• 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 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.

What the hell are you talking about? The Charlotte council shot down the same proposed ordinance the year prior, and they had large amounts of people protesting and hours of public comments from both sides before the eventual split decision. Which is why Raleigh got wind of it and told them in advance that they would react, a good portion of the Charlotte population was objecting to it.
 
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.

Let's grant this, arguendo. The issue, as it so often is, is not about whether a right is being denied, as if this were happening in a vacuum, but rather if and the degree to which the assertion of those rights infringes on others. In your sports analogy, I think most people would argue that a biologically male/female gendered individual's right to compete athletically with women is outweighed by biologically and gendered females' collective right to compete on an even playing field. In the case of the bathrooms, the argument goes that the assertion of the transgendered persons' right to use the bathroom of his/her identified gender does not sufficiently, if at all, infringe on others' rights.
 
There weren't problems in the bathrooms.

Exactly, there was no problem in the bathrooms without the ordinance!!!! You are proving my point!
There was no material gap in time between when the Charlotte ordinance was passed and HB2 was enacted. I don't think the Charlotte ordinance ever even went into effect, it was approved February 22 to be effective April 15, and HB2 was enacted March 23.
 
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.

There's absolutely no difference between this and whites saying it's denying their rights not to swim in a public pool or go to a public bathroom with black people.

You are using the exact same reasoning. They said the government was taking away their rights.
 
Let's grant this, arguendo. The issue, as it so often is, is not about whether a right is being denied, as if this were happening in a vacuum, but rather if and the degree to which the assertion of those rights infringes on others. In your sports analogy, I think most people would argue that a biologically male/female gendered individual's right to compete athletically with women is outweighed by biologically and gendered females' collective right to compete on an even playing field. In the case of the bathrooms, the argument goes that the assertion of the transgendered persons' right to use the bathroom of his/her identified gender does not sufficiently, if at all, infringe on others' rights.

Arguendo response: So the difference is the degree of the impact on others, and how much they need protecting? The 22 year old D-1 athlete needs protecting from not finishing second in the 400M, but a six year old girl doesn't need protecting from the registered sex offender who feels like a lady today?

I don't defend this law, FTR, but I find the response predictable and cliché. It's so "Look at meeeee!' it makes Franklin Graham sound thoughtful and reasonable (see link). We can all do better.

https://billygraham.org/story/franklin-graham-respond-to-acc-tournament-move-out-of-north-carolina/
 
Last edited:
Exactly, there was no problem in the bathrooms without the ordinance!!!! You are proving my point!
There was no material gap in time between when the Charlotte ordinance was passed and HB2 was enacted. I don't think the Charlotte ordinance ever even went into effect, it was approved February 22 to be effective April 15, and HB2 was enacted March 23.

If there was no problem in Charlotte AFTER the bill became law, there was ZERO reason to pas the irrational HB2.
 
Arguendo response: So the difference is the degree of the impact on others, and how much they need protecting? The 22 year old D-1 athlete needs protecting from not finishing second in the 400M, but a six year old girl doesn't need protecting from the registered sex offender who feels like a lady today?

This is just such a disingenuous argument. You're creating complete straw men with absolutely no backing in truth to prove your point.

Remember, criminals don't obey laws, so why would they obey bathroom signs? Not to mention they will still be in the bathroom is six year old boys.
 
Let's grant this, arguendo. The issue, as it so often is, is not about whether a right is being denied, as if this were happening in a vacuum, but rather if and the degree to which the assertion of those rights infringes on others. In your sports analogy, I think most people would argue that a biologically male/female gendered individual's right to compete athletically with women is outweighed by biologically and gendered females' collective right to compete on an even playing field. In the case of the bathrooms, the argument goes that the assertion of the transgendered persons' right to use the bathroom of his/her identified gender does not sufficiently, if at all, infringe on others' rights.

Why? By allowing the transgender to use the bathroom of one gender instead of the other, you are in effect acknowledging that there is something about which bathroom it is that is important to the transgender and worth protecting. Whether it is privacy, safety, whatever, it is something. And that is fine. But at the same time, you are refusing to acknowledge that non-transgenders have that same concern about their something. It is complete hypocrisy, there is no way around that.
 
Arguendo response: So the difference is the degree of the impact on others, and how much they need protecting? The 22 year old D-1 athlete needs protecting from not finishing second in the 400M, but a six year old girl doesn't need protecting from the registered sex offender who feels like a lady today?

Well, yeah, that's the counterargument, to wit, Charlotte's ordinance actually does infringe upon others' rights sufficiently. I'm not making a judgment either way, but I think that line of reasoning is better grounded logically.
 
This is just such a disingenuous argument. You're creating complete straw men with absolutely no backing in truth to prove your point.

Remember, criminals don't obey laws, so why would they obey bathroom signs? Not to mention they will still be in the bathroom is six year old boys.

Well, the truth is we both know that I am not, so no amount of adverbs or professed clarity or certainty on your part is going to streamline a very complicated issued. Sorry about that.

I'm profoundly unmoved by either side of this non-issue, but it's hilarious to watch people jump around to defend their Team's position, as you have proudly displayed in channeling your inner Second Amendment Bro's greatest hits in Paragraph 2. Murder is already illegal, so why do we need gun control, right?
 
Why? By allowing the transgender to use the bathroom of one gender instead of the other, you are in effect acknowledging that there is something about which bathroom it is that is important to the transgender and worth protecting. Whether it is privacy, safety, whatever, it is something. And that is fine. But at the same time, you are refusing to acknowledge that non-transgenders have that same concern about their something. It is complete hypocrisy, there is no way around that.

Again, I'm not making a judgment. I'm simply pointing out that this is the appropriately "level" on which to have this debate, as opposed to arguing mebanedeac's point.
 
Again, I'm not making a judgment. I'm simply pointing out that this is the appropriately "level" on which to have this debate, as opposed to arguing mebanedeac's point.

Can Bathroom-Agnostic North Carolina secede from both sides of the extreme of this issue? Who's going with me? *grabs fish from the aquarium*
 
Well, the truth is we both know that I am not, so no amount of adverbs or professed clarity or certainty on your part is going to streamline a very complicated issued. Sorry about that.

I'm profoundly unmoved by either side of this non-issue, but it's hilarious to watch people jump around to defend their Team's position, as you have proudly displayed in channeling your inner Second Amendment Bro's greatest hits in Paragraph 2. Murder is already illegal, so why do we need gun control, right?

We both know that you are not what? Of course you are creating strawmen. Show me evidence that sex offender are exploiting transgender bathroom laws to get into the bathroom of their choice to assault little girls.
 
We both know that you are not what? Of course you are creating strawmen. Show me evidence that sex offender are exploiting transgender bathroom laws to get into the bathroom of their choice to assault little girls.

Show me evidence that HB 2 has resulted in a single imposition of any civil or criminal penalty anywhere in the State of North Carolina. I will settle for one name.
 
the discrimination is that proponents of hb2 don't believe a trans person is who they identify as. most of them believe gender identity is as simple as penis/vagina. it's not. it's not a choice. if it was a choice i am confident most of them would take the easy road. the one that does not get them stared at, mocked, made fun of, beaten up.

this is the same type of argument that was, and still is, used against gay people. it's a choice so don't force it on me (having to see you hold hands etc). being gay has become more accepted, though it's still an issue for far too many, and now being trans is taking the same treatment.

gotta love the nc gop. stay out of my life big government... unless you are something i don't like then lets legislate you out of mine.
 
Show me evidence that HB 2 has resulted in a single imposition of any civil or criminal penalty anywhere in the State of North Carolina. I will settle for one name.

There haven't been any. It's an unenforceable law from the bathroom standpoint (which is why it's dumb to begin with).

We are talking past each other. We both know that it's an unenforceable law put forth by the GA and McCrory for political grandstanding masked in protecting our children.

I'm more concerned about the unintended consequences of the law (of course the state court employment cases was settled after they realized that NC could no longer hear cases thanks to the law), and the lack of protection for LGBTQ as a class under current anti-discrimination laws.
 
There haven't been any. It's an unenforceable law.

We are talking past each other. We both know that it's an unenforceable law put forth by the GA and McCrory for political grandstanding masked in protecting our children.

I'm more concerned about the unintended consequences of the law (of course the state court employment cases was settled after they realized that NC could no longer hear cases thanks to the law), and the lack of protection for LGBTQ as a class under current anti-discrimination laws.

I don't have a position on this issue, because it isn't an issue at all. It's one childish overreaction answered by another.
 
Back
Top