• 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

The whole argument concerns not forcing a person to act contrary to gender identity regardless of actual biological identity. Refusing to permit a transgender person to participate on the sports team of his/her identity regardless of actual biological identity is the same as denying the use of the bathroom of his/her identity. The issue is the denial of the liberty to act out gender identity. If a male who identifies himself as female is denied participation on a women's basketball team how is that less of a denial than to deny him access to a women's bathroom? It's all about rights, not objective reality.
 
MysteryMen said:
There are innate differences. The question is in which situations are the differences important? I think saying they are important in sports and not important what sex organ the person in a closed door stall had at birth is a completely logical distinction
Click to expand...

it's an arbitrary distinction, and quite bigoted. Sure, transgendered person, I'll help you as long as it's clear your place in society is still below mine, but god forbid if you actually have an advantage (as one might have in a sport) that's wrong, and I have to protect my daughter!!!
 
mebanedeac said:
The whole argument concerns not forcing a person to act contrary to gender identity regardless of actual biological identity. Refusing to permit a transgender person to participate on the sports team of his/her identity regardless of actual biological identity is the same as denying the use of the bathroom of his/her identity. The issue is the denial of the liberty to act out gender identity. If a male who identifies himself as female is denied participation on a women's basketball team how is that less of a denial than to deny him access to a women's bathroom? It's all about rights, not objective reality.
Click to expand...

Because most grown ups don't give a fuck where people use the bathroom.
 
RChildress107 said:
So there's no value in legally recognizing the rights of the LGBT community?

The argument I keep hearing is that Charlotte was supposed to be satisfied with the status quo (no legal protection for transgender individuals) because our backwards General Assembly had threatened to make it worse if they tried anything.

So basically it's ok for big government to bully local government in the name of political incorrectness, but not ok for private businesses to bully government in the name of political correctness (fuck capitalism I guess).
Click to expand...

Where is the right for anyone to use whatever bathroom they want? This isn't recognizing a right, it is granting a right to a very small subset beyond the rights of everyone else.

MysteryMen said:
So let's pretend we're in 1960. Charlotte says it's going to pass a law integrating schools. The state threatens to respond with some draconian ordinance entrenching segregation.

Would we say it's Charlotte's "fault?" Even if they knew what would happen?
Click to expand...

No, that is the wrong analogy. The correct 1960 analogy would be that 1960 Charlotte passes a law saying that blacks can attend either a black school or a white school as they so choose, but whites still have to attend an only white school.

Listen, I've been on record here for months saying that HB2 is stupid, reactionary, legally wrong, unenforceable, and discriminatory. It should be repealed, no doubt. But to act like the Charlotte ordinance is any better is just liberal blindness.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why people think this law infringes on the rights of people who are not transgenders. It brings way more questions to children who see a man in a dress going into the men's room than before HB2 was passed.

Allowing somebody whose sex is female and dresses like a male, to go into the women's restroom is going to bring way more security issues than just allowing them to go into the men's room. Transgender people go to painful extremes to come across as the gender that they feel they are.

Nobody can tell me with a straight face that if a man in a dress pops up in the men's room that it is safer than just allowing that person to go to the women's room. I would love to see the people arguing the other side try to identify a transgender person out of a lineup of 10 people. Almost everybody posting here has gone into the bathroom with somebody of the opposite sex and you had no idea. That's the way transgender people want it. They don't want to perv on anybody. They don't want to watch you pee. They don't want to creep anybody out. They just want to go to the bathroom while maintaining the gender identity that they feel they were born as. This law creates way more issues than it fixes.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
The correct 1960 analogy would be that 1960 Charlotte passes a law saying that blacks can attend either a black school or a white school as they so choose, but whites still have to attend an only white school.
Click to expand...

C'mon. We all know whites can do whatever we damn well please.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I'm not sure why people think this law infringes on the rights of people who are not transgenders. It brings way more questions to children who see a man in a dress going into the men's room than before HB2 was passed.

Allowing somebody whose sex is female and dresses like a male, to go into the women's restroom is going to bring way more security issues than just allowing them to go into the men's room. Transgender people go to painful extremes to come across as the gender that they feel they are.

Nobody can tell me with a straight face that if a man in a dress pops up in the men's room that it is safer than just allowing that person to go to the women's room. I would love to see the people arguing the other side try to identify a transgender person out of a lineup of 10 people. Almost everybody posting here has gone into the bathroom with somebody of the opposite sex and you had no idea. That's the way transgender people want it. They don't want to perv on anybody. They don't want to watch you pee. They don't want to creep anybody out. They just want to go to the bathroom while maintaining the gender identity that they feel they were born as. This law creates way more issues than it fixes.
Click to expand...

*coughs*

Take it easy, Heteronormative Jackson.
 
I say we pardon all of the people who have been prosecuted under this law and move on with our lives.

In terms of sorting through the pardons, do you guys want to start alphabetically, or geographically? West to East or East to West?

Also, what about the other 26 States that have similar laws?

What if we just all called ourselves a SJ hero (from one point of view) and cultural savior (from the other) and just move the F on? So much dumb here, on all sides.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, that is the wrong analogy. The correct 1960 analogy would be that 1960 Charlotte passes a law saying that blacks can attend either a black school or a white school as they so choose, but whites still have to attend an only white school.
Click to expand...

No this is definitely a worse analogy. The North Carolina law says that individuals have to use the bathroom that corresponds with their sex. This would be if a 1960 law was passed saying that black and white people can only use the water fountain corresponding with the race on their birth certificate and furthermore, if someone wants to change the race on their birth certificate they have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to do so.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I was talking about the Charlotte ordinance. Hence the inclusion of the word Charlotte.
Click to expand...

Ah I apologize. It's still an awful analogy though because the law just says that anyone can use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender - it doesn't just say "those individuals born women want to use the men's bathroom" while exempting individuals born as men who want to use the womens' (or vice versa).
 
The bottom line is Charlotte was having no problems with their law. Then, the NC GOP decided to go batshit and created a lot of problems.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Ah I apologize. It's still an awful analogy though because the law just says that anyone can use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender - it doesn't just say "those individuals born women want to use the men's bathroom" while exempting individuals born as men who want to use the womens' (or vice versa).
Click to expand...

No it doesn't say it in that way. It says that the provider cannot discriminate provision of services based on gender identity. Sex is already included as protected for facility provision, so it means that a transgender person can say "I identify as a woman, so I want to use the women's room"; and that same person can also say "I have a dong so I want to use the men's room". So they get a choice to use either based on other factors (line length, perving, etc). Whereas, a person with a dong who identifies as a male doesn't have a choice, they have to use the men's room regardless of line length or desire to perv.

If the Charlotte ordinance was really meant to be right-affirming and inclusive, it would have simply said "anyone can use any bathroom they want, regardless of the sign on the door". But they didn't do that, because (even though the libs on here deny it) they recognize the normal man/woman right to privacy. And that is where the hypocrisy and overreaching comes in.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No it doesn't say it in that way. It says that the provider cannot discriminate provision of services based on gender identity. Sex is already included as protected for facility provision, so it means that a transgender person can say "I identify as a woman, so I want to use the women's room"; and that same person can also say "I have a dong so I want to use the women's room". So they get a choice to use either based on other factors (line length, perving, etc). Whereas, a person with a dong who identifies as a male doesn't have a choice, they have to use the men's room regardless of line length or desire to perv.

If the Charlotte ordinance was really meant to be right-affirming and inclusive, it would have simply said "anyone can use any bathroom they want, regardless of the sign on the door". But they didn't do that, because (even though the libs on here deny it) they recognize the normal man/woman right to privacy. And that is where the hypocrisy and overreaching comes in.
Click to expand...

And the test of that is_________?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top