's too late. The fact that he was arrested is a good thing but it can't undo the fact that he took advantage of a privilege afforded to real transgender people and abused it to gain access and assault women. They now have to live with that. Yes, he got busted but it's too late.

Quote
There are two things that seriously bother me about the attitude that because some people will abuse laws like those, they therefore shouldn't be laws and there should instead be laws forbidding it at all as a precautionary measure.  First, it's essentially profiling transgendered people as being more likely to commit sexual crimes; instead of presuming innocence, you presume guilt.  Second, it presents a false dilemma; either you have to forbid transgender access to a restroom, or else you're allowing sexual predators access and giving them a ready-made excuse to use to avoid the consequences.

<my bold>

Actually, as I've mentioned more than once in this thread, the concern is not about just transgender people. It's about predators, whether they are transgender or not. I don't know if transgender people are more dangerous or not and, frankly, I don't really think it is relevant concerning this issue. I care about the people who may pose as imposters as well as though transgender individuals who are dangerous.

Quote
The point is that this is a trade-off; either way, you're going to end up with people getting harmed.  All policies have drawbacks and can cause unintended harm.  So the question needs to be which causes less harm.  And to be blunt, that isn't a question that can be answered yet.

That's not being blunt. That's being accurate. You're right. It's a question that cannot be answered right now.

All of this over what toilet someone can use or where someone can take a shower.

Quote
It isn't that hard to figure out.  A person who is there for a legitimate purpose will tend to focus on completing the business they went in there for.  For example, someone who needs to use the restroom will do so, (usually) wash and dry their hands, and then leave; they might engage other people in casual conversation, but they won't, for example, attempt to peer at other people inside or expose themselves to others.  Someone who isn't in there for a legitimate purpose will act oddly by comparison.  For example, trying to peek through gaps surrounding a toilet stall, or using a camera for the same reason.  So that's one way to identify someone who's there for a good reason versus a bad one.  I trust that's sufficient?

Once again, I think it would be helpful if you took into consideration the fact that this situation involves more than just restrooms.

I would say that your response probably depicts the sequence of events that will occur in the VAST MAJORITY of restroom visits. I hope you are correct and that it will be easy to identify the imposters and that people will seek to resolve their suspicions.

Quote
And, more to the point, it also illustrates how the NCAA dealt with it in an effective way rather than simply saying, "nope, we have to ban it entirely".  I could see their solution working for places with locker rooms, for example.

So, what kind of rules will be put in place to deter or prevent imposters in the other places?

Quote
Quote from: BibleStudent
As an aside, I find it rather perplexing that the college and professional sports prohibits the use of human growth hormone but allows hormone therapy for transgenders.
Because the former is used to gain an advantage over other competitors, while the latter is not.  It's a matter of fair play, in other words.

Still seems odd to me but okay.

Quote
I'm not sure why you keep posting examples which undercut your own points.  First the NCAA thing, and now this.  Both of them serve as ways in which you can tell if someone's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex.  So I honestly have to ask why you asked me to provide an example by which you could tell someone who was transgendered apart from someone who just wants thrills, when you already knew of two.

My response here is the same as it was above regarding the NCAA.

Quote
I'd never heard of it, actually.  But if he claimed to have amnesia, then that could have been medically verified by a doctor.  If it wasn't, it suggests he was lying, in which case he could be fired and/or arrested.  Furthermore, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to ask him to show that he'd been seeing a doctor regarding being transgendered (since in order to undergo HRT, you have to have a doctor's authorization due to hormones being controlled substances); if he hadn't, that would also suggest he was lying.  To the best of my knowledge, someone can't just claim out of the blue that they're transgendered; they have to see a doctor for some time (I think two years) before they can start undergoing HRT, for example.  And more to the point, they can't just go, "oops, I don't feel that way anymore" and expect to get away with it, simply because the process of changing your sex is not something to be taken lightly.

What you're explaining here sounds promising but I do not believe that men entering a womens-only space are always going to be required to show proof of anything. In fact, I think having to demonstrate that a person is not posing as an imposter will be more of an exception than a rule. Right?

Quote
Quote from: BibleStudent
Part of any legitimate planning process is to create potential scenarios to minimize glitches and other defects that would have otherwise not been considered. That's what I am doing here.....considering possible ways for predators and voyeurs to exploit the law. The Christopher Holmbrook story I linked to earlier in the thread is a very good example of what I am talking about.
Not to sound rude, but a legitimate planning process doesn't just consider negative scenarios, they come up with ways to deal with them as well.  So far, you've done the former, but have basically ignored the necessity of doing the latter.  Even you've admitted that the one 'solution' you've come up with so far isn't feasible.  You have to come up with actual workable solutions rather than just pointing out problems before you can effectively plan.

I have nothing. I do not know how to enforce these laws in a way that is legal, practical, and feasible. I don't know. It would have been more responsible if some of those questions had been answered BEFORE the laws went into place.

Quote
Ideally, you'd analyze all the positive and negative factors in advance, then craft a law that strikes the best balance between them, but that's not always possible.  Furthermore, due to the nature of human heuristic biases, it's not always possible to properly foresee problems; supporters of something will often downplay problems, while detractors will play them up.  We're seeing that to some degree here in this topic.  There's no such thing as a perfect no-risk policy, either; no matter what you do, there will be unforeseen problems and risks that pop up.  Sometimes, you just have to let things play out and see how they work in practice, preferably on a small scale, before instituting them on a large scale.  That's kind of what's happening with these laws - some places are instituting more permissive access laws, while others are instituting more restrictive ones.  As a result, we can see whether we should lean more towards permissiveness or restrictiveness.

What you are describing is, in effect, a social experiment and I think it is a potentially dangerous one that is using some the the most vulnerable members of our society as the test subjects. I am opposed to it.

Quote
Quote from: BibleStudent
It would have been helpful if you would have answered some of the questions I asked.
I'll be honest here, I thought I was answering your questions.  This is the first time you've so much as mentioned that you thought I wasn't.  Please direct me to the questions you're referring to.

I was referring only to the questions I bolded in the following quote that were part of this specific exchange:

Again, while I do not disagree that the act could still be viewed as indecent exposure, that determination cannot be so easily made in the wake of the transgender laws. If some guy's genitals were two inches away from the face of a woman in a women’s locker room five years ago, any reasonable person would deem that indecent exposure. Period. Five years ago, there would have been no “honest mistake” excuse because he shouldn’t have been there in the first place and the fact that he actually exposed his genitals would have been enough to, at the very least, earn him a firm slap across the face, if not a charge of indecent exposure and possibly even criminal sexual conduct. That’s called a deterrent. There would have been no “hey, I’m a transgender and it was an honest mistake” stuff. Now, though, what are you going to do? If this predator insists he is a transgender and it was an accident, how do you go about demonstrating that he is lying?  How do you enforce the law?

Quote
Quote from: BibleStudent
This isn't making sense. What does the alibi part have to do with having an understanding about what it means to be transgendered? Could you please elaborate a bit on this so maybe I have a better idea what you are getting at.
Having a better understanding of what it means to be transgendered means that you'll be able to understand that these alibis you've been referring to are ones that simply would not be used by transgendered people. 

I own a mid 1970's 'Trans'-am. Does that count?   :D

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2698
  • Darwins +162/-3
  • Polyatheist
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #439 on: May 20, 2016, 09:08:27 PM »
I would imagine that even transgendered folks are anxious right now and questioning if it is worth the risk to be confronted by some highly suspicious husband/father who is standing outside the door waiting to chomp on the first male looking female. I can tell you that someone who fits that description is going to get a stare down from me if I'm standing outside a restroom where my wife and one or both of my daughters are in.

So would you allow this person to follow your children into the bathroom? Or would you ask to see 'his' genitals first? How is it acceptable to hassle someone who YOU think doesn't 'fit the bill'? Do you see any problems here?

« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 09:10:41 PM by natlegend »
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Online LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1842
  • Darwins +201/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #440 on: May 20, 2016, 09:30:17 PM »
They are conveniently forgetting all the F to M transgendered people.  They would look highly suspicious in the ladies room.  But I guess they don't want them in the men's  room with "female" on their birth certificates.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Darwins +34/-129
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #441 on: May 21, 2016, 09:20:21 AM »
I would imagine that even transgendered folks are anxious right now and questioning if it is worth the risk to be confronted by some highly suspicious husband/father who is standing outside the door waiting to chomp on the first male looking female. I can tell you that someone who fits that description is going to get a stare down from me if I'm standing outside a restroom where my wife and one or both of my daughters are in.

So would you allow this person to follow your children into the bathroom? Or would you ask to see 'his' genitals first? How is it acceptable to hassle someone who YOU think doesn't 'fit the bill'? Do you see any problems here?

<pic removed to conserve space>

I never said anything about hassling someone....but what should I do? If I see a suspicious character entering a womens-only space, what do you recommend I do? If I call security or law enforcement, what are they going to do?....ask to see the person's genitals?...and around and around we go with no legally permitted way of investigating a possible imposter. We just assume all is well until AFTER something occurs.

Your comments, in my opinion, only serve to confirm part of the point I have been making throughout this thread. Many folks, such as yourself, may make the dangerous assumption that all is well or simply avoid risking the chance that something might not be and then causing a stir.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 09:22:00 AM by BibleStudent »

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1958
  • Darwins +75/-11
  • Gender: Male
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #442 on: May 21, 2016, 12:18:21 PM »
Last time (every time) I've used a fitting room, it was unisex.

The evangelicals cherry pick the most weakest arguments and don't know their being used by the political powers in charge as well as the tax-free moron crearionists thinking.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz4AmUaLbUQ

Apprently they choose their battles very wisely...  :-\

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70340966/5-21-2016%201-16-23%20PM.jpg
« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 12:26:03 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10844
  • Darwins +1780/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #443 on: May 21, 2016, 01:36:07 PM »
Just a couple of comments:

Conservatives often criticize new policies they do not like by saying it is a "social experiment" thought up by dope-addled hippies. As if whatever we are doing now has been that way since humans appeared on the planet. When in reality, lots of things we have been doing "since the beginning of time" only started in 1860, or 1920, or 1950, or 1964, or 1980, or 1994. Just because we are used to it-- because we cannot remember doing it differently-- does not mean that is the best or only way to do things. Look at the history of marriage laws, of race relations, of the pledge of allegiance, of childrearing, of welfare, of worker rights.

Life itself is a "social experiment". Whatever we do will affect people, one way or another. The status quo of letting people use whatever bathroom fits with whatever gender they are (based on dress, appearance, mannerisms, whatever)[1] is affecting people. Keeping it the same way will affect people. Changing it will affect people. Either way it is a "social experiment".

We don't generally make federal or state laws or have drastic policies based on all the things that somebody who is crazy might do. We could just stop having stores where people can see and touch merchandise-- because some people shoplift. Or, as Mr. B says, ban all guns, everywhere-- because some people shoot other people. Women's groups have facetiously proposed male curfews-- since some men assault women in public.

So, yeah, of course there are risks associated with having public rest rooms (locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc). Some people will do inappropriate things in them. But we still have to change clothes, shower, pee and poop. So, we try to balance the general need of people to use the facilities with basic protections. Unless we have armed guards and security cameras in every private space, you are not going to stop every pervert or rapist or molester. No matter what laws you pass about who is supposed to be where.

 1. Not what is on their birth certificate which nobody carries around anyway.
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2698
  • Darwins +162/-3
  • Polyatheist
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #444 on: May 21, 2016, 04:13:03 PM »
I never said anything about hassling someone....but what should I do? If I see a suspicious character entering a womens-only space, what do you recommend I do? If I call security or law enforcement, what are they going to do?....ask to see the person's genitals?...and around and around we go with no legally permitted way of investigating a possible imposter. We just assume all is well until AFTER something occurs.

Prior to the new laws coming out, the person pictured would have used the mens room with no problems. NOW, people like you are insisting he use the womens room. How the hell is it supposed to work, BS? You obviously don't want people who look like men to share women's facilities, so just what are they supposed to do now?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Online Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2962
  • Darwins +375/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #445 on: May 22, 2016, 09:34:12 AM »
I never said anything about hassling someone....but what should I do?
You should mind your own business.

Quote
If I see a suspicious character entering a womens-only space, what do you recommend I do?
What does "suspicious character" mean in this context? What are you looking for that would make a given person "suspicious"?

Quote
If I call security or law enforcement, what are they going to do?....ask to see the person's genitals?...and around and around we go with no legally permitted way of investigating a possible imposter.
Again, until and unless a person commits an illegal act, such as peeping, touching, or showing their genitalia, you could probably just go with "mind your own business", because the person in question is then most likely just using the facility for it's intended purpose.

Quote
We just assume all is well until AFTER something occurs.
We don't allow criminal charges without a criminal act in this country. All of our laws work that way - there has to be evidence of a crime. Even in a case where a person is charged with "intent to <fill in the blank>" there must be actual evidence of a crime. Peeing doesn't qualify.

I've said this over and over[1] and you keep ignoring it. The problem is not this legislation, it's not trans people, it's not even using a bathroom. It's MEN WHOM PREY ON AND VICTIMIZE OTHERS.

If you want to address the REAL problem, start there.
 1. as have others
“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger (4 BC - 65 AD)

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2698
  • Darwins +162/-3
  • Polyatheist
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #446 on: May 22, 2016, 04:21:41 PM »
I know BS, instead of expecting the world to revolve around YOU, why don't you just stop using public restrooms?

Problem solved.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7384
  • Darwins +980/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #447 on: May 22, 2016, 09:00:07 PM »
I have been rather backed up outside the forum and so won't be able to post here for a bit.
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7384
  • Darwins +980/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #448 on: May 26, 2016, 03:42:26 PM »
@BibleStudent:  I hope you don't mind that I'm not doing my usual point-by-point response.

First, part of the reason that I'm upset at this whole "bathroom controversy" is because it's creating problems rather than solving them.  You yourself noted that it's making it more difficult for people to use a restroom, not less.  It may be true that the people who want to do crap rather than just crapping are less likely to do so due to that atmosphere of concern and paranoia, but I don't really think that's the best we can do - nor do I think you disagree.

Second, relating to your examples, you keep bringing up a hypothetical person who uses access laws as an excuse to either get naked around women or to look at them while they're naked (and in the most recent one, both).  But you still haven't explained why access laws would provide such an excuse, which is what I've been trying to point out to you.  For example, take a public unisex bathroom which can be used by both men and women.  Why would allowing mixed-gender access excuse inappropriate behavior by someone inside?  Or let's take the idea of a unisex locker and changing room, similar to what you keep bringing up.  Why would the fact that both sexes can use it excuse inappropriate behavior by someone inside?  Please don't answer this with yet another example of someone trying to pull crap thinking they can get away with it.  Please explain, as precisely as possible, why you think they would be able to get away with it.

Third, and this is going to be a bit blunt, there are lots of little girls - and not so little girls - who have to deal with trauma much worse than the trauma faced by the hypothetical girl you keep referring.  I don't understand why you're prioritizing the possibility of trauma as an argument against access laws when the actual fact of the matter is that virtually none of the girls who face actual trauma do so as a result of something happening in a public restroom.  So I have to ask, why do you seem to be so much more concerned about things possibly happening in public restrooms and locker rooms as a result of these access laws, than you are about the far greater number of things that are actually happening outside of public view?

Fourth, while I understand your point about how it's too late to stop stuff like this after the damage has been done, predators like the one who assaulted those women at shelters aren't going to be doing things like that in public if there's any way to avoid it[1].  This is just as true in places with unisex facilities as it is in places with gendered facilities - time and time again, research on the subject has shown that sexual assaults happen outside the public view, as shown in this image:

If there are likely to be people around, as there are in bathrooms and locker rooms, a would-be sexual offender is going to go elsewhere.  They just aren't going to want to take the risk of getting caught in the act by someone else.  The kind of person who's not going to be inhibited by the possibility of being caught is the same kind of person who isn't going to care if there's a law saying they can't go in.  I just don't see access laws making enough of a difference to justify disallowing them; it's going to take more than what-if hypotheticals to show otherwise.

Fifth, I think you missed my point regarding the profiling of transgendered people.  And I get that you're concerned about sexual predators.  I agree with you on that, for that matter.  The problem is, you're looking in the wrong direction.  If you were worrying about a tiger attack in the middle of the savannah, would you be looking up at the sky, or in a tree?  No, you'd be looking around at the grass where the tiger actually hides in wait.  So why are you focusing on transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms rather than watching the places where sexual predators are most likely to strike?  And by the same token, when attention gets focused on transgendered people because of concern over sexual predators disguising themselves or masquerading as such, it necessarily diminishes elsewhere.  It's not like there's an easy way to tell if someone is a sexual predator, after all, so if you let yourself get distracted into looking at one particular group of people who have clear distinguishing characteristics, then you're much more likely to miss the subtle cues of actual sexual predators.  Not to mention that they'll be more likely to take advantage of said distraction.

I think that addresses all of the concerns you raised.  Please let me know if there's something I missed.
 1. the articles about him clearly showed that he waited until he could approach his victims alone, in a place where they were not likely to be disturbed, before trying anything
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2698
  • Darwins +162/-3
  • Polyatheist
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #449 on: May 26, 2016, 04:32:00 PM »
I think BS has bugged out of this thread. He certainly hasn't answered any of my questions.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13932
  • Darwins +527/-53
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #450 on: May 26, 2016, 04:36:56 PM »
I think BS has bugged out of this thread. He certainly hasn't answered any of my questions.

I think I recall him saying he was going to be busy.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7384
  • Darwins +980/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #451 on: May 26, 2016, 05:16:33 PM »
Even if I knew he wasn't coming back, I'd still have posted.
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3740
  • Darwins +257/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #452 on: May 27, 2016, 08:16:36 AM »
Maybe he's off praying about it and when he posts again it will be the holy spirit talking to us and all will be revealed.  :?
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10844
  • Darwins +1780/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #453 on: May 27, 2016, 10:24:13 AM »
Maybe he's off praying about it and when he posts again it will be the holy spirit talking to us and all will be revealed.  :?

We can only hope. I would love for all to be revealed. That is why I hang around in men's public restrooms..... :angel:
If you have god, why do you need the gun?

Prayer is begging god to change his mind.

Offline epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1409
  • Darwins +99/-26
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #454 on: May 27, 2016, 02:29:36 PM »
BS,

Forcing a M to F Transgender person into the bathroom of their genetic Sex might cause problems as well.   

1) I don't know this to be true but I think M to F transgender probably are attracted to Males.  So placing them in the male bathroom might be more in line with their sexual desires.

2) But sticking a guy in a dress in the  restroom would probably result in more problems than allowing him to enter the ladies room where there are nothing but stalls.   Essentially a M to F and a F to M transgender person can enter the bathroom of their choosing sit in a stall and leave the folks there just wondering if he is just an ugly chick or a feminine looking dude.

3) The locker room is a bit more complicated.   I don't know where the balance is between a woman's right to know that there are no dudes allowed in and that they don't have to look at a dudes dangly bits.   but restrooms almost certainly work best if you allow people to choose which room they enter.  Do I have a right to not have people with penises in my daughters school locker room and shower.   This is a double edged sword.   


I don't know how well a coed locker room would work in our society today.  I would feel both titillated and uncomfortable at the same time.   I guess I don't particularly like getting naked even among my fellow males.  Something to do with how I was raised, some insecurities, I usually work quickly and as discretely as possible.  But when I think about my daughters being exposed to penises in the locker room I feel uncomfortable.   I can't escape the thought that people with penises are attracted to females.   One might assume thought that this is more often than not the opposite of their sexual attraction.  Currently gay guys are in the bathrooms with us and likewise Lesbians are in the room with our women.  Trying to use pure logic, I am also not sure what is wrong with my daughters seeing penises???  Will my young daughter suddenly think that dick is so common that she suddenly becomes sexually active and wants Dick???  I don't think so.   Will that transgender person suddenly jump her bones?   Well we have other laws about sexual assault and rape to deal with that.


That last paragraph does clearly say that I really am conflicted and don't know the answer.   But as far as restrooms I think the decision has to be with the transgender person.   Locker rooms I don't know???  Do I as a person in our society have the right to have a sexually segregated environment in the locker room?  Why do I need a sexually segregated bathroom?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13932
  • Darwins +527/-53
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Corporations bow to Gay Agenda in NC
« Reply #455 on: May 27, 2016, 02:32:15 PM »
1) I don't know this to be true but I think M to F transgender probably are attracted to Males. So placing them in the male bathroom might be more in line with their sexual desires.

No. Sexual orientation and gender identity have no correlation with one another.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.