• 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!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

Now that cis men can just pretend to be transsexual, they can just walk into the women's room to commit a sex crime, whereas before they had to.. sneak into the women's room? That's a slippery slope right there - I'm pretty sure that's what brought down the Roman empire
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
Now that cis men can just pretend to be transsexual, they can just walk into the women's room to commit a sex crime, whereas before they had to.. sneak into the women's room? That's a slippery slope right there - I'm pretty sure that's what brought down the Roman empire
Click to expand...

I think we should ban mother's milk. I bet 95% of sexual predators started their lives drinking mother's milk. You start people on the slippery slope to pedophilia by letting them drink mother's milk.
 
I really hate the word "cisgender". It's one of those finger nails on a blackboard words.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
I really hate the word "cisgender". It's one of those finger nails on a blackboard words.
Click to expand...
I used to feel that way because I always heard it used condescendingly by SJWs, but all it means is that your gender matches your sex.
 
I know what it means and its origin but it's one of those words like "moist" that just is grating to hear.
 
PhDeac said:
I think you're mistaken. It's used to justify HB2. Isn't it straight males who are going to be dressing up like women to go into their bathrooms?
Click to expand...

Yes, which is where the hypocrisy comes in. Both sides point to a fear of the activity of straight males to justify their desired law. But for some reason in the court of popular opinion, that stereotype is okay for the pro-CLT-ordinance crowd, but is not okay for the pro-HB2 crowd. But it is basically the same damn stereotype. Straight males apparently can't control their urges around either trans individuals or little girls.

The initial point of causation of this mess is that under the CLT ordinance it was straight males who are going to be beating up trans people in the male bathrooms, requiring segregation.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yes, which is where the hypocrisy comes in. Both sides point to a fear of the activity of straight males to justify their desired law. But for some reason in the court of popular opinion, that stereotype is okay for the pro-CLT-ordinance crowd, but is not okay for the pro-HB2 crowd. But it is basically the same damn stereotype. Straight males apparently can't control their urges around either trans individuals or little girls.

The initial point of causation of this mess is that under the CLT ordinance it was straight males who are going to be beating up trans people in the male bathrooms, requiring segregation.
Click to expand...

Except that only the Charlotte law was rationally related to the fear of heterosexual male violence. HB2 does nothing to address the fear of heterosexual males entering women's bathrooms to sexually assault women. In fact it makes it easier for them to do so.
 
At least we are all finally in agreement that straight males are the problem with everything in this country...
 
RChildress107 said:
Except that only the Charlotte law was rationally related to the fear of heterosexual male violence. HB2 does nothing to address the fear of heterosexual males entering women's bathrooms to sexually assault women. In fact it makes it easier for them to do so.
Click to expand...

Rationally related how? Where are the crime stats on heterosexual male violence on trans individuals in CLT bathrooms as compared to general bathroom violence? I have yet to see any. Which should be pretty easy to locate if there is a rational relationship, no?
 
I have to say, after observing the events of the past couple months I pretty much agree with 2&2's take on this whole thing. Charlotte's law was a solution in search of a problem, and they went ahead with it after being warned that they would draw legislative backlash from a legislature well known for its eagerness to slap down cities. They went ahead anyway, and we got HB2 which was also a solution in search of a problem, but as an added bonus we got discrimination protections gutted for all NC citizens and a minimum wage slapdown as well (that one was probably on the way, but taking discrimination suits out of state courts never would have passed on its own with the covering fire from the bathroom mess).

Part of being an effective political leader is knowing when and how to pick your battles. If you're running a city in North Carolina right now, it's just not a wise move to provoke this legislature and give them an excuse to do anything. At the best you get slapped and have to spend taxpayer money suing the GA, at worst you get slapped AND everyone in the state gets shit on because of you. Charlotte's eagerness to make this particular social justice statement has backfired in a big way.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Rationally related how? Where are the crime stats on heterosexual male violence on trans individuals in CLT bathrooms as compared to general bathroom violence? I have yet to see any. Which should be pretty easy to locate if there is a rational relationship, no?
Click to expand...

No. Rationally related in that there is a logical relationship between the harm to be prevented and the means used to prevent that harm.

There are plenty of reasons why there aren't readily available statistics on violence against trans-individuals as it is often unreported or not reported as a transgender victim. That doesn't change the fact that if violence against transwomen in mens bathrooms is a potential harm (it is) then CLT ordinance is a rational solution.

The same can't be said for HB2
 
RChildress107 said:
No. Rationally related in that there is a logical relationship between the harm to be prevented and the means used to prevent that harm.

There are plenty of reasons why there aren't readily available statistics on violence against trans-individuals as it is often unreported or not reported as a transgender victim. That doesn't change the fact that if violence against transwomen in mens bathrooms is a potential harm (it is) then CLT ordinance is a rational solution.

The same can't be said for HB2
Click to expand...

That is a pretty big IF with no actual evidence, it is just your opinion derived from your prejudice against straight males. There has to be an actual harm to even reach the rational basis relationship test. Anything is a potential harm. I could get hit by lightening or fall through a sidewalk grate; those are potential harms but their likelihood of occurrence is extremely small. And, it is a potential harm that a dude dresses as a woman to get into a bathroom to perv little girls. Both are potential harms based off of nothing more than prejudices with no actual evidence of occurrence; but you support your prejudice and not the other side's prejudice. Complete hypocrisy. I don't support either prejudice.

If you are a governing body charged with enacting laws that burden the public (and query whether the CLT council even has the authority to do this, but that is another discussion), then the actual harm needs to outweigh the burden. If there is no actual harm, then society does not get burdened by the law.
 
Deacon923 said:
I have to say, after observing the events of the past couple months I pretty much agree with 2&2's take on this whole thing. Charlotte's law was a solution in search of a problem, and they went ahead with it after being warned that they would draw legislative backlash from a legislature well known for its eagerness to slap down cities. They went ahead anyway, and we got HB2 which was also a solution in search of a problem, but as an added bonus we got discrimination protections gutted for all NC citizens and a minimum wage slapdown as well (that one was probably on the way, but taking discrimination suits out of state courts never would have passed on its own with the covering fire from the bathroom mess).

Part of being an effective political leader is knowing when and how to pick your battles. If you're running a city in North Carolina right now, it's just not a wise move to provoke this legislature and give them an excuse to do anything. At the best you get slapped and have to spend taxpayer money suing the GA, at worst you get slapped AND everyone in the state gets shit on because of you. Charlotte's eagerness to make this particular social justice statement has backfired in a big way.
Click to expand...

On the flip side it appears that this is expending a lot of political capital that Republicans had in the state - at least to whatever degree they have capital. It's a long way until November but Obama is about as popular as he's been in a while in NC (52% favorable in recent poll), McCrory is flailing in the polls and is immensely unpopular (down by 10 points in the most recent poll), Burr is ahead but within the margin of error, Dale Folwell is down, Buck Newton is down. It's not a pretty scene across the state right now for the Republicans.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That is a pretty big IF with no actual evidence, it is just your opinion derived from your prejudice against straight males. There has to be an actual harm to even reach the rational basis relationship test. Anything is a potential harm. I could get hit by lightening or fall through a sidewalk grate; those are potential harms but their likelihood of occurrence is extremely small. And, it is a potential harm that a dude dresses as a woman to get into a bathroom to perv little girls. Both are potential harms based off of nothing more than prejudices with no actual evidence of occurrence; but you support your prejudice and not the other side's prejudice. Complete hypocrisy. I don't support either prejudice.

If you are a governing body charged with enacting laws that burden the public (and query whether the CLT council even has the authority to do this, but that is another discussion), then the actual harm needs to outweigh the burden. If there is no actual harm, then society does not get burdened by the law.
Click to expand...

Maybe (though I've linked studies on this thread indicating that violence against transgender women in public restrooms is a problem. Just because there isn't a Charlotte specific study doesn't mean there isn't a problem in Charlotte. No reason to think Charlotte would be different than the rest of the country when it comes to violence against trans women),

but that doesn't change the fact that only the CLT ordinance came up with a solution that was rationally related to the perceived harm. Whether dudes pretending to be women to gain access to women's restrooms to perv is an actual harm or not, HB2's solution is not rationally related to addressing that harm. To the extent the harm exists, HB2 only makes it worse.
 
How long until BKF also supports Burr? Tough to get a read on who BKF categorically rejects and on what basis. And it is quite categorical in both breadth and passion.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
How long until BKF also supports Burr? Tough to get a read on who BKF categorically rejects and on what basis. And it is quite categorical in both breadth and passion.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath. I've never liked anything about Richard Burr.

ETA: BTW, I've also never voted for a Clinton. Voted for GHWB in 1992 & Perot in 1996.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top