• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

HB2 Strikes Again

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Wait, now you're talking about the transgendered person getting sexually assaulted? I don't think that is at issue under either side's theories, that doesn't make any sense at all.

As to non-sexual assaults, I'm pretty sure you are thinking some sort of embarrassment, but I would think that most people who get the shit kicked out of them are pretty embarrassed regardless of their clothing. Plus, we're talking about people who are publicly dressed as the opposite sex; if they were embarrassed by an assault "more" than the average assault victim solely because they were dressed in public as the opposite sex, then they wouldn't be dressed in public as the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

Wow. Though to be fair not sure why I expected you to have even a basic understanding of the trans community.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
As to non-sexual assaults, I'm pretty sure you are thinking some sort of embarrassment, but I would think that most people who get the shit kicked out of them are pretty embarrassed regardless of their clothing. Plus, we're talking about people who are publicly dressed as the opposite sex; if they were embarrassed by an assault "more" than the average assault victim solely because they were dressed in public as the opposite sex, then they wouldn't be dressed in public as the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

They already get beat up so what's the matter if they get assaulted more?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Wait, now you're talking about the transgendered person getting sexually assaulted? I don't think that is at issue under either side's theories, that doesn't make any sense at all.

As to non-sexual assaults, I'm pretty sure you are thinking some sort of embarrassment, but I would think that most people who get the shit kicked out of them are pretty embarrassed regardless of their clothing. Plus, we're talking about people who are publicly dressed as the opposite sex; if they were embarrassed by an assault "more" than the average assault victim solely because they were dressed in public as the opposite sex, then they wouldn't be dressed in public as the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding/ignorance of the trans community and a lot of issues they've faced over the years just to get to where we are in 2016.
 
RChildress107 said:
Because the status quo is transgendered persons being treated like second class citizens living on the fringes of society.
Click to expand...

How so, when there is absolutely no evidence of them being treated as second class citizens on the fringes of the society when it comes to the Charlotte bathrooms involved in the ordinance? You just assume that people don't like transgenders in bathrooms, you are acting like just as much of a bigot as the Republicans in Raleigh who you are objecting to. They (wrongly) assume that transgenders assault people in Charlotte bathroom, you (wrongly) assume that other people assault transgenders in Charlotte bathrooms.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
So I still have yet to hear ANY reasonable need for the CLT ordinance to change the status quo, other than political grandstanding.
Click to expand...

Okay, so Charlotte passed an ordinance that was unnecessary because there was no issue - everything was operating fine. Then why did NC then go ban something that was operating fine? As I mentioned earlier on this thread, there is absolutely zero logic in furthering that argument:

1. City gives de jure approval to something that is de facto acceptable - says there's a problem (but for these purposes, let's just agree with your statement that there is no underlying safety issue at all)
2. NC legislature says "well everything was fine before when it was unspoken and there was just tacit approval, but now that you're attempting to enshrine rights as a matter of law for your city, we're not just going to say 'you can't do that' but we're additonally going to pass a law that says what was de facto okay is now prohibited through a law we admit is also unenforceable."
3. NC GOP says "won't you please think of the children" and says the law isn't discriminatory because it protects the safety of children from attacks in the bathroom from "men dressing up as women."
4. There is no evidence underlying the safety issue whatsoever.

Where's the logic?

ETA: 3 & 4 above.
 
Last edited:
Deacsfan27 said:
These are just incredible mental gymnastics.

We should thank Governor McCrory, because without his law that fails to distinguish gender and sexual orientation as a protected class against discrimination, nobody would know about the discrimination they face everyday?
Click to expand...
LOL......hard to accept that was part of their thinking eh? Proponents of H2B said right out of the gate that they thought were protecting the rights of transexuals, not discriminating against them. Why do you think they said that? Because.....making it against the law to deny them the bathroom of their genitalia protects their rights to be in that bathroom, and being/feeling harrassed in that bathroom was the root cause of all of the problems.

It all doesn't seem so horrible when you look at it from that point of view, does it?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How so, when there is absolutely no evidence of them being treated as second class citizens on the fringes of the society when it comes to the Charlotte bathrooms involved in the ordinance? You just assume that people don't like transgenders in bathrooms, you are acting like just as much of a bigot as the Republicans in Raleigh who you are objecting to. They (wrongly) assume that transgenders assault people in Charlotte bathroom, you (wrongly) assume that other people assault transgenders in Charlotte bathrooms.
Click to expand...

Giving legal recognition to a group that is widely misunderstood and demonized by society (see HB2) changes the status quo. Even if there were zero or few incidents of assault against transgendered individuals in Charlotte bathrooms (statistically unlikely given studies from other cities) the ordinance was still a huge deal for the trans community.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
They already get beat up so what's the matter if they get assaulted more?
Click to expand...
Surprisingly, the study that's always cited didn't find much physical violence against transexuals. It occurred, but IIRC only something like 8% of transexuals interviewed had ever experienced physical violence, which probably isn't much different than norms. IIRC physically threatened was in the mid to high teens.

The primary problem within the community was called "harrassment". Something like 65% of transexuals had experienced "strange looks". Lesser numbers had experienced harrassment in the form of people "telling them the other bathroom was somewhere else" or "being questioned if they were in the correct bathroom". That's the reason they "need" to use the bathroom of their choice and what has driven the lawsuits. Those kinds of scenarios are also probably why they aren't going to challenge the NCAA "discrimination"......yet.
 
pourdeac said:
Surprisingly, the study that's always cited didn't find much physical violence against transexuals. It occurred, but IIRC only something like 8% of transexuals interviewed had ever experienced physical violence, which probably isn't much different than norms. IIRC physically threatened was in the mid to high teens.

The primary problem within the community was called "harrassment". Something like 65% of transexuals had experienced "strange looks". Lesser numbers had experienced harrassment in the form of people "telling them the other bathroom was somewhere else" or "being questioned if they were in the correct bathroom". That's the reason they "need" to use the bathroom of their choice and what has driven the lawsuits. Those kinds of scenarios are also probably why they aren't going to challenge the NCAA "discrimination"......yet.
Click to expand...

Those are probably why who isn't going to challenge the NCAA discrimination yet?

What's there to challenge?
 
All of pour's and 2&2's and others' excuses about this being a reaction to a stupid law is simply an excuse to create a statewide law to discriminate. And that's what it was.

Here are few laws that some cities but others in their states don't:

In Houston, TX, it's illegal to sell Limburger cheese on Sunday.

In Fairbanks, AK, it's an offense to give alcohol to a moose.

In Hartford, CT, it's illegal for a husband to kiss his wife on Sunday.

In Waterloo, NE, it's illegal for barbers to eat onions after 7 AM while working.

In Paulding, OH, a cop is allowed to bite a dog if the cop think it will calm the dog down.

In Minneapolis, it is illegal to drive a red car down Lake Street.

The rest of their states didn't have enact laws about these. The same is about the Charlotte bathroom law.
 
The smaller the government the better, unless we don't like your law
 
pourdeac said:
Hey RJ....here's your Jim Crow speak. It's OK to discriminate as long as it has an "accepted" purpose. Wasn't that the argument back in the 1950s?
Click to expand...

no, the jim crow speak is 2&2's take that social progress is = political grandstanding
 
What states have expressly made gender identity a protected class? If they are not expressly a protected class in that state, then they can be discriminated against, right? Isn't that the list of possible states to move the NCAA and ACC events? Should these events even be held in the USA?
 
RJKarl said:
All of pour's and 2&2's and others' excuses about this being a reaction to a stupid law is simply an excuse to create a statewide law to discriminate. And that's what it was.

Here are few laws that some cities but others in their states don't:

In Houston, TX, it's illegal to sell Limburger cheese on Sunday.

In Fairbanks, AK, it's an offense to give alcohol to a moose.

In Hartford, CT, it's illegal for a husband to kiss his wife on Sunday.

In Waterloo, NE, it's illegal for barbers to eat onions after 7 AM while working.

In Paulding, OH, a cop is allowed to bite a dog if the cop think it will calm the dog down.

In Minneapolis, it is illegal to drive a red car down Lake Street.

The rest of their states didn't have enact laws about these. The same is about the Charlotte bathroom law.
Click to expand...

Why do you lie?

EZ3CdfI.jpg
 
bmoneydeac said:
Don't want to google sex crime stats at work but I've wondered what percentage of stranger abuse is man on boy vs man on girl. Poor boys totally get dismissed in all this discussion.
Click to expand...

Particularly Catholic boys.

RJKarl said:
In Hartford, CT, it's illegal for a husband to kiss his wife on Sunday.
Click to expand...

That may be the dumbest law of all.
 
awaken said:
What states have expressly made gender identity a protected class? If they are not expressly a protected class in that state, then they can be discriminated against, right? Isn't that the list of possible states to move the NCAA and ACC events? Should these events even be held in the USA?
Click to expand...

In about two dozen states, you can be fired for being gay. You be denied an apartment or a mortgage for being gay.

Would you be OK with it being legal to be able to be fired because you are a Christian?

Some believe being gay is a choice, but there is a lot of doubt about this. Being Christian or Jewish or agnostic is absolutely a choice. There's no doubt about. Why is the choice of religion more important than the "choice" of whom you love?
 
Scott Hamilton weighs in: ACC games will go on, but that's little consolation

Then again, that would appropriately mirror HB2, given how it’s setting our entire state back decades, and not just in its perception. Because at this rate — with the way businesses and sports and entertainers are scattering — anyone who decides to remain should prepare to be living on one giant farm that runs from the mountains to the beach. But we’ll be very clear on which outhouses to use, so at least there’s that.
Click to expand...
 
qcdeac said:
Particularly Catholic boys.



That may be the dumbest law of all.
Click to expand...

AZ has two of my favorites:

It's illegal to manufacture imitation cocaine.

You may not have more than two dildos in a house. I wonder how you get hired to be the dildo inspector?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top