• 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

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.

How many trans individuals, if given the chance to use the bathroom of their gender identity, are going to use the bathroom of their sex? I mean come on. And as to your last line, if a man wants to use the women's bathroom he's just going to say he identifies as a woman since this law isn't being enforced. Which really gets back to the original issue: the law is not being enforced!

Also love the little drop in of "perving" there. Nice touch.
 
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.

You keep saying you don't have a position on the issue, yet that is preceded by statements like this:

"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 understand that you feel you are merely pointing out what you feel is hypocrisy on the topic, but your argument fails because the latter portion of your statement is based upon false premises.

We both know you have a "position on the issue". No need to skirt it and pretend like you don't.
 
How many trans individuals, if given the chance to use the bathroom of their gender identity, are going to use the bathroom of their sex? I mean come on. And as to your last line, if a man wants to use the women's bathroom he's just going to say he identifies as a woman since this law isn't being enforced. Which really gets back to the original issue: the law is not being enforced!

Also love the little drop in of "perving" there. Nice touch.

So you've never seen a woman in the men's room at a sporting event or concert because of a long line? How did you know if they were real or trans, since they all go to such great efforts to dress to their identity? Did you dong-check?
And whether they use it or not doesn't matter when we are talking about legislative rights; the Charlotte ordinance was giving them the right to choose, which nobody else has. Which is why it was overreaching and hypocritical.
 
You keep saying you don't have a position on the issue, yet that is preceded by statements like this:

"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 understand that you feel you are merely pointing out what you feel is hypocrisy on the topic, but your argument fails because the latter portion of your statement is based upon false premises.

We both know you have a "position on the issue". No need to skirt it and pretend like you don't.

I really don't. I find both of the extremes fascinating. It isn't a problem, it wasn't a problem, and then we made it a problem. Because we're dumb. I find the dumb (theirs and yours) to be the problem. I don't give a shit about yours.
 
So you've never seen a woman in the men's room at a sporting event or concert because of a long line? How did you know if they were real or trans, since they all go to such great efforts to dress to their identity? Did you dong-check?

As has been previously pointed out, your lack of knowledge about the trans community and the issues they face really comes through in comments like this.

How did I know that a random person at a sporting event was presenting as a woman while in the men's bathroom? Well, they were presenting as a woman. Pretty easy.
 
As has been previously pointed out, your lack of knowledge about the trans community and the issues they face really comes through in comments like this.

How did I know that a random person at a sporting event was presenting as a woman while in the men's bathroom? Well, they were presenting as a woman. Pretty easy.

Well, I'm guilty of that. I will confess that I find the "trans community" to be a rather confusing topic to get my head wrapped around. I'm not going to pretend to totally understand.

All the more reason why we shouldn't have a law about it. YOU get some dumb! YOU get some dumb!
 
Well, I'm guilty of that. I will confess that I find the "trans community" to be a rather confusing topic to get my head wrapped around. I'm not going to pretend to totally understand.

All the more reason why we shouldn't have a law about it. YOU get some dumb! YOU get some dumb!

We shouldn't have a law about something that you find to be a rather confusing topic to get your head wrapped around? What is "all the more reason" modifying?
 
We shouldn't have a law about something that you find to be a rather confusing topic to get your head wrapped around? What is "all the more reason" modifying?

I'm saying that if we don't have a bright line, we shouldn't have a bright line rule. I don't understand the test for "trans"; subjective self-reporting?

To me, it's a non-issue. It's beyond me to think that I would ever stop my day long enough to see if that dude in the next stall really is a dude. Avoidable issue we managed not to avoid. Good job, good effort, everyone.
 
If we came up with a test for religious freedom ("sincerely held belief") then we can certainly come up with an appropriate test for gender identity if we want to.
 
If we came up with a test for religious freedom ("sincerely held belief") then we can certainly come up with an appropriate test for gender identity if we want to.

Have we really, though?

We've managed to screw up the solution to a problem we didn't have. Hooray for dumb!
 
I'm fine waiving the gender identity "test" if we waive the religious "test." Something tells me this offer isn't going to get far though.
 
If we came up with a test for religious freedom ("sincerely held belief") then we can certainly come up with an appropriate test for gender identity if we want to.

We should call the "religious freedom acts" what they are - "gay discrimination acts".
 
Last edited:
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.

If there was no problem in Charlotte AFTER the bill became law, there was ZERO reason to pas the irrational HB2.

What Charlotte law are you talking about?
 
Allowing male transgenders to use women's bathrooms may be the worst idea I have ever heard of in my life. According to this article, only 0.3% of Americans are transgender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

0.3%...and because of this, liberals are advocating scrapping a system for the other 99.7% of the population that has been in existence for more than 200 years. There must have been reasons that Americans felt were valid for having separate restrooms for men & women during all this time, or we would all have just been going to the same restroom for the last 200 years.

In effect, those who support this insanity are advocating that we provide a new "right"...which isn't even necessary...for 0.3% of the people by infringing upon the rights of 99.7% of the people. I don't doubt that the true transgender feels like a female.....but anatomically, especially to underage girls.....he is still a male. These children should not be forced to be exposed to male genitals at these ages just because a transgender wants to choose to go to the girls' restroom. You say that those girls wouldn't be exposed to that if the transgender used a closed stall. Well, if that's the case, why couldn't that transgender use a similar closed stall in the men's restroom? There is simply no reason...urgent or otherwise...for making a change in the law like this to accommodate 0.3% of the people by infringing upon the right to sexual privacy for 99.7% of the people.

And the inevitability of future negative consequences from something like this is that once it is established that transgender males can use women's restrooms, there will be no way to monitor the situation to prevent abuses by voyeurs or, worse, pedophiles, who are motivated by prurient reasons. Women and children will be at risk....not from transgenders but from men posing as transgenders, because that will be an easy thing to do....and even aside from potential physical risk they will be subjected to loss of privacy. All because some liberals want to change laws & customs that have been in place thruout the entire history of this country....just so that 0.3% of the people can use a closed stall in the girls' bathroom instead of a closed stall in the men's bathroom.

I think that I am more enraged by this complete lack of common sense & reason than by any other thing that the Democratic Party has advocated in my lifetime.....which is why I have changed my registration and don't know when or if I will ever vote for another Democrat. The idea that liberals are willing to abrogate rights for 99.7% of the people in order to create an accommodation that isn't even necessary for 0.3% of the people astounds me. They piously claim to have such compassion (liberals are always the caring, compassionate people, you know) for this 0.3% of the population....but they have no concern whatsoever for that other 99.7% of the population.

If something like this was necessary it might be different (though it would still be hard to justify giving a right to 0.3% of the people that required taking away a right from 99.7% of the people).....but it's not necessary. It's just something that hypocritical liberals are wanting to do so that they can make themselves feel that they are morally superior to others.
 
And Bob, since clearly you've never met a transgender woman, I'll provide some helpful advice. They aren't dressed as men. So if a person dressed as a man walks into a bathroom- they don't belong there. (Well I guess in NC they do, thanks to HB2. The irony is quite something)
 
And lastly, saying there's a right to sexual privacy over and over again doesn't make it a real thing. Even if you really really wished it were a thing.
 
Conservatives want to scrap the system that worked. Everybody else just wants to go to the bathroom and mind their own business like we've been doing.
 
Back
Top