WFFaithful
Well-known member
Yes. Let's quote it a few more times
The Culture of the Smug White Liberal
- Thread starter awaken
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Yes. Let's quote it a few more times
awaken
Well-known member
The logical reason for the law was the law passed in Charlotte - without that, it never would have happened. Whatever side you are on, there are supportable arguments on the other side and MysteryMen's inability to see the arguments on the other side is a symptom of the dogmatic nature of politics today. It makes sense to many people that one would use the bathroom that aligns with their equipment, so to speak. Others disagree and feel people should use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. I don't really think you can say either side is the side of Truth.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I think MM is pointing out that if an argument in favor of HB2 is "we don't want men going into women's bathrooms and molesting our daughters" then there should exist at least some evidence that this is a problem that actually occurs. If the major argument was merely "you should use the bathroom based on what genitals you have" and this was what was consistently stressed by the local proponents of the law then I imagine it would be perceived in a different manner.
I agree the argument in favor of HB2 has overly relied on the danger of molestation as rationale. However, the other side of the argument has been very disingenuous - at least what I have heard. People say "trans people aren't molesters - there is no danger" - but I think this is a bit of a strawman. People on the other side are more concerned about people (men, mostly) that are not truly trans pretending to be trans to justify going into the girls' bathrooms and changing facilities. You can say there are already laws against taking pictures or molesting people - and that is true. But what if a guy wants to dress like a girl and go into the female changing facilities and just look? Gawk. Hide in a stall and ... whatever. With a law that says he can go into whatever bathroom he wants, under what authority do you remove him?
Please don't attack me - I am asking. I really don't know where I stand on this - I lean toward believing your bathroom usage should align with your physical equipment - but I see the difficulty that can cause for some people. I think the status quo was fine - if someone truly presented as female, though was physically a male, I don't think anyone would have stopped them from using the ladies side - at least I hadn't heard about issues there. I guess there had been some issues at schools - that makes sense because kids may have been known as their original gender and now are wanting to transition. I really don't know what to do with those kids - that is a bad situation all around.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
There were no cases of the other side being a problem either. There was no actual evidence of the status quo in CLT bathrooms being a problem. If the unsupported fear was assault, we already have laws that address assault. So why the need for the ordinance other than "hey look at us we're so PC"?
That is not true - there are definitely cases of guys dressing like women and sneaking into bathrooms and changing facilities.
That was part of my point - the status quo seemed OK.
If there were, they would have been trotted out when the law passed.
Don't know what to tell you - it has happened.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
As I've said before, if we have a "sincerely held belief" standard that is somehow workable then we can certainly put together a similar test for whether or not someone is actually trans. There will be plenty of evidence and testimony from friends, coworkers, posts on social media, etc. that indicate what the individual's everyday gender is projected as.
And as has been mentioned quite a bit on here, there hasn't been one single case from the HB2 proponents of men going into a girls bathroom and looking around in the state of NC. RJ is right - if there were cases that these proponents knew about they certainly would have brought them up as examples. Those who are likely to be proponents of HB2 are generally the captains of #anecdotes, you don't think they'd be bringing up these cases again and again and again if they existed? It'd be like a mini-Benghazi. "Opponents of HB2 want to put your child in danger, just like 8 year old Melissa was when a man pretended to be a woman and fondled her in a public bathroom as her father waited just steps away outside the door."
How do you deal with the 'sincerely held belief' thing at the time the issue arises? I don't think anyone wants to arrest every male-dressed-as-female in the female facility and then determine later if they have a 'sincerely held belief' that they are really female. That is kind of the problem that the (reasonable) proponents of HB2 have with the whole thing - workability. That is why I asked the question above, without something like HB2 on the books, under what grounds can you remove a male from a female facility? Maybe that is what you were addressing - but I just don't see how that works. I don't see how any of it works.
I am not sure if there has been a case in NC of a male going into a female facility and 'looking around' - I have seen it reported elsewhere. People have posted cases here where perps were arrested for taking pictures. If you have people doing it that are dumb enough to try and take pictures you can be sure there are others doing it without taking pictures - and likely without getting caught.
And, I don't think anyone in NC has tried to say it was a big problem that needed to be addressed. Without Charlotte taking matters into its own hands, no law would have been passed.
I am not sure if there has been a case in NC of a male going into a female facility and 'looking around' - I have seen it reported elsewhere. People have posted cases here where perps were arrested for taking pictures. If you have people doing it that are dumb enough to try and take pictures you can be sure there are others doing it without taking pictures - and likely without getting caught.
And, I don't think anyone in NC has tried to say it was a big problem that needed to be addressed. Without Charlotte taking matters into its own hands, no law would have been passed.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I'm not trying to be obtuse but I literally haven't seen one case posted here, reported anywhere, or pointed out by HB2 proponents of someone in NC walking around taking pictures in the opposing sex/gender bathroom. There was some case in Idaho from a few weeks/months ago where it was clearly a guy dressed up like a woman. That's the only case I remember.
You are kind of missing my point. You say "voyeurism, indecent exposure, assault, battery", etc. are already illegal. Say for a minute that the Charlotte law was on the books and HB2 was not - if a male enters a female changing facility and starts changing clothes in front of the women. Is that indecent exposure? Assume he is dressed and is 'presenting' as a female. If he is looking at the women as they change, is that voyeurism? I don't know, I am asking. You say they can be removed for breaking laws already on the books - but, without HB2, can they? I don't think it is clear at all.
Everyone up in arms about HB2 acts like this is so simple and everyone should just use the bathroom they feel like - I just don't think it is that simple. These are valid questions - whether some people think they are or not.
And, I am not saying this was a problem before that needed to be dealt with or that it happens all the time, or whatever strawman you want to throw up. It just seems like the Charlotte law brought these types of questions to the fore.
I agree with you but wouldn't the Charlotte law at least give them a loophole to jump through that was not there before?
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,043
- Reaction score
- 22,993
No.
Show the examples.
Strickland33
Well-known member
This. Most perv activities of the HB2 straw man variety are socially deviant and illegal. What makes you think a criminal pervert who already intends to break the law will be deterred by a law prohibiting the activity they already know to be socially deviant and illegal, and act upon already?