by Ugh
Maybe we could use one of these.
McTx asks what marginal tax rates I would set. Eh, probably would require a little more thought than I'm up for right now. I will say that I don't think the theory that higher marginal tax rates cause more consumption of leisure to hold other than in highly unusual cases. It's not like most people can just stop working in November and then pick it up again in January. Thus ISTM, a marginal tax rate of, say, 80% on incomes over, say, $5M/year wouldn't cause much of anyone to quit working or work measurably less. Probably would lead to a lot of tax avoidance though.
Otherwise, open thread. Talk about (can't believe I'm saying this) the first week of the baseball season, or the Warriors, or politics (seem to be in a little lull) or summer reading lists or movies or whatevers. IMHO it would be nice if Tiger got his back fixed. YMMV.
Deciding a top marginal tax rate is putting the cart before the horse.
What we normally think that is is the rate applied to the marginal earned dollar. But that’s not the actual marginal rate at all. Once you get to a certain level of income it’s dividends, capital gains, etc.
So the real top marginal rate is the rate applied to that income.
But rates on lower incomes matter a lot. The vast majority of taxpayers don’t pay the top marginal rate, and some who do pay it on only a small portion of their income. For example if you are single, you are in the 28% bracket until your taxable income hits $189,000. You don’t get to the very top – 39.6% – until you hit $413,000.
Deciding a top marginal tax rate is putting the cart before the horse.
What we normally think that is is the rate applied to the marginal earned dollar. But that’s not the actual marginal rate at all. Once you get to a certain level of income it’s dividends, capital gains, etc.
So the real top marginal rate is the rate applied to that income.
But rates on lower incomes matter a lot. The vast majority of taxpayers don’t pay the top marginal rate, and some who do pay it on only a small portion of their income. For example if you are single, you are in the 28% bracket until your taxable income hits $189,000. You don’t get to the very top – 39.6% – until you hit $413,000.
Deciding a top marginal tax rate is putting the cart before the horse.
What we normally think that is is the rate applied to the marginal earned dollar. But that’s not the actual marginal rate at all. Once you get to a certain level of income it’s dividends, capital gains, etc.
So the real top marginal rate is the rate applied to that income.
But rates on lower incomes matter a lot. The vast majority of taxpayers don’t pay the top marginal rate, and some who do pay it on only a small portion of their income. For example if you are single, you are in the 28% bracket until your taxable income hits $189,000. You don’t get to the very top – 39.6% – until you hit $413,000.
We’ve had this discussion before, and I’ve always found that whatever bickering goes on when discussing it in the abstract, McKinney and I are largely in agreement on the rates, where they would kick in, and on what kinds of income.
Since we’re guesstimating anyway, to the extent that we do disagree, we’re likely still well within each other’s margin of error.
I’m even open to the idea of reducing corporate taxes, if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed, and if we have a more reasonable treatment of investment income. (For example, is buying a stock and selling it a year later really a capital investment? Should any gains be treated differently than income from one’s salary?)
We’ve had this discussion before, and I’ve always found that whatever bickering goes on when discussing it in the abstract, McKinney and I are largely in agreement on the rates, where they would kick in, and on what kinds of income.
Since we’re guesstimating anyway, to the extent that we do disagree, we’re likely still well within each other’s margin of error.
I’m even open to the idea of reducing corporate taxes, if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed, and if we have a more reasonable treatment of investment income. (For example, is buying a stock and selling it a year later really a capital investment? Should any gains be treated differently than income from one’s salary?)
We’ve had this discussion before, and I’ve always found that whatever bickering goes on when discussing it in the abstract, McKinney and I are largely in agreement on the rates, where they would kick in, and on what kinds of income.
Since we’re guesstimating anyway, to the extent that we do disagree, we’re likely still well within each other’s margin of error.
I’m even open to the idea of reducing corporate taxes, if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed, and if we have a more reasonable treatment of investment income. (For example, is buying a stock and selling it a year later really a capital investment? Should any gains be treated differently than income from one’s salary?)
if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed
Like what? Just curious what you’re thinking here.
if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed
Like what? Just curious what you’re thinking here.
if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed
Like what? Just curious what you’re thinking here.
For instance, this sort of thing, which you might say corporations enjoy, but which benefit executives, if somewhat less directly, and perks that go untaxed.
For instance, this sort of thing, which you might say corporations enjoy, but which benefit executives, if somewhat less directly, and perks that go untaxed.
For instance, this sort of thing, which you might say corporations enjoy, but which benefit executives, if somewhat less directly, and perks that go untaxed.
The way stock options are treated seems a little sketchy to me, but I’m open to a good argument on how they might promote good corporate stewardship, while also doubtful that one that is persuasive exists.
It mostly seems like a vehicle to attract “the best talent.” But, if every publicly traded company has that vehicle, what’s the difference? It’s like Homer Simpson designing the car that comes standard with a tennis ball on top of it’s antenna so that everyone will be able to find their lost car in a crowded parking lot by looking for the tennis ball.
The way stock options are treated seems a little sketchy to me, but I’m open to a good argument on how they might promote good corporate stewardship, while also doubtful that one that is persuasive exists.
It mostly seems like a vehicle to attract “the best talent.” But, if every publicly traded company has that vehicle, what’s the difference? It’s like Homer Simpson designing the car that comes standard with a tennis ball on top of it’s antenna so that everyone will be able to find their lost car in a crowded parking lot by looking for the tennis ball.
The way stock options are treated seems a little sketchy to me, but I’m open to a good argument on how they might promote good corporate stewardship, while also doubtful that one that is persuasive exists.
It mostly seems like a vehicle to attract “the best talent.” But, if every publicly traded company has that vehicle, what’s the difference? It’s like Homer Simpson designing the car that comes standard with a tennis ball on top of it’s antenna so that everyone will be able to find their lost car in a crowded parking lot by looking for the tennis ball.
I’ve always wanted to know why it is that the huge compensation packages taken down by corporate CEO’s would not attract more competition that would have a countervailing effect on the remuneration.
Isn’t that how markets are supposed to work?
And why can’t Ricky Fowler win one of the big ones?
I’ve always wanted to know why it is that the huge compensation packages taken down by corporate CEO’s would not attract more competition that would have a countervailing effect on the remuneration.
Isn’t that how markets are supposed to work?
And why can’t Ricky Fowler win one of the big ones?
I’ve always wanted to know why it is that the huge compensation packages taken down by corporate CEO’s would not attract more competition that would have a countervailing effect on the remuneration.
Isn’t that how markets are supposed to work?
And why can’t Ricky Fowler win one of the big ones?
We’ve got North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and my home state apparently all engaged in a dead heat to see which governor will be the first to declare the place a religious theocracy so a certain sect of good ol’ boys can just declare open season on the gays already.
Seriously: what the literal fnck is going on in these places, and why are so many of them obsessed with my mating habits and whether or not I’m making babies? 🙂
I’m well aware Gov. Pence here in Indiana feels its his civic and moral duty to inject his religious beliefs into the political office, but can anybody else on the ground in the other states offer up some clarity on how long this has been a problem further south?
*huggles*
Areala
We’ve got North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and my home state apparently all engaged in a dead heat to see which governor will be the first to declare the place a religious theocracy so a certain sect of good ol’ boys can just declare open season on the gays already.
Seriously: what the literal fnck is going on in these places, and why are so many of them obsessed with my mating habits and whether or not I’m making babies? 🙂
I’m well aware Gov. Pence here in Indiana feels its his civic and moral duty to inject his religious beliefs into the political office, but can anybody else on the ground in the other states offer up some clarity on how long this has been a problem further south?
*huggles*
Areala
We’ve got North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and my home state apparently all engaged in a dead heat to see which governor will be the first to declare the place a religious theocracy so a certain sect of good ol’ boys can just declare open season on the gays already.
Seriously: what the literal fnck is going on in these places, and why are so many of them obsessed with my mating habits and whether or not I’m making babies? 🙂
I’m well aware Gov. Pence here in Indiana feels its his civic and moral duty to inject his religious beliefs into the political office, but can anybody else on the ground in the other states offer up some clarity on how long this has been a problem further south?
*huggles*
Areala
Areala: If only they’d limit it to your mating habits! I’m disappointed with the new round’s focus on bathroom panic scenarios.
Areala: If only they’d limit it to your mating habits! I’m disappointed with the new round’s focus on bathroom panic scenarios.
Areala: If only they’d limit it to your mating habits! I’m disappointed with the new round’s focus on bathroom panic scenarios.
anybody else on the ground in the other states offer up some clarity on how long this has been a problem further south?
This sort of posturing only emerges when the power base feels truly threatened. It’s really a sad sort of thing, because you see things that seem like progress is being made, but then wham! someone or some group at some point feels they are threatened by change and has to do something about it. At this point, those who want to take advantage of the system pop up and claim the cause as their own. (which is what I think of Pence, he probably couldn’t care less about this, he’s just doing this because he thinks that’s where the votes are, or at least the votes that he can most easily mobilize are)
So it doesn’t come up as much in the South because the power base of the religious right hasn’t been threatened as much, imo. As long as ‘people know their place’ as they say, you won’t see this so much.
anybody else on the ground in the other states offer up some clarity on how long this has been a problem further south?
This sort of posturing only emerges when the power base feels truly threatened. It’s really a sad sort of thing, because you see things that seem like progress is being made, but then wham! someone or some group at some point feels they are threatened by change and has to do something about it. At this point, those who want to take advantage of the system pop up and claim the cause as their own. (which is what I think of Pence, he probably couldn’t care less about this, he’s just doing this because he thinks that’s where the votes are, or at least the votes that he can most easily mobilize are)
So it doesn’t come up as much in the South because the power base of the religious right hasn’t been threatened as much, imo. As long as ‘people know their place’ as they say, you won’t see this so much.
anybody else on the ground in the other states offer up some clarity on how long this has been a problem further south?
This sort of posturing only emerges when the power base feels truly threatened. It’s really a sad sort of thing, because you see things that seem like progress is being made, but then wham! someone or some group at some point feels they are threatened by change and has to do something about it. At this point, those who want to take advantage of the system pop up and claim the cause as their own. (which is what I think of Pence, he probably couldn’t care less about this, he’s just doing this because he thinks that’s where the votes are, or at least the votes that he can most easily mobilize are)
So it doesn’t come up as much in the South because the power base of the religious right hasn’t been threatened as much, imo. As long as ‘people know their place’ as they say, you won’t see this so much.
The way stock options are treated seems a little sketchy to me, but I’m open to a good argument on how they might promote good corporate stewardship, while also doubtful that one that is persuasive exists.
Stock options have both a theoretical and a practical defect.
The theoretical problem is that they have a “one-way” payoff. That is, if you have an option to buy the stock at $20/share, say, it makes a difference to you whether the stock is worth $25 or $30. But it makes absolutely no difference if it’s worth $15 or $10. Your option is worthless either way. So some risks are worth taking from the optionholder’s point of view, but not from the shareholders’.
The practical problem, or one of them, derives from the above. Boards have a bad habit of issuing new options with lower strike prices when last year’s become worthless, or of “repricing” the old options. There are usually a lot of excuses given, like not wanting to punish the CEO because the market went south. But notice that when the market runs up and takes the stock price with it no one suggests withholding some compensation because, after all, the CEO didn’t cause the bull market singlehandedly.
Much of executive compensation, at least at the upper end, seems to me to have more to do with a small class of individuals looking out for each other than with economic rationality.
The way stock options are treated seems a little sketchy to me, but I’m open to a good argument on how they might promote good corporate stewardship, while also doubtful that one that is persuasive exists.
Stock options have both a theoretical and a practical defect.
The theoretical problem is that they have a “one-way” payoff. That is, if you have an option to buy the stock at $20/share, say, it makes a difference to you whether the stock is worth $25 or $30. But it makes absolutely no difference if it’s worth $15 or $10. Your option is worthless either way. So some risks are worth taking from the optionholder’s point of view, but not from the shareholders’.
The practical problem, or one of them, derives from the above. Boards have a bad habit of issuing new options with lower strike prices when last year’s become worthless, or of “repricing” the old options. There are usually a lot of excuses given, like not wanting to punish the CEO because the market went south. But notice that when the market runs up and takes the stock price with it no one suggests withholding some compensation because, after all, the CEO didn’t cause the bull market singlehandedly.
Much of executive compensation, at least at the upper end, seems to me to have more to do with a small class of individuals looking out for each other than with economic rationality.
The way stock options are treated seems a little sketchy to me, but I’m open to a good argument on how they might promote good corporate stewardship, while also doubtful that one that is persuasive exists.
Stock options have both a theoretical and a practical defect.
The theoretical problem is that they have a “one-way” payoff. That is, if you have an option to buy the stock at $20/share, say, it makes a difference to you whether the stock is worth $25 or $30. But it makes absolutely no difference if it’s worth $15 or $10. Your option is worthless either way. So some risks are worth taking from the optionholder’s point of view, but not from the shareholders’.
The practical problem, or one of them, derives from the above. Boards have a bad habit of issuing new options with lower strike prices when last year’s become worthless, or of “repricing” the old options. There are usually a lot of excuses given, like not wanting to punish the CEO because the market went south. But notice that when the market runs up and takes the stock price with it no one suggests withholding some compensation because, after all, the CEO didn’t cause the bull market singlehandedly.
Much of executive compensation, at least at the upper end, seems to me to have more to do with a small class of individuals looking out for each other than with economic rationality.
North Carolina is a historically red state trending blue, much like Virginia, with a similar coalition of liberal-ish educated professionals and black and other minority voters. (Both NC and Indiana voted for Obama in 2008.) The Republicans in NC have been engaged in this massive backlash designed to lock in as many radical changes to state government (and as much creative districting) as they can before they lose power.
North Carolina is a historically red state trending blue, much like Virginia, with a similar coalition of liberal-ish educated professionals and black and other minority voters. (Both NC and Indiana voted for Obama in 2008.) The Republicans in NC have been engaged in this massive backlash designed to lock in as many radical changes to state government (and as much creative districting) as they can before they lose power.
North Carolina is a historically red state trending blue, much like Virginia, with a similar coalition of liberal-ish educated professionals and black and other minority voters. (Both NC and Indiana voted for Obama in 2008.) The Republicans in NC have been engaged in this massive backlash designed to lock in as many radical changes to state government (and as much creative districting) as they can before they lose power.
It is amazing how many well off say, “It’s not about the money,” until in fact it gets down to the money.
Looks like Speith has opened the door to enable a wide open competitive weekend. Rory and Jordan get all the headlines, Willet takes the jacket.
It is amazing how many well off say, “It’s not about the money,” until in fact it gets down to the money.
Looks like Speith has opened the door to enable a wide open competitive weekend. Rory and Jordan get all the headlines, Willet takes the jacket.
It is amazing how many well off say, “It’s not about the money,” until in fact it gets down to the money.
Looks like Speith has opened the door to enable a wide open competitive weekend. Rory and Jordan get all the headlines, Willet takes the jacket.
North Carolina is a historically red state trending blue,
It seems as if it’s been “trending blue” forever, and never quite gets there. Yes, it voted for Obama, but look at the winners of statewide elections – Tillis, Burr, McCrory.
North Carolina is a historically red state trending blue,
It seems as if it’s been “trending blue” forever, and never quite gets there. Yes, it voted for Obama, but look at the winners of statewide elections – Tillis, Burr, McCrory.
North Carolina is a historically red state trending blue,
It seems as if it’s been “trending blue” forever, and never quite gets there. Yes, it voted for Obama, but look at the winners of statewide elections – Tillis, Burr, McCrory.
The same things happened in Virginia. It’s just a little further along.
The same things happened in Virginia. It’s just a little further along.
The same things happened in Virginia. It’s just a little further along.
“Bathroom panic scenarios”
Im old. Ok. But for my whole life having a man walk into a woman’s bathroom has been a big deal. Lots of get outs and, if inadvertant, lots of embarrassment. Several years back there was a lot of talk about unisex bathrooms that didn’t turn out to be popular, mostly with women(purely my anecdotally based recollection). Now we want anyone to be able to go into any bathroom they want. Unless we think there’s a field test for gender identification. So, while it may be an overreaction, the reaction isn’t surprising or all that terrible to provide some clarification. Or go lobby for unisex bathrooms.
“Bathroom panic scenarios”
Im old. Ok. But for my whole life having a man walk into a woman’s bathroom has been a big deal. Lots of get outs and, if inadvertant, lots of embarrassment. Several years back there was a lot of talk about unisex bathrooms that didn’t turn out to be popular, mostly with women(purely my anecdotally based recollection). Now we want anyone to be able to go into any bathroom they want. Unless we think there’s a field test for gender identification. So, while it may be an overreaction, the reaction isn’t surprising or all that terrible to provide some clarification. Or go lobby for unisex bathrooms.
“Bathroom panic scenarios”
Im old. Ok. But for my whole life having a man walk into a woman’s bathroom has been a big deal. Lots of get outs and, if inadvertant, lots of embarrassment. Several years back there was a lot of talk about unisex bathrooms that didn’t turn out to be popular, mostly with women(purely my anecdotally based recollection). Now we want anyone to be able to go into any bathroom they want. Unless we think there’s a field test for gender identification. So, while it may be an overreaction, the reaction isn’t surprising or all that terrible to provide some clarification. Or go lobby for unisex bathrooms.
The Colorado Rockies’ rookie shortstop Trevor Story is, through his first four games, on pace to have 240 home runs.
The Colorado Rockies’ rookie shortstop Trevor Story is, through his first four games, on pace to have 240 home runs.
The Colorado Rockies’ rookie shortstop Trevor Story is, through his first four games, on pace to have 240 home runs.
Not exactly on point, but one thing I could never figure out was gender-specific one-person bathrooms, especially with locking doors. I’ve been to countless businesses with two bathrooms fitting this description, one for men and one for women, with one toilet and no urinal (at least in the men’s room – guessing confidently there’s no urinal in the women’s room).
I’m sure it’s a compliance thing, but it’s idiotic. I wouldn’t go into the women’s room in such a case, only because I would be more apparently threatening, but I’ve told my wife, “Just use the men’s room, what’s the difference?” I might stand guard outside, but only because the gender specificity sets up expectations that otherwise wouldn’t exist.
Not exactly on point, but one thing I could never figure out was gender-specific one-person bathrooms, especially with locking doors. I’ve been to countless businesses with two bathrooms fitting this description, one for men and one for women, with one toilet and no urinal (at least in the men’s room – guessing confidently there’s no urinal in the women’s room).
I’m sure it’s a compliance thing, but it’s idiotic. I wouldn’t go into the women’s room in such a case, only because I would be more apparently threatening, but I’ve told my wife, “Just use the men’s room, what’s the difference?” I might stand guard outside, but only because the gender specificity sets up expectations that otherwise wouldn’t exist.
Not exactly on point, but one thing I could never figure out was gender-specific one-person bathrooms, especially with locking doors. I’ve been to countless businesses with two bathrooms fitting this description, one for men and one for women, with one toilet and no urinal (at least in the men’s room – guessing confidently there’s no urinal in the women’s room).
I’m sure it’s a compliance thing, but it’s idiotic. I wouldn’t go into the women’s room in such a case, only because I would be more apparently threatening, but I’ve told my wife, “Just use the men’s room, what’s the difference?” I might stand guard outside, but only because the gender specificity sets up expectations that otherwise wouldn’t exist.
I’ve worked at places, and eaten at restaurants, that had non-specific one-person bathrooms. As long as there is a lock on the inside it’s not clear why this would ever be a problem.
I’ve worked at places, and eaten at restaurants, that had non-specific one-person bathrooms. As long as there is a lock on the inside it’s not clear why this would ever be a problem.
I’ve worked at places, and eaten at restaurants, that had non-specific one-person bathrooms. As long as there is a lock on the inside it’s not clear why this would ever be a problem.
I’m even open to the idea of reducing corporate taxes, if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed, and if we have a more reasonable treatment of investment income. (For example, is buying a stock and selling it a year later really a capital investment? Should any gains be treated differently than income from one’s salary?)
This is one of the things that I have never understood. Assuming that we are going to levy a tax on individual income (whether or not we should is a different discussion), it seems to me that for the individual income is income. Which is to say, there is no rational reason for taxing income from wages and interest and dividends at a different rate than capital gains. It’s all income.
Yes, I am aware of the argument that lower capital gains taxes for individuals will encourage investment. I just can’t see it. Will you turn aside from investments, and choose to work more instead, if they are taxed the same? Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Of course, there may be some effect. But we have bounced the capital gains rates around, relative to the earned income rate. So if there is an effect, we should have seen it visibly in the performance of the economy. Did we? I sure haven’t seen any studies which support the idea that we did using actual data. But then, I don’t keep close watch on academic research in the field. If someone knows of such a study, by all means share.
I’m even open to the idea of reducing corporate taxes, if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed, and if we have a more reasonable treatment of investment income. (For example, is buying a stock and selling it a year later really a capital investment? Should any gains be treated differently than income from one’s salary?)
This is one of the things that I have never understood. Assuming that we are going to levy a tax on individual income (whether or not we should is a different discussion), it seems to me that for the individual income is income. Which is to say, there is no rational reason for taxing income from wages and interest and dividends at a different rate than capital gains. It’s all income.
Yes, I am aware of the argument that lower capital gains taxes for individuals will encourage investment. I just can’t see it. Will you turn aside from investments, and choose to work more instead, if they are taxed the same? Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Of course, there may be some effect. But we have bounced the capital gains rates around, relative to the earned income rate. So if there is an effect, we should have seen it visibly in the performance of the economy. Did we? I sure haven’t seen any studies which support the idea that we did using actual data. But then, I don’t keep close watch on academic research in the field. If someone knows of such a study, by all means share.
I’m even open to the idea of reducing corporate taxes, if some of the loopholes C-level executives enjoy are closed, and if we have a more reasonable treatment of investment income. (For example, is buying a stock and selling it a year later really a capital investment? Should any gains be treated differently than income from one’s salary?)
This is one of the things that I have never understood. Assuming that we are going to levy a tax on individual income (whether or not we should is a different discussion), it seems to me that for the individual income is income. Which is to say, there is no rational reason for taxing income from wages and interest and dividends at a different rate than capital gains. It’s all income.
Yes, I am aware of the argument that lower capital gains taxes for individuals will encourage investment. I just can’t see it. Will you turn aside from investments, and choose to work more instead, if they are taxed the same? Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Of course, there may be some effect. But we have bounced the capital gains rates around, relative to the earned income rate. So if there is an effect, we should have seen it visibly in the performance of the economy. Did we? I sure haven’t seen any studies which support the idea that we did using actual data. But then, I don’t keep close watch on academic research in the field. If someone knows of such a study, by all means share.
I’m disappointed with the new round’s focus on bathroom panic scenarios.
What I find slightly startling is that the concern here is (or at least appears to be) about the prospect of heterosexual sex. Which, considering the right’s hysteria about homosexuality, seems like an odd thing for them to be focused on. Why wouldn’t they be demanding that all bathrooms be one-person rooms? That way, nobody’s virtue would be at risk….
I’m disappointed with the new round’s focus on bathroom panic scenarios.
What I find slightly startling is that the concern here is (or at least appears to be) about the prospect of heterosexual sex. Which, considering the right’s hysteria about homosexuality, seems like an odd thing for them to be focused on. Why wouldn’t they be demanding that all bathrooms be one-person rooms? That way, nobody’s virtue would be at risk….
I’m disappointed with the new round’s focus on bathroom panic scenarios.
What I find slightly startling is that the concern here is (or at least appears to be) about the prospect of heterosexual sex. Which, considering the right’s hysteria about homosexuality, seems like an odd thing for them to be focused on. Why wouldn’t they be demanding that all bathrooms be one-person rooms? That way, nobody’s virtue would be at risk….
I’ve worked at places, and eaten at restaurants, that had non-specific one-person bathrooms. As long as there is a lock on the inside it’s not clear why this would ever be a problem.
Oh, I’ve been to places like that, too. They just don’t perplex me, so I didn’t bring them up. They seem to be far more common in the city than in the ‘burbs. (And if there’s only one bathroom, it must be unisex.)
I’ve worked at places, and eaten at restaurants, that had non-specific one-person bathrooms. As long as there is a lock on the inside it’s not clear why this would ever be a problem.
Oh, I’ve been to places like that, too. They just don’t perplex me, so I didn’t bring them up. They seem to be far more common in the city than in the ‘burbs. (And if there’s only one bathroom, it must be unisex.)
I’ve worked at places, and eaten at restaurants, that had non-specific one-person bathrooms. As long as there is a lock on the inside it’s not clear why this would ever be a problem.
Oh, I’ve been to places like that, too. They just don’t perplex me, so I didn’t bring them up. They seem to be far more common in the city than in the ‘burbs. (And if there’s only one bathroom, it must be unisex.)
I’m well aware Gov. Pence here in Indiana feels its his civic and moral duty to inject his religious beliefs into the political office
Areala, I was under the impression that Governor Pence had found himself forced to back off significantly. (However reluctantly.) Which, so far, the Governor of North Carolina has not — although it appears that the pressure on him to do so is rising fast.
But that kind of back-tracking at least gives some room to hope that what we are seeing is the final shudder of what is really a lost rampart in the culture wars. Not that there won’t be other battles. But it looks like this one (homosexuality) is just having it’s last gasp.
If I may use an image from my rural childhood, it’s like a chicken flopping around after its head has been cut off. It definitely looks impressive — especially if you don’t realize what has happened. But nothing is actually going to come of it, even in just the medium term.
I’m well aware Gov. Pence here in Indiana feels its his civic and moral duty to inject his religious beliefs into the political office
Areala, I was under the impression that Governor Pence had found himself forced to back off significantly. (However reluctantly.) Which, so far, the Governor of North Carolina has not — although it appears that the pressure on him to do so is rising fast.
But that kind of back-tracking at least gives some room to hope that what we are seeing is the final shudder of what is really a lost rampart in the culture wars. Not that there won’t be other battles. But it looks like this one (homosexuality) is just having it’s last gasp.
If I may use an image from my rural childhood, it’s like a chicken flopping around after its head has been cut off. It definitely looks impressive — especially if you don’t realize what has happened. But nothing is actually going to come of it, even in just the medium term.
I’m well aware Gov. Pence here in Indiana feels its his civic and moral duty to inject his religious beliefs into the political office
Areala, I was under the impression that Governor Pence had found himself forced to back off significantly. (However reluctantly.) Which, so far, the Governor of North Carolina has not — although it appears that the pressure on him to do so is rising fast.
But that kind of back-tracking at least gives some room to hope that what we are seeing is the final shudder of what is really a lost rampart in the culture wars. Not that there won’t be other battles. But it looks like this one (homosexuality) is just having it’s last gasp.
If I may use an image from my rural childhood, it’s like a chicken flopping around after its head has been cut off. It definitely looks impressive — especially if you don’t realize what has happened. But nothing is actually going to come of it, even in just the medium term.
They seem to be far more common in the city than in the ‘burbs.
And they are especially common in private homes. Also trains and airplanes.
They are probably more common in cities because they use space more efficiently. Two unisex bathrooms can accommodate any two people simultaneously.
They seem to be far more common in the city than in the ‘burbs.
And they are especially common in private homes. Also trains and airplanes.
They are probably more common in cities because they use space more efficiently. Two unisex bathrooms can accommodate any two people simultaneously.
They seem to be far more common in the city than in the ‘burbs.
And they are especially common in private homes. Also trains and airplanes.
They are probably more common in cities because they use space more efficiently. Two unisex bathrooms can accommodate any two people simultaneously.
They are probably more common in cities because they use space more efficiently. Two unisex bathrooms can accommodate any two people simultaneously.
Sure. But I’m guessing two unisex bathrooms would work the same way in the ‘burbs, if they had them.
They are probably more common in cities because they use space more efficiently. Two unisex bathrooms can accommodate any two people simultaneously.
Sure. But I’m guessing two unisex bathrooms would work the same way in the ‘burbs, if they had them.
They are probably more common in cities because they use space more efficiently. Two unisex bathrooms can accommodate any two people simultaneously.
Sure. But I’m guessing two unisex bathrooms would work the same way in the ‘burbs, if they had them.
Yes. But space is cheaper.
Yes. But space is cheaper.
Yes. But space is cheaper.
The Warrior’s run leads me to wonder. Here is a team set to win nearly 90% of its games in the regular season (also achieved by the Chicago Bulls’ ’96 season). In football, we have seen a a couple of teams go undefeated thru the regular season.
But in the past half century, only two baseball teams have even managed 70%. Even the ’27 Yankees, usually considered the best team ever, only managed 71%. Only once in history has a team (the 1906 Cubs) managed to reach 75%. So is baseball somehow inherently more balanced? If not, why the difference in how dominant the very best teams are?
The Warrior’s run leads me to wonder. Here is a team set to win nearly 90% of its games in the regular season (also achieved by the Chicago Bulls’ ’96 season). In football, we have seen a a couple of teams go undefeated thru the regular season.
But in the past half century, only two baseball teams have even managed 70%. Even the ’27 Yankees, usually considered the best team ever, only managed 71%. Only once in history has a team (the 1906 Cubs) managed to reach 75%. So is baseball somehow inherently more balanced? If not, why the difference in how dominant the very best teams are?
The Warrior’s run leads me to wonder. Here is a team set to win nearly 90% of its games in the regular season (also achieved by the Chicago Bulls’ ’96 season). In football, we have seen a a couple of teams go undefeated thru the regular season.
But in the past half century, only two baseball teams have even managed 70%. Even the ’27 Yankees, usually considered the best team ever, only managed 71%. Only once in history has a team (the 1906 Cubs) managed to reach 75%. So is baseball somehow inherently more balanced? If not, why the difference in how dominant the very best teams are?
McTx asks what marginal tax rates I would set.
Just spitballing, but why not develop other revenue sources besides taxing productive effort?
What do we get for mineral rights and other natural resource leases, for example?
McTx asks what marginal tax rates I would set.
Just spitballing, but why not develop other revenue sources besides taxing productive effort?
What do we get for mineral rights and other natural resource leases, for example?
McTx asks what marginal tax rates I would set.
Just spitballing, but why not develop other revenue sources besides taxing productive effort?
What do we get for mineral rights and other natural resource leases, for example?
Yes. But space is cheaper.
To belabor a really minor point, I was originally talking about places that only have two single-person bathrooms with locks, anyway, but that are still dedicated one each to male and female users, respectively.
That’s what’s stupid (and more prevalent in the ‘burbs). It’s physically the same set-up you would find elsewhere, but the intended usage is less effficient than having two unisex bathrooms.
Yes. But space is cheaper.
To belabor a really minor point, I was originally talking about places that only have two single-person bathrooms with locks, anyway, but that are still dedicated one each to male and female users, respectively.
That’s what’s stupid (and more prevalent in the ‘burbs). It’s physically the same set-up you would find elsewhere, but the intended usage is less effficient than having two unisex bathrooms.
Yes. But space is cheaper.
To belabor a really minor point, I was originally talking about places that only have two single-person bathrooms with locks, anyway, but that are still dedicated one each to male and female users, respectively.
That’s what’s stupid (and more prevalent in the ‘burbs). It’s physically the same set-up you would find elsewhere, but the intended usage is less effficient than having two unisex bathrooms.
I can think of two reasons:
1. The outcome of a baseball game depends heavily on the performance of the pitchers and even most great teams will not have aces starting every game.The 1927 Yankees had a strong rotation, but George Pipgras, ERA 4.11, still started 21 games. And even aces have bad days. In basketball and football, the starting lineups are set, and there is nothing like the variance introduced by the need to give pitchers four or five days off between starts. Babe Ruth can play every day. Sandy Koufax can’t.
2. In football, at least, an outstanding day by a normally mediocre player on the other team won’t beat you. In baseball it will. Some days a .240 hitter blasts two home runs, or just gets a double at a critical moment and there you are.
I can think of two reasons:
1. The outcome of a baseball game depends heavily on the performance of the pitchers and even most great teams will not have aces starting every game.The 1927 Yankees had a strong rotation, but George Pipgras, ERA 4.11, still started 21 games. And even aces have bad days. In basketball and football, the starting lineups are set, and there is nothing like the variance introduced by the need to give pitchers four or five days off between starts. Babe Ruth can play every day. Sandy Koufax can’t.
2. In football, at least, an outstanding day by a normally mediocre player on the other team won’t beat you. In baseball it will. Some days a .240 hitter blasts two home runs, or just gets a double at a critical moment and there you are.
I can think of two reasons:
1. The outcome of a baseball game depends heavily on the performance of the pitchers and even most great teams will not have aces starting every game.The 1927 Yankees had a strong rotation, but George Pipgras, ERA 4.11, still started 21 games. And even aces have bad days. In basketball and football, the starting lineups are set, and there is nothing like the variance introduced by the need to give pitchers four or five days off between starts. Babe Ruth can play every day. Sandy Koufax can’t.
2. In football, at least, an outstanding day by a normally mediocre player on the other team won’t beat you. In baseball it will. Some days a .240 hitter blasts two home runs, or just gets a double at a critical moment and there you are.
In summary, chance has a more significant role in baseball than in football. Thus making it much more difficult for even a very good team to win a very high percentage of their games.
In summary, chance has a more significant role in baseball than in football. Thus making it much more difficult for even a very good team to win a very high percentage of their games.
In summary, chance has a more significant role in baseball than in football. Thus making it much more difficult for even a very good team to win a very high percentage of their games.
This is a really interesting page. http://www.footballgeography.com/%ef%bb%bflast-undefeated-nfl-teams-in-each-season/
This is a really interesting page. http://www.footballgeography.com/%ef%bb%bflast-undefeated-nfl-teams-in-each-season/
This is a really interesting page. http://www.footballgeography.com/%ef%bb%bflast-undefeated-nfl-teams-in-each-season/
open thread: R.I.P. jazz saxophonist Sam Rivers.
a very undersung cat, he was a generation ahead of all of his peers. a very advanced player, he could play way outside and it would still be something you’d enjoy listening to.
listening to rivers is like listening to your unassuming good friend, the genius, talk about his day. conversational, accessible, brilliant.
here in the US, the country that gave it birth, jazz occupies an increasingly marginal slice of the public consciousness. which is, really, kind of a tragedy. it’s hard to overstate the genius, the originality, the sheer musical achievement, of jazz in the US in the 20th C.
one by one, the folks who made that music are leaving us.
there is still, against all odds, a reasonably robust jazz scene here, but it kind of operates under the radar. in a lot of ways, i think the baton has been passed to other folks, i.e., folks outside the US. which is fine, those folks are making some great music, it’s just too bad we don’t value our own culture more.
in any case, here’s the marvelous Sam Rivers. the tune is “Beatrice”, written for his wife, from his first recording, “Fuchsia Swing Song”. it’s from ’64, and features the fantastic rhythm section of Tony Williams and Ron Carter, playing together just before Miles stole them away for this second quintet.
hope you dig it. thank you, Sam.
Beatrice
open thread: R.I.P. jazz saxophonist Sam Rivers.
a very undersung cat, he was a generation ahead of all of his peers. a very advanced player, he could play way outside and it would still be something you’d enjoy listening to.
listening to rivers is like listening to your unassuming good friend, the genius, talk about his day. conversational, accessible, brilliant.
here in the US, the country that gave it birth, jazz occupies an increasingly marginal slice of the public consciousness. which is, really, kind of a tragedy. it’s hard to overstate the genius, the originality, the sheer musical achievement, of jazz in the US in the 20th C.
one by one, the folks who made that music are leaving us.
there is still, against all odds, a reasonably robust jazz scene here, but it kind of operates under the radar. in a lot of ways, i think the baton has been passed to other folks, i.e., folks outside the US. which is fine, those folks are making some great music, it’s just too bad we don’t value our own culture more.
in any case, here’s the marvelous Sam Rivers. the tune is “Beatrice”, written for his wife, from his first recording, “Fuchsia Swing Song”. it’s from ’64, and features the fantastic rhythm section of Tony Williams and Ron Carter, playing together just before Miles stole them away for this second quintet.
hope you dig it. thank you, Sam.
Beatrice
open thread: R.I.P. jazz saxophonist Sam Rivers.
a very undersung cat, he was a generation ahead of all of his peers. a very advanced player, he could play way outside and it would still be something you’d enjoy listening to.
listening to rivers is like listening to your unassuming good friend, the genius, talk about his day. conversational, accessible, brilliant.
here in the US, the country that gave it birth, jazz occupies an increasingly marginal slice of the public consciousness. which is, really, kind of a tragedy. it’s hard to overstate the genius, the originality, the sheer musical achievement, of jazz in the US in the 20th C.
one by one, the folks who made that music are leaving us.
there is still, against all odds, a reasonably robust jazz scene here, but it kind of operates under the radar. in a lot of ways, i think the baton has been passed to other folks, i.e., folks outside the US. which is fine, those folks are making some great music, it’s just too bad we don’t value our own culture more.
in any case, here’s the marvelous Sam Rivers. the tune is “Beatrice”, written for his wife, from his first recording, “Fuchsia Swing Song”. it’s from ’64, and features the fantastic rhythm section of Tony Williams and Ron Carter, playing together just before Miles stole them away for this second quintet.
hope you dig it. thank you, Sam.
Beatrice
Even putting aside the role of chance, simply playing so fewer games is going to lead to greater variation in winning percentages. I suppose you could look just at 16-game stretches in baseball to get a lot closer to a perfect winning percentage. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s the law of very large numbers at work, but maybe its little brother.
Even putting aside the role of chance, simply playing so fewer games is going to lead to greater variation in winning percentages. I suppose you could look just at 16-game stretches in baseball to get a lot closer to a perfect winning percentage. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s the law of very large numbers at work, but maybe its little brother.
Even putting aside the role of chance, simply playing so fewer games is going to lead to greater variation in winning percentages. I suppose you could look just at 16-game stretches in baseball to get a lot closer to a perfect winning percentage. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s the law of very large numbers at work, but maybe its little brother.
CharlesWT,
In summary, chance has a more significant role in baseball than in football. Thus making it much more difficult for even a very good team to win a very high percentage of their games.
That’s certainly true for the second reason I gave. But it is only part, the lesser part, of the first. What I am saying is that the importance of pitching is such that teams essentially are not able to use their best lineups in most games. Imagine if an NFL team could only use any given QB for four regular season games, and at most twice in the playoffs. What would happen to those undefeated and near-undefeated seasons?
Another issue is just plain season length. When you play every day you are going to sit out some days for rest, or to deal with a minor injury, no matter who are (Gehrig and Ripken aside). The length of the season also increases the chances of bizarre or unlikely events.
CharlesWT,
In summary, chance has a more significant role in baseball than in football. Thus making it much more difficult for even a very good team to win a very high percentage of their games.
That’s certainly true for the second reason I gave. But it is only part, the lesser part, of the first. What I am saying is that the importance of pitching is such that teams essentially are not able to use their best lineups in most games. Imagine if an NFL team could only use any given QB for four regular season games, and at most twice in the playoffs. What would happen to those undefeated and near-undefeated seasons?
Another issue is just plain season length. When you play every day you are going to sit out some days for rest, or to deal with a minor injury, no matter who are (Gehrig and Ripken aside). The length of the season also increases the chances of bizarre or unlikely events.
CharlesWT,
In summary, chance has a more significant role in baseball than in football. Thus making it much more difficult for even a very good team to win a very high percentage of their games.
That’s certainly true for the second reason I gave. But it is only part, the lesser part, of the first. What I am saying is that the importance of pitching is such that teams essentially are not able to use their best lineups in most games. Imagine if an NFL team could only use any given QB for four regular season games, and at most twice in the playoffs. What would happen to those undefeated and near-undefeated seasons?
Another issue is just plain season length. When you play every day you are going to sit out some days for rest, or to deal with a minor injury, no matter who are (Gehrig and Ripken aside). The length of the season also increases the chances of bizarre or unlikely events.
Baseball requires more people to perform better individually to make the team successful over a much greater number of games. Football has more people but there is more opportunity for one player to cover for the mistakes of another, especially over a vastly shorter season. In large part basketball is just different. 8 very good players can be very successful against the very best players, the functioning and coordination of the team matter more once you reach a certain level of competence. All of the things that get discussed about quarterbacks, (field vision, quick release, anticipating the defense) are required of everyone on a basketball team to a greater and lesser extent. The key is that pure physical capability can’t win over an 82 game season in basketball. 72 or maybe 73 wins in basketball is impressive, more impressive that 17-0, but 75% in baseball would be an astonishingly good level of performance by such a large group of people, especially now the National League.
Keeping in mind that in decades past four and even three person pitching rotations made the need for 5 deep aces not as necessary. So the likelihood today is really small.
Thanks for Beatrice russell.
Baseball requires more people to perform better individually to make the team successful over a much greater number of games. Football has more people but there is more opportunity for one player to cover for the mistakes of another, especially over a vastly shorter season. In large part basketball is just different. 8 very good players can be very successful against the very best players, the functioning and coordination of the team matter more once you reach a certain level of competence. All of the things that get discussed about quarterbacks, (field vision, quick release, anticipating the defense) are required of everyone on a basketball team to a greater and lesser extent. The key is that pure physical capability can’t win over an 82 game season in basketball. 72 or maybe 73 wins in basketball is impressive, more impressive that 17-0, but 75% in baseball would be an astonishingly good level of performance by such a large group of people, especially now the National League.
Keeping in mind that in decades past four and even three person pitching rotations made the need for 5 deep aces not as necessary. So the likelihood today is really small.
Thanks for Beatrice russell.
Baseball requires more people to perform better individually to make the team successful over a much greater number of games. Football has more people but there is more opportunity for one player to cover for the mistakes of another, especially over a vastly shorter season. In large part basketball is just different. 8 very good players can be very successful against the very best players, the functioning and coordination of the team matter more once you reach a certain level of competence. All of the things that get discussed about quarterbacks, (field vision, quick release, anticipating the defense) are required of everyone on a basketball team to a greater and lesser extent. The key is that pure physical capability can’t win over an 82 game season in basketball. 72 or maybe 73 wins in basketball is impressive, more impressive that 17-0, but 75% in baseball would be an astonishingly good level of performance by such a large group of people, especially now the National League.
Keeping in mind that in decades past four and even three person pitching rotations made the need for 5 deep aces not as necessary. So the likelihood today is really small.
Thanks for Beatrice russell.
So what we are saying is that, regardless of how dominant a team is, they will still be playing average players (specifically pitchers) a significant part of the time. Which is, I think, another way to say that baseball teams are inherently more balanced.
Maybe someday a team will manage to assemble the pitching equivalent of Murderers Row. But until then, parity — at least rough parity — will continue to rule.
So what we are saying is that, regardless of how dominant a team is, they will still be playing average players (specifically pitchers) a significant part of the time. Which is, I think, another way to say that baseball teams are inherently more balanced.
Maybe someday a team will manage to assemble the pitching equivalent of Murderers Row. But until then, parity — at least rough parity — will continue to rule.
So what we are saying is that, regardless of how dominant a team is, they will still be playing average players (specifically pitchers) a significant part of the time. Which is, I think, another way to say that baseball teams are inherently more balanced.
Maybe someday a team will manage to assemble the pitching equivalent of Murderers Row. But until then, parity — at least rough parity — will continue to rule.
Some mathematics that, in passing, highlight some of the differences among baseball, football and basketball. Has some comments on the role of chance in the games.
Pythagorean expectation
Football teams seem to be more balanced than baseball teams financially(a bit dated).
N.F.L. vs. M.L.B. as a Labor Market
Some mathematics that, in passing, highlight some of the differences among baseball, football and basketball. Has some comments on the role of chance in the games.
Pythagorean expectation
Football teams seem to be more balanced than baseball teams financially(a bit dated).
N.F.L. vs. M.L.B. as a Labor Market
Some mathematics that, in passing, highlight some of the differences among baseball, football and basketball. Has some comments on the role of chance in the games.
Pythagorean expectation
Football teams seem to be more balanced than baseball teams financially(a bit dated).
N.F.L. vs. M.L.B. as a Labor Market
Yes, why/how did jazz lose its place in popular culture so dramatically ?
Marginal rate ? First define your terms.
Tax codes are often too complex to make that easy – and thus mean that the really wealthy, with some notable exceptions, seldom pay the top marginal rate anyway. Certainly the case in the UK.
Meanwhile, what the ****
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/cavity-searches/477264/
Yes, why/how did jazz lose its place in popular culture so dramatically ?
Marginal rate ? First define your terms.
Tax codes are often too complex to make that easy – and thus mean that the really wealthy, with some notable exceptions, seldom pay the top marginal rate anyway. Certainly the case in the UK.
Meanwhile, what the ****
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/cavity-searches/477264/
Yes, why/how did jazz lose its place in popular culture so dramatically ?
Marginal rate ? First define your terms.
Tax codes are often too complex to make that easy – and thus mean that the really wealthy, with some notable exceptions, seldom pay the top marginal rate anyway. Certainly the case in the UK.
Meanwhile, what the ****
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/cavity-searches/477264/
That’s a truly barf-worthy article, Nigel. WTF? indeed.
That’s a truly barf-worthy article, Nigel. WTF? indeed.
That’s a truly barf-worthy article, Nigel. WTF? indeed.
2. In football, at least, an outstanding day by a normally mediocre player on the other team won’t beat you. In baseball it will. Some days a .240 hitter blasts two home runs, or just gets a double at a critical moment and there you are.
Yes, Al Weis, Mark Lemke, Maz in the World Series.
Willie Mays couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn post-season.
Tony Cloninger, 1960s starting pitcher for the Braves, hit two grand slam home runs in the same inning.
Nobody knows nuttin in baseball, as Yogi might say, and probably did.
Baseball is like jazz. There is no play on like the other sports. Here it comes. Hit it, catch it, throw it.
By the way, Russell’s comment above on the jazz guy is WRS and near the top of the heap of his comment history.
I’ m in Florida. Just saying. Beaches.
2. In football, at least, an outstanding day by a normally mediocre player on the other team won’t beat you. In baseball it will. Some days a .240 hitter blasts two home runs, or just gets a double at a critical moment and there you are.
Yes, Al Weis, Mark Lemke, Maz in the World Series.
Willie Mays couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn post-season.
Tony Cloninger, 1960s starting pitcher for the Braves, hit two grand slam home runs in the same inning.
Nobody knows nuttin in baseball, as Yogi might say, and probably did.
Baseball is like jazz. There is no play on like the other sports. Here it comes. Hit it, catch it, throw it.
By the way, Russell’s comment above on the jazz guy is WRS and near the top of the heap of his comment history.
I’ m in Florida. Just saying. Beaches.
2. In football, at least, an outstanding day by a normally mediocre player on the other team won’t beat you. In baseball it will. Some days a .240 hitter blasts two home runs, or just gets a double at a critical moment and there you are.
Yes, Al Weis, Mark Lemke, Maz in the World Series.
Willie Mays couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn post-season.
Tony Cloninger, 1960s starting pitcher for the Braves, hit two grand slam home runs in the same inning.
Nobody knows nuttin in baseball, as Yogi might say, and probably did.
Baseball is like jazz. There is no play on like the other sports. Here it comes. Hit it, catch it, throw it.
By the way, Russell’s comment above on the jazz guy is WRS and near the top of the heap of his comment history.
I’ m in Florida. Just saying. Beaches.
Willie Mays couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn post-season.
I’d still put him in the lineup.
Willie Mays couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn post-season.
I’d still put him in the lineup.
Willie Mays couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn post-season.
I’d still put him in the lineup.
“Im old. Ok. But for my whole life having a man walk into a woman’s bathroom has been a big deal.”
Maybe someone has already explained this and, if so, I apologize for being repetitive.
The problem with the laws about bathrooms is that the result will be that people who look male will be required to use the women’s room and people who look female will be required to us the men’s thus causing confusion, possibly fights, phone calls to the police and so on. Trans people look like the opposite gender. NO one would get upset if people used bathrooms based on their appearance because no one would see inside the stall to observe how the peeing was actually happening. But people will be upset if they see a man dressed as a woman using the men’s room, especially if the individual really appears to be female.
“Im old. Ok. But for my whole life having a man walk into a woman’s bathroom has been a big deal.”
Maybe someone has already explained this and, if so, I apologize for being repetitive.
The problem with the laws about bathrooms is that the result will be that people who look male will be required to use the women’s room and people who look female will be required to us the men’s thus causing confusion, possibly fights, phone calls to the police and so on. Trans people look like the opposite gender. NO one would get upset if people used bathrooms based on their appearance because no one would see inside the stall to observe how the peeing was actually happening. But people will be upset if they see a man dressed as a woman using the men’s room, especially if the individual really appears to be female.
“Im old. Ok. But for my whole life having a man walk into a woman’s bathroom has been a big deal.”
Maybe someone has already explained this and, if so, I apologize for being repetitive.
The problem with the laws about bathrooms is that the result will be that people who look male will be required to use the women’s room and people who look female will be required to us the men’s thus causing confusion, possibly fights, phone calls to the police and so on. Trans people look like the opposite gender. NO one would get upset if people used bathrooms based on their appearance because no one would see inside the stall to observe how the peeing was actually happening. But people will be upset if they see a man dressed as a woman using the men’s room, especially if the individual really appears to be female.
I’ m in Florida. Just saying. Beaches.
I’ve lived in high semi-arid territory for too long. Florida’s got twice as much air, and three times as much humidity, as anyone actually needs.
I’ m in Florida. Just saying. Beaches.
I’ve lived in high semi-arid territory for too long. Florida’s got twice as much air, and three times as much humidity, as anyone actually needs.
I’ m in Florida. Just saying. Beaches.
I’ve lived in high semi-arid territory for too long. Florida’s got twice as much air, and three times as much humidity, as anyone actually needs.
Florida, where 99 degrees and 99% humidity constitutes a “cold snap”. Shudder!
Florida, where 99 degrees and 99% humidity constitutes a “cold snap”. Shudder!
Florida, where 99 degrees and 99% humidity constitutes a “cold snap”. Shudder!
so wonkie, the law should say as long as you look like the right sex its ok? And my experience with transgender folks is that on a day to dat basis they can dress for the occasion.
so wonkie, the law should say as long as you look like the right sex its ok? And my experience with transgender folks is that on a day to dat basis they can dress for the occasion.
so wonkie, the law should say as long as you look like the right sex its ok? And my experience with transgender folks is that on a day to dat basis they can dress for the occasion.
Let’s start from square one. What’s the problem with people of different assigned birth genders being in the same bathroom?
Let’s start from square one. What’s the problem with people of different assigned birth genders being in the same bathroom?
Let’s start from square one. What’s the problem with people of different assigned birth genders being in the same bathroom?
What’s the problem with people of different assigned birth genders being in the same bathroom?
That is a pretty irrelevant question. Other than the fact that most people don’t want to go to the bathroom in front of people of the opposite sex, I don’t like standing at the urinal in between two other guys, so sue me. I personally, wouldn’t care who was in the bathroom if I had a stall. But really, if the standard is that men who sit spread legged on the T are perverts then I cant imagine a calm transition to unisex bathrooms.
But we could talk about the fact that there are about 1 million self idenitied transgender people in the US. From what I can tell that includes all stages of transition, including fully transitioned. Wild ass guessing from the information I found that leaves something significantly less than 1M people that need to be accommodated/protected.
The most impacted ones people are those that are living successfully as their self idenitified gender to the point that those around them are not aware they are transgender. Using the bathroom that matches their physical gender would out them, creating a possibly dangerous situation.
Let me just say that the fact that an untransitioned person may feel “uncomfortable” using a stall in the other bathroom doesn’t justify making some significant portion of the other 360M people in the country “uncomfortable”. If it did I would always have a empty urinal on each side of me. But there is some level of real risk in outing them, there is also some amount of real risk allowing pedophiles and perverts an excuse to go into the bathroom of their choice. Or shower in the gym dressing room of their choice.
So, if we want to talk policy, I’m ok with solutions being discussed, But the dismissive tone of “bathroom panic scenarios” doesn’t move it forward.
What’s the problem with people of different assigned birth genders being in the same bathroom?
That is a pretty irrelevant question. Other than the fact that most people don’t want to go to the bathroom in front of people of the opposite sex, I don’t like standing at the urinal in between two other guys, so sue me. I personally, wouldn’t care who was in the bathroom if I had a stall. But really, if the standard is that men who sit spread legged on the T are perverts then I cant imagine a calm transition to unisex bathrooms.
But we could talk about the fact that there are about 1 million self idenitied transgender people in the US. From what I can tell that includes all stages of transition, including fully transitioned. Wild ass guessing from the information I found that leaves something significantly less than 1M people that need to be accommodated/protected.
The most impacted ones people are those that are living successfully as their self idenitified gender to the point that those around them are not aware they are transgender. Using the bathroom that matches their physical gender would out them, creating a possibly dangerous situation.
Let me just say that the fact that an untransitioned person may feel “uncomfortable” using a stall in the other bathroom doesn’t justify making some significant portion of the other 360M people in the country “uncomfortable”. If it did I would always have a empty urinal on each side of me. But there is some level of real risk in outing them, there is also some amount of real risk allowing pedophiles and perverts an excuse to go into the bathroom of their choice. Or shower in the gym dressing room of their choice.
So, if we want to talk policy, I’m ok with solutions being discussed, But the dismissive tone of “bathroom panic scenarios” doesn’t move it forward.
What’s the problem with people of different assigned birth genders being in the same bathroom?
That is a pretty irrelevant question. Other than the fact that most people don’t want to go to the bathroom in front of people of the opposite sex, I don’t like standing at the urinal in between two other guys, so sue me. I personally, wouldn’t care who was in the bathroom if I had a stall. But really, if the standard is that men who sit spread legged on the T are perverts then I cant imagine a calm transition to unisex bathrooms.
But we could talk about the fact that there are about 1 million self idenitied transgender people in the US. From what I can tell that includes all stages of transition, including fully transitioned. Wild ass guessing from the information I found that leaves something significantly less than 1M people that need to be accommodated/protected.
The most impacted ones people are those that are living successfully as their self idenitified gender to the point that those around them are not aware they are transgender. Using the bathroom that matches their physical gender would out them, creating a possibly dangerous situation.
Let me just say that the fact that an untransitioned person may feel “uncomfortable” using a stall in the other bathroom doesn’t justify making some significant portion of the other 360M people in the country “uncomfortable”. If it did I would always have a empty urinal on each side of me. But there is some level of real risk in outing them, there is also some amount of real risk allowing pedophiles and perverts an excuse to go into the bathroom of their choice. Or shower in the gym dressing room of their choice.
So, if we want to talk policy, I’m ok with solutions being discussed, But the dismissive tone of “bathroom panic scenarios” doesn’t move it forward.
That is a pretty irrelevant question.
How so? That’s what the entire issue is about, as was the rest of your response. If that question is irrelevant, what is a relevant question as regards transgendered people using the bathroom most aligned with their self-identified gender?
I’m not proposing that you have to answer in any particular way. I just think it’s the fundamental question.
Another question might be, why don’t you like other men standing next to you while you use the urinal?
That is a pretty irrelevant question.
How so? That’s what the entire issue is about, as was the rest of your response. If that question is irrelevant, what is a relevant question as regards transgendered people using the bathroom most aligned with their self-identified gender?
I’m not proposing that you have to answer in any particular way. I just think it’s the fundamental question.
Another question might be, why don’t you like other men standing next to you while you use the urinal?
That is a pretty irrelevant question.
How so? That’s what the entire issue is about, as was the rest of your response. If that question is irrelevant, what is a relevant question as regards transgendered people using the bathroom most aligned with their self-identified gender?
I’m not proposing that you have to answer in any particular way. I just think it’s the fundamental question.
Another question might be, why don’t you like other men standing next to you while you use the urinal?
I’d also ask, which bathroom should a given transgendered person use to cause the least discomfort in other people, supposing that is the goal?
I’d also ask, which bathroom should a given transgendered person use to cause the least discomfort in other people, supposing that is the goal?
I’d also ask, which bathroom should a given transgendered person use to cause the least discomfort in other people, supposing that is the goal?
Going backwards:
From the reaction I have seen, it seems using the bathroom that matches your physical gender makes less people uncomfortable. My own anecdotal observation.
“Another question might be, why don’t you like other men standing next to you while you use the urinal?”
I feel a little vulnerable while standing at a urinal. I was molested a few times when I was quite young and this seems to be the lasting effect. I don’t get too hinky, its just a little uncomfortable. Let me know when we get to TMI.
As far as the core question, I actually felt I went on to answer it but, the act of unclothing yourself to whatever extent is necessary makes people feel more vulnerable and a same sex environment feels safer. I am not sure it is or isn’t, but it seems to be a clear preference for a great many people. Almost all of the discussion I’ve seen focuses on the additional access of pedophiles to younger people of the opposite sex.
But, that’s not what the whole issue is about. We have had single sex bathrooms in public places for my entire life at least. The issue is about a subset of people wanting to force everyone else to have unisex bathrooms and locker rooms.
What the problem is with…” is irrelevant. That isn’t what we are even discussing. They want to get to use the other one.
Do you have an opinion either way? I don’t want to assume from your questions what your opinion is.
Going backwards:
From the reaction I have seen, it seems using the bathroom that matches your physical gender makes less people uncomfortable. My own anecdotal observation.
“Another question might be, why don’t you like other men standing next to you while you use the urinal?”
I feel a little vulnerable while standing at a urinal. I was molested a few times when I was quite young and this seems to be the lasting effect. I don’t get too hinky, its just a little uncomfortable. Let me know when we get to TMI.
As far as the core question, I actually felt I went on to answer it but, the act of unclothing yourself to whatever extent is necessary makes people feel more vulnerable and a same sex environment feels safer. I am not sure it is or isn’t, but it seems to be a clear preference for a great many people. Almost all of the discussion I’ve seen focuses on the additional access of pedophiles to younger people of the opposite sex.
But, that’s not what the whole issue is about. We have had single sex bathrooms in public places for my entire life at least. The issue is about a subset of people wanting to force everyone else to have unisex bathrooms and locker rooms.
What the problem is with…” is irrelevant. That isn’t what we are even discussing. They want to get to use the other one.
Do you have an opinion either way? I don’t want to assume from your questions what your opinion is.
Going backwards:
From the reaction I have seen, it seems using the bathroom that matches your physical gender makes less people uncomfortable. My own anecdotal observation.
“Another question might be, why don’t you like other men standing next to you while you use the urinal?”
I feel a little vulnerable while standing at a urinal. I was molested a few times when I was quite young and this seems to be the lasting effect. I don’t get too hinky, its just a little uncomfortable. Let me know when we get to TMI.
As far as the core question, I actually felt I went on to answer it but, the act of unclothing yourself to whatever extent is necessary makes people feel more vulnerable and a same sex environment feels safer. I am not sure it is or isn’t, but it seems to be a clear preference for a great many people. Almost all of the discussion I’ve seen focuses on the additional access of pedophiles to younger people of the opposite sex.
But, that’s not what the whole issue is about. We have had single sex bathrooms in public places for my entire life at least. The issue is about a subset of people wanting to force everyone else to have unisex bathrooms and locker rooms.
What the problem is with…” is irrelevant. That isn’t what we are even discussing. They want to get to use the other one.
Do you have an opinion either way? I don’t want to assume from your questions what your opinion is.
Well, I don’t know that we’re necessarily talking about universal unisex restrooms. What we are talking about is which of the two gender-assigned bathrooms a given transgendered person should use. The assumption seems to be that it should be the one that is consistent with a given transgendered person’s birth-assigned sex. I’m just not sure that’s the best answer, not only for the transgendered, but even for everyone else.
Is it a matter of sexual attraction? Would you rather be in the same bathroom with a birth-assigned female who identifies male or with a gay man? Should homosexuals have to use separate bathrooms (not that such bathrooms exist)?
That all aside, telling everyone you were molested as a child is very brave, IMO. It’s not TMI for me if it’s not TMI for you. I’m not sure I’d have such courage.
Well, I don’t know that we’re necessarily talking about universal unisex restrooms. What we are talking about is which of the two gender-assigned bathrooms a given transgendered person should use. The assumption seems to be that it should be the one that is consistent with a given transgendered person’s birth-assigned sex. I’m just not sure that’s the best answer, not only for the transgendered, but even for everyone else.
Is it a matter of sexual attraction? Would you rather be in the same bathroom with a birth-assigned female who identifies male or with a gay man? Should homosexuals have to use separate bathrooms (not that such bathrooms exist)?
That all aside, telling everyone you were molested as a child is very brave, IMO. It’s not TMI for me if it’s not TMI for you. I’m not sure I’d have such courage.
Well, I don’t know that we’re necessarily talking about universal unisex restrooms. What we are talking about is which of the two gender-assigned bathrooms a given transgendered person should use. The assumption seems to be that it should be the one that is consistent with a given transgendered person’s birth-assigned sex. I’m just not sure that’s the best answer, not only for the transgendered, but even for everyone else.
Is it a matter of sexual attraction? Would you rather be in the same bathroom with a birth-assigned female who identifies male or with a gay man? Should homosexuals have to use separate bathrooms (not that such bathrooms exist)?
That all aside, telling everyone you were molested as a child is very brave, IMO. It’s not TMI for me if it’s not TMI for you. I’m not sure I’d have such courage.
IMO part of the problem in the USA is the unnecessary and weird huge gaps between the doors and dividers in stalls, which means that there really isn’t any privacy on the toilet at all. I’ve traveled a lot and not seen this lack of bathroom privacy anywhere else in the world. In fact I remember using the public toilets down on Long Beach LA, where there were no doors at all and the dividers came up to maybe waist height if you were standing. What’s with that, seriously?
On sporting victory rates, the English Premier League (you know, where men kick a ball with their foot instead of cuddling an egg with their hands) is currently being led by a team who have won 20, drawn 9 and lost 3. The idea of a team winning the 38 game season unbeaten (never mind securing 100% victories) is unheard of.
In the UK this week it’s all been about whether (yes) and how much (a lot, for most people, peanuts for him) David Cameron benefited from good his father’s Panama fund. The left is making out longer this is a major scandal but I think most people over here just assumed that everyone at the top of the Tory party was on the take one way or another.
Distressingly for me, dislike of Cameron is likely to fuel the “leave EU” campaign. It’s looking like it’s going to be a knife edge referendum anyway. Just the right time for me to be starting a new contract job in Amsterdam, amirite…?
IMO part of the problem in the USA is the unnecessary and weird huge gaps between the doors and dividers in stalls, which means that there really isn’t any privacy on the toilet at all. I’ve traveled a lot and not seen this lack of bathroom privacy anywhere else in the world. In fact I remember using the public toilets down on Long Beach LA, where there were no doors at all and the dividers came up to maybe waist height if you were standing. What’s with that, seriously?
On sporting victory rates, the English Premier League (you know, where men kick a ball with their foot instead of cuddling an egg with their hands) is currently being led by a team who have won 20, drawn 9 and lost 3. The idea of a team winning the 38 game season unbeaten (never mind securing 100% victories) is unheard of.
In the UK this week it’s all been about whether (yes) and how much (a lot, for most people, peanuts for him) David Cameron benefited from good his father’s Panama fund. The left is making out longer this is a major scandal but I think most people over here just assumed that everyone at the top of the Tory party was on the take one way or another.
Distressingly for me, dislike of Cameron is likely to fuel the “leave EU” campaign. It’s looking like it’s going to be a knife edge referendum anyway. Just the right time for me to be starting a new contract job in Amsterdam, amirite…?
IMO part of the problem in the USA is the unnecessary and weird huge gaps between the doors and dividers in stalls, which means that there really isn’t any privacy on the toilet at all. I’ve traveled a lot and not seen this lack of bathroom privacy anywhere else in the world. In fact I remember using the public toilets down on Long Beach LA, where there were no doors at all and the dividers came up to maybe waist height if you were standing. What’s with that, seriously?
On sporting victory rates, the English Premier League (you know, where men kick a ball with their foot instead of cuddling an egg with their hands) is currently being led by a team who have won 20, drawn 9 and lost 3. The idea of a team winning the 38 game season unbeaten (never mind securing 100% victories) is unheard of.
In the UK this week it’s all been about whether (yes) and how much (a lot, for most people, peanuts for him) David Cameron benefited from good his father’s Panama fund. The left is making out longer this is a major scandal but I think most people over here just assumed that everyone at the top of the Tory party was on the take one way or another.
Distressingly for me, dislike of Cameron is likely to fuel the “leave EU” campaign. It’s looking like it’s going to be a knife edge referendum anyway. Just the right time for me to be starting a new contract job in Amsterdam, amirite…?
I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced? Are we now to be required to carry a copy of our birth certificates with the us? Or is this (as seems likely) just a shot at an additional charge to use when arresting someone for something else?
Actually, I suspect that those involved saw it as pure posturing — just a little something to pander to their constituents. With actual enforcement neither expected nor even contemplated.
But perhaps I am misreading them. I suppose there is no reason why legislators couldn’t indulge in the same kind of primal scream behavior that we are seeing from some voters. ..
I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced? Are we now to be required to carry a copy of our birth certificates with the us? Or is this (as seems likely) just a shot at an additional charge to use when arresting someone for something else?
Actually, I suspect that those involved saw it as pure posturing — just a little something to pander to their constituents. With actual enforcement neither expected nor even contemplated.
But perhaps I am misreading them. I suppose there is no reason why legislators couldn’t indulge in the same kind of primal scream behavior that we are seeing from some voters. ..
I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced? Are we now to be required to carry a copy of our birth certificates with the us? Or is this (as seems likely) just a shot at an additional charge to use when arresting someone for something else?
Actually, I suspect that those involved saw it as pure posturing — just a little something to pander to their constituents. With actual enforcement neither expected nor even contemplated.
But perhaps I am misreading them. I suppose there is no reason why legislators couldn’t indulge in the same kind of primal scream behavior that we are seeing from some voters. ..
It’s the temperate season at the moment in Florida. 75 degrees, humidity not oppressive. Breeze.
Back to Denver this week.
It’s the temperate season at the moment in Florida. 75 degrees, humidity not oppressive. Breeze.
Back to Denver this week.
It’s the temperate season at the moment in Florida. 75 degrees, humidity not oppressive. Breeze.
Back to Denver this week.
Maybe bathrooms should be designated by political affiliation with the conservative facilities requiring birth certificates and photo ID.
I feel uncomfortable in those flimsy voting booths pulling the lever while standing between two obviously wide-stances conservative persons muttering to themselves while trying to look within the soul of those adjacent.
Smile.
Maybe bathrooms should be designated by political affiliation with the conservative facilities requiring birth certificates and photo ID.
I feel uncomfortable in those flimsy voting booths pulling the lever while standing between two obviously wide-stances conservative persons muttering to themselves while trying to look within the soul of those adjacent.
Smile.
Maybe bathrooms should be designated by political affiliation with the conservative facilities requiring birth certificates and photo ID.
I feel uncomfortable in those flimsy voting booths pulling the lever while standing between two obviously wide-stances conservative persons muttering to themselves while trying to look within the soul of those adjacent.
Smile.
I don’t mind folks transitioning in the bathroom while I’m present.
It’s the sudden, noisy species morphing in the stall from human to reptile that freaks me out.
I don’t mind folks transitioning in the bathroom while I’m present.
It’s the sudden, noisy species morphing in the stall from human to reptile that freaks me out.
I don’t mind folks transitioning in the bathroom while I’m present.
It’s the sudden, noisy species morphing in the stall from human to reptile that freaks me out.
I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced?
That’s easy. If you’re likely to arouse suspicion (as with insufficient skin albedo in other cases), you’d do well to carry documentation. At least until mandatory colour-coded triangles (enhanced with embedded microchips) can be cleared with the courts or the tenthers win final victory, so the robed ones can be simply ignored.
[/sarcasm]
I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced?
That’s easy. If you’re likely to arouse suspicion (as with insufficient skin albedo in other cases), you’d do well to carry documentation. At least until mandatory colour-coded triangles (enhanced with embedded microchips) can be cleared with the courts or the tenthers win final victory, so the robed ones can be simply ignored.
[/sarcasm]
I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced?
That’s easy. If you’re likely to arouse suspicion (as with insufficient skin albedo in other cases), you’d do well to carry documentation. At least until mandatory colour-coded triangles (enhanced with embedded microchips) can be cleared with the courts or the tenthers win final victory, so the robed ones can be simply ignored.
[/sarcasm]
“I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced?”
Like most laws they would expect people to follow it. Then have other people point our when someone is obviously breaking it. You know, help the police. I suspect no one much cared until someone decided to codify the right and make it a hate crime to refuse to let someone in the opposite sex bathroom. Then people had to think about the potential issues. I mean, how many times is someone in NC going to be faced with a transgender in the public bathroom with them each week? The reaction is all about the unintended consequence, which is unisex bathrooms by law.
“I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced?”
Like most laws they would expect people to follow it. Then have other people point our when someone is obviously breaking it. You know, help the police. I suspect no one much cared until someone decided to codify the right and make it a hate crime to refuse to let someone in the opposite sex bathroom. Then people had to think about the potential issues. I mean, how many times is someone in NC going to be faced with a transgender in the public bathroom with them each week? The reaction is all about the unintended consequence, which is unisex bathrooms by law.
“I have one small question about these state laws which refer to the “gender on the birth certificate.” How the devil do the folks who came up with the laws envision them being enforced?”
Like most laws they would expect people to follow it. Then have other people point our when someone is obviously breaking it. You know, help the police. I suspect no one much cared until someone decided to codify the right and make it a hate crime to refuse to let someone in the opposite sex bathroom. Then people had to think about the potential issues. I mean, how many times is someone in NC going to be faced with a transgender in the public bathroom with them each week? The reaction is all about the unintended consequence, which is unisex bathrooms by law.
How did the whole issue of “birth-gendered” bathrooms even come up? Is this something that actually needs a law?
If a trans-gendered person shares a bathroom with you, even though it’s not the appropriate bathroom for their “birth gender”, would you even know?
I can understand why the *idea* of someone of a different birth gender being in the bathroom with you might make some folks uncomfortable, but in actual practice, is this really a problem?
How did the whole issue of “birth-gendered” bathrooms even come up? Is this something that actually needs a law?
If a trans-gendered person shares a bathroom with you, even though it’s not the appropriate bathroom for their “birth gender”, would you even know?
I can understand why the *idea* of someone of a different birth gender being in the bathroom with you might make some folks uncomfortable, but in actual practice, is this really a problem?
How did the whole issue of “birth-gendered” bathrooms even come up? Is this something that actually needs a law?
If a trans-gendered person shares a bathroom with you, even though it’s not the appropriate bathroom for their “birth gender”, would you even know?
I can understand why the *idea* of someone of a different birth gender being in the bathroom with you might make some folks uncomfortable, but in actual practice, is this really a problem?
With actual enforcement neither expected nor even contemplated.
This is another aspect of the issue I’ve been wondering about. And what was the de facto state of affairs before this law was passed? How many of the people who support this law were at all affected by its previous non-existence?
To a point I made earlier, why do the people who support this law presume that a given transgendered person using the bathroom consistent with their birth-assigned gender will result in everyone else being so much happier than they would be had that transgendered person used the bathroom of their choice?
My guess is that in the vast majority of cases, a transgendered person will be more comfortable using the bathroom that creates the least discomfort in other people sharing the bathroom with them. It’s one thing to discuss, in the abstract, what you as an individual would be more comfortable with, but what has everyone been doing all along that led to the need to pass legislation forcing (nominally, at least) transgendered people to use a particular bathroom?
Was there rampant abuse, by non-transgendered people pretending to be transgendered, of lax bathroom-assignment laws such that men/women were walking freely into the women’s/men’s room, falsely claiming female/male self-identification? Is that what the real problem was, rather than someone who, aside from having a penis/vagina and testicles/ovaries, presenting as female/male going into the women’s/men’s room?
I really don’t get what’s being accomplished here, so, though I haven’t personally used the phrase “bathroom panic” (or whatever it was), I can understand the basis for the mockery.
With actual enforcement neither expected nor even contemplated.
This is another aspect of the issue I’ve been wondering about. And what was the de facto state of affairs before this law was passed? How many of the people who support this law were at all affected by its previous non-existence?
To a point I made earlier, why do the people who support this law presume that a given transgendered person using the bathroom consistent with their birth-assigned gender will result in everyone else being so much happier than they would be had that transgendered person used the bathroom of their choice?
My guess is that in the vast majority of cases, a transgendered person will be more comfortable using the bathroom that creates the least discomfort in other people sharing the bathroom with them. It’s one thing to discuss, in the abstract, what you as an individual would be more comfortable with, but what has everyone been doing all along that led to the need to pass legislation forcing (nominally, at least) transgendered people to use a particular bathroom?
Was there rampant abuse, by non-transgendered people pretending to be transgendered, of lax bathroom-assignment laws such that men/women were walking freely into the women’s/men’s room, falsely claiming female/male self-identification? Is that what the real problem was, rather than someone who, aside from having a penis/vagina and testicles/ovaries, presenting as female/male going into the women’s/men’s room?
I really don’t get what’s being accomplished here, so, though I haven’t personally used the phrase “bathroom panic” (or whatever it was), I can understand the basis for the mockery.
With actual enforcement neither expected nor even contemplated.
This is another aspect of the issue I’ve been wondering about. And what was the de facto state of affairs before this law was passed? How many of the people who support this law were at all affected by its previous non-existence?
To a point I made earlier, why do the people who support this law presume that a given transgendered person using the bathroom consistent with their birth-assigned gender will result in everyone else being so much happier than they would be had that transgendered person used the bathroom of their choice?
My guess is that in the vast majority of cases, a transgendered person will be more comfortable using the bathroom that creates the least discomfort in other people sharing the bathroom with them. It’s one thing to discuss, in the abstract, what you as an individual would be more comfortable with, but what has everyone been doing all along that led to the need to pass legislation forcing (nominally, at least) transgendered people to use a particular bathroom?
Was there rampant abuse, by non-transgendered people pretending to be transgendered, of lax bathroom-assignment laws such that men/women were walking freely into the women’s/men’s room, falsely claiming female/male self-identification? Is that what the real problem was, rather than someone who, aside from having a penis/vagina and testicles/ovaries, presenting as female/male going into the women’s/men’s room?
I really don’t get what’s being accomplished here, so, though I haven’t personally used the phrase “bathroom panic” (or whatever it was), I can understand the basis for the mockery.
IMO part of the problem in the USA is the unnecessary and weird huge gaps between the doors and dividers in stalls, which means that there really isn’t any privacy on the toilet at all.
The transgenic limbo dancers are a pain…
IMO part of the problem in the USA is the unnecessary and weird huge gaps between the doors and dividers in stalls, which means that there really isn’t any privacy on the toilet at all.
The transgenic limbo dancers are a pain…
IMO part of the problem in the USA is the unnecessary and weird huge gaps between the doors and dividers in stalls, which means that there really isn’t any privacy on the toilet at all.
The transgenic limbo dancers are a pain…
The reaction is all about the unintended consequence, which is unisex bathrooms by law.
I posted my last comment without seeing the 3 previous ones. So this appears to be a big thing. I think the unintended consequence is actually an unlikely hypothetical. Is it somehow impossible to challenge a false claim of transgender when someone is clearly abusing a transgender accommodation? If you were the kind of cisgendered person who would be comfortable walking into the bathroom assigned to the opposite sex, was it the lack of this new law that prompted you to do just that? If you were doing that before, are you now going to stop? (Or is the truth that a very small number of people would ever have done that, and that the vast majority of those very few people won’t knock it off, regardless of this new law?)
The reaction is all about the unintended consequence, which is unisex bathrooms by law.
I posted my last comment without seeing the 3 previous ones. So this appears to be a big thing. I think the unintended consequence is actually an unlikely hypothetical. Is it somehow impossible to challenge a false claim of transgender when someone is clearly abusing a transgender accommodation? If you were the kind of cisgendered person who would be comfortable walking into the bathroom assigned to the opposite sex, was it the lack of this new law that prompted you to do just that? If you were doing that before, are you now going to stop? (Or is the truth that a very small number of people would ever have done that, and that the vast majority of those very few people won’t knock it off, regardless of this new law?)
The reaction is all about the unintended consequence, which is unisex bathrooms by law.
I posted my last comment without seeing the 3 previous ones. So this appears to be a big thing. I think the unintended consequence is actually an unlikely hypothetical. Is it somehow impossible to challenge a false claim of transgender when someone is clearly abusing a transgender accommodation? If you were the kind of cisgendered person who would be comfortable walking into the bathroom assigned to the opposite sex, was it the lack of this new law that prompted you to do just that? If you were doing that before, are you now going to stop? (Or is the truth that a very small number of people would ever have done that, and that the vast majority of those very few people won’t knock it off, regardless of this new law?)
Ally McBeal and The Unisex Bathroom(YouTube)
Ally McBeal and The Unisex Bathroom(YouTube)
Ally McBeal and The Unisex Bathroom(YouTube)
It’s like I’m hearing: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
It’s like I’m hearing: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
It’s like I’m hearing: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
“Is it somehow impossible to challenge a false claim of transgender when someone is clearly abusing a transgender accommodation?”
Yes, we are making a law based on someone’s self perception. That is not challengable.
“Is it somehow impossible to challenge a false claim of transgender when someone is clearly abusing a transgender accommodation?”
Yes, we are making a law based on someone’s self perception. That is not challengable.
“Is it somehow impossible to challenge a false claim of transgender when someone is clearly abusing a transgender accommodation?”
Yes, we are making a law based on someone’s self perception. That is not challengable.
hsh, it is helpful, perhaps, to note that the law is in response to a ordnance passed in Charlotte specifically allowing transgender people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their self identification.
hsh, it is helpful, perhaps, to note that the law is in response to a ordnance passed in Charlotte specifically allowing transgender people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their self identification.
hsh, it is helpful, perhaps, to note that the law is in response to a ordnance passed in Charlotte specifically allowing transgender people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their self identification.
And?
And?
And?
Yes, we are making a law based on someone’s self perception. That is not challengable.
Really? Because people don’t have lives and circumstances that are observable? But let’s assume you’re right for the sake of argument. Do you think this is going to lead to significant abuse by non-transgendered people? We’re going to have, in effect, universal unisex bathrooms because of transgender-accommodation laws?
Yes, we are making a law based on someone’s self perception. That is not challengable.
Really? Because people don’t have lives and circumstances that are observable? But let’s assume you’re right for the sake of argument. Do you think this is going to lead to significant abuse by non-transgendered people? We’re going to have, in effect, universal unisex bathrooms because of transgender-accommodation laws?
Yes, we are making a law based on someone’s self perception. That is not challengable.
Really? Because people don’t have lives and circumstances that are observable? But let’s assume you’re right for the sake of argument. Do you think this is going to lead to significant abuse by non-transgendered people? We’re going to have, in effect, universal unisex bathrooms because of transgender-accommodation laws?
yes, yes
yes, yes
yes, yes
sorry, longer me. There is no measurable criteria that for whether someone self identifies as transgender. The process of transition is often off and on, there are significant numbers of transgender people who don’t transition, a large percentage of trans men don’t complete reassignment surgery, how do you propose that we evaluate a person walking into a restroom as being transgender. It doesn’t work by looks, and the first person challenged that is transgender gets to file a huge lawsuit and claim the cops are homophobic.
And then yes and yes to the last two questions.
sorry, longer me. There is no measurable criteria that for whether someone self identifies as transgender. The process of transition is often off and on, there are significant numbers of transgender people who don’t transition, a large percentage of trans men don’t complete reassignment surgery, how do you propose that we evaluate a person walking into a restroom as being transgender. It doesn’t work by looks, and the first person challenged that is transgender gets to file a huge lawsuit and claim the cops are homophobic.
And then yes and yes to the last two questions.
sorry, longer me. There is no measurable criteria that for whether someone self identifies as transgender. The process of transition is often off and on, there are significant numbers of transgender people who don’t transition, a large percentage of trans men don’t complete reassignment surgery, how do you propose that we evaluate a person walking into a restroom as being transgender. It doesn’t work by looks, and the first person challenged that is transgender gets to file a huge lawsuit and claim the cops are homophobic.
And then yes and yes to the last two questions.
So what happens when someone with a penis/vagina, but who otherwise looks like a woman/man, walks into the men’s/women’s room? Is that going to be wonderful for all the bathroom-obsessed people out there?
So what happens when someone with a penis/vagina, but who otherwise looks like a woman/man, walks into the men’s/women’s room? Is that going to be wonderful for all the bathroom-obsessed people out there?
So what happens when someone with a penis/vagina, but who otherwise looks like a woman/man, walks into the men’s/women’s room? Is that going to be wonderful for all the bathroom-obsessed people out there?
...how do you propose that we evaluate a person walking into a restroom as being transgender.
I don’t. I’m not particularly worried about it either way. But I imagine that someone who looks like Larry the Cable Guy, who serially uses the women’s room and bothers people in the process, who does nothing that would indicated female self-identification, could be challenged. I also think such people will be vanishingly rare, especially if the thing that suddenly emboldens them is presumed to be transgender accommodation.
...how do you propose that we evaluate a person walking into a restroom as being transgender.
I don’t. I’m not particularly worried about it either way. But I imagine that someone who looks like Larry the Cable Guy, who serially uses the women’s room and bothers people in the process, who does nothing that would indicated female self-identification, could be challenged. I also think such people will be vanishingly rare, especially if the thing that suddenly emboldens them is presumed to be transgender accommodation.
...how do you propose that we evaluate a person walking into a restroom as being transgender.
I don’t. I’m not particularly worried about it either way. But I imagine that someone who looks like Larry the Cable Guy, who serially uses the women’s room and bothers people in the process, who does nothing that would indicated female self-identification, could be challenged. I also think such people will be vanishingly rare, especially if the thing that suddenly emboldens them is presumed to be transgender accommodation.
“Vanishingly rare”
Well that would be the heart of the difference of opinion.
“Vanishingly rare”
Well that would be the heart of the difference of opinion.
“Vanishingly rare”
Well that would be the heart of the difference of opinion.
I guess your hypothetical problems are more important than the real ones transgendered people face. Okay.
I guess your hypothetical problems are more important than the real ones transgendered people face. Okay.
I guess your hypothetical problems are more important than the real ones transgendered people face. Okay.
Perhaps it comes down to this. Solving hypothetical to non-existant problems is apparently much easier for some of our politicians than actually doing their jobs and addressing real problems.
I can sort of see their point. If you try to solve a real problem, you are going to have to deal with making compromises to deal with reality. And with the fact that there will be real people, possibly lots of them, who aren’t happy with whatever solution you come up with. Whereas if you are posturing over something that really isn’t a problem, the negative (political/electoral) impacts will be small.
The downside is, occasionally you will blunder into something where the political downside turns out to be much bigger than you expected. And, since it wasn’t a real problem to begin with, you can’t justify your actions as a “necessary compromise.”
That’s pretty much where Indiana, and now North Carolina, find themselves. Much bigger impacts, and on stuff like jobs which people really care about. And nowhere to hide. Some (e.g. Gov Pence) will backtrack, leaving everybody unhappy with them. Others (the governor of North Carolina, perhaps?) will try to tough it out. And probably go down in electoral flames as a result.
Perhaps it comes down to this. Solving hypothetical to non-existant problems is apparently much easier for some of our politicians than actually doing their jobs and addressing real problems.
I can sort of see their point. If you try to solve a real problem, you are going to have to deal with making compromises to deal with reality. And with the fact that there will be real people, possibly lots of them, who aren’t happy with whatever solution you come up with. Whereas if you are posturing over something that really isn’t a problem, the negative (political/electoral) impacts will be small.
The downside is, occasionally you will blunder into something where the political downside turns out to be much bigger than you expected. And, since it wasn’t a real problem to begin with, you can’t justify your actions as a “necessary compromise.”
That’s pretty much where Indiana, and now North Carolina, find themselves. Much bigger impacts, and on stuff like jobs which people really care about. And nowhere to hide. Some (e.g. Gov Pence) will backtrack, leaving everybody unhappy with them. Others (the governor of North Carolina, perhaps?) will try to tough it out. And probably go down in electoral flames as a result.
Perhaps it comes down to this. Solving hypothetical to non-existant problems is apparently much easier for some of our politicians than actually doing their jobs and addressing real problems.
I can sort of see their point. If you try to solve a real problem, you are going to have to deal with making compromises to deal with reality. And with the fact that there will be real people, possibly lots of them, who aren’t happy with whatever solution you come up with. Whereas if you are posturing over something that really isn’t a problem, the negative (political/electoral) impacts will be small.
The downside is, occasionally you will blunder into something where the political downside turns out to be much bigger than you expected. And, since it wasn’t a real problem to begin with, you can’t justify your actions as a “necessary compromise.”
That’s pretty much where Indiana, and now North Carolina, find themselves. Much bigger impacts, and on stuff like jobs which people really care about. And nowhere to hide. Some (e.g. Gov Pence) will backtrack, leaving everybody unhappy with them. Others (the governor of North Carolina, perhaps?) will try to tough it out. And probably go down in electoral flames as a result.
How much do you want to bet that the non-trans people most likey to abuse transgendered accommodations are “conservatives” doing it solely for the sake of proving themselves right?
How much do you want to bet that the non-trans people most likey to abuse transgendered accommodations are “conservatives” doing it solely for the sake of proving themselves right?
How much do you want to bet that the non-trans people most likey to abuse transgendered accommodations are “conservatives” doing it solely for the sake of proving themselves right?
I disagree wj, first rule of problem solving is to avoid creating a different problem with your solution. The “hypothetical” problem of sexual predators is a valid consideration, not really so hypothetical. The preconception of anyone objecting to the Charlotte law as posturing is incorrect. Imo
I disagree wj, first rule of problem solving is to avoid creating a different problem with your solution. The “hypothetical” problem of sexual predators is a valid consideration, not really so hypothetical. The preconception of anyone objecting to the Charlotte law as posturing is incorrect. Imo
I disagree wj, first rule of problem solving is to avoid creating a different problem with your solution. The “hypothetical” problem of sexual predators is a valid consideration, not really so hypothetical. The preconception of anyone objecting to the Charlotte law as posturing is incorrect. Imo
It’s not a matter of sexual predators being hypothetical. It’s a matter of transgender accommodations suddenly enabling predatory behavior. Predators are already law-breakers. They don’t care if they aren’t supposed to be in the bathroom, just like they don’t care that they aren’t supposed to assault people.
But let the pre-restroom-use genital inspections begin! Or something…
It’s not a matter of sexual predators being hypothetical. It’s a matter of transgender accommodations suddenly enabling predatory behavior. Predators are already law-breakers. They don’t care if they aren’t supposed to be in the bathroom, just like they don’t care that they aren’t supposed to assault people.
But let the pre-restroom-use genital inspections begin! Or something…
It’s not a matter of sexual predators being hypothetical. It’s a matter of transgender accommodations suddenly enabling predatory behavior. Predators are already law-breakers. They don’t care if they aren’t supposed to be in the bathroom, just like they don’t care that they aren’t supposed to assault people.
But let the pre-restroom-use genital inspections begin! Or something…
The ‘bathroom’ law is both gratuitous and disturbing.
A brief perusal of the link I posted upthread makes it extremely difficult to imagine that it won’t be abused – and how it goes any way to solving any real problem which exists, rather than just sending out a message of intolerance, is quite beyond me.
This is not law making; it is unpleasant identity politics.
The ‘bathroom’ law is both gratuitous and disturbing.
A brief perusal of the link I posted upthread makes it extremely difficult to imagine that it won’t be abused – and how it goes any way to solving any real problem which exists, rather than just sending out a message of intolerance, is quite beyond me.
This is not law making; it is unpleasant identity politics.
The ‘bathroom’ law is both gratuitous and disturbing.
A brief perusal of the link I posted upthread makes it extremely difficult to imagine that it won’t be abused – and how it goes any way to solving any real problem which exists, rather than just sending out a message of intolerance, is quite beyond me.
This is not law making; it is unpleasant identity politics.
Marty, I don’t think anybody here is denying that sexual preditors exist. And are a real problem.
But the question is, does this nonsense around transgender individuals (or those pretending to be) actually do anything useful to address that problem. I submit that, even if it does have some utility at the margins, it is not even close to being a significant step forward.
You could probably do more by enacting a law to shut down the Catholic Church. Not because most Catholic priests are pedophiles — they are not. But because the absolute numbers of them who are part of the problem is substantially larger than the numbers being talked about here.
So yeah, I think it is posturing. Unless you are in possession of data that I don’t have about how big a problem there actually is with transgender people (more accurately, those claiming to be transgender, but who are not) molesting others in public bathrooms….
P.S. Let me point out that the “solution” being put forward here is, in fact, producing other problems. They may not be in the same area. But having major companies decide to not do business in you state still constitutes an unintended, negative, consequence.
Marty, I don’t think anybody here is denying that sexual preditors exist. And are a real problem.
But the question is, does this nonsense around transgender individuals (or those pretending to be) actually do anything useful to address that problem. I submit that, even if it does have some utility at the margins, it is not even close to being a significant step forward.
You could probably do more by enacting a law to shut down the Catholic Church. Not because most Catholic priests are pedophiles — they are not. But because the absolute numbers of them who are part of the problem is substantially larger than the numbers being talked about here.
So yeah, I think it is posturing. Unless you are in possession of data that I don’t have about how big a problem there actually is with transgender people (more accurately, those claiming to be transgender, but who are not) molesting others in public bathrooms….
P.S. Let me point out that the “solution” being put forward here is, in fact, producing other problems. They may not be in the same area. But having major companies decide to not do business in you state still constitutes an unintended, negative, consequence.
Marty, I don’t think anybody here is denying that sexual preditors exist. And are a real problem.
But the question is, does this nonsense around transgender individuals (or those pretending to be) actually do anything useful to address that problem. I submit that, even if it does have some utility at the margins, it is not even close to being a significant step forward.
You could probably do more by enacting a law to shut down the Catholic Church. Not because most Catholic priests are pedophiles — they are not. But because the absolute numbers of them who are part of the problem is substantially larger than the numbers being talked about here.
So yeah, I think it is posturing. Unless you are in possession of data that I don’t have about how big a problem there actually is with transgender people (more accurately, those claiming to be transgender, but who are not) molesting others in public bathrooms….
P.S. Let me point out that the “solution” being put forward here is, in fact, producing other problems. They may not be in the same area. But having major companies decide to not do business in you state still constitutes an unintended, negative, consequence.
“But having major companies decide to not do business in you state still constitutes an unintended, negative, consequence”
Sure, and its corporations imposing their values on government. I thought people here were against that, oh wait, only when they are on the other side
“But having major companies decide to not do business in you state still constitutes an unintended, negative, consequence”
Sure, and its corporations imposing their values on government. I thought people here were against that, oh wait, only when they are on the other side
“But having major companies decide to not do business in you state still constitutes an unintended, negative, consequence”
Sure, and its corporations imposing their values on government. I thought people here were against that, oh wait, only when they are on the other side
Is it “imposing their values on government” if they merely say that they will take their business elsewhere?
It’s not like they are forcing the government to change it’s position. They aren’t even announcing well-funded PACs to oppose these politicians’ future election runs. They are just saying “Actions have consequences. In this case, the consequences are that we leave. If you choose the action, that’s your call. But be aware that you are choosing the consequences as well.”
Is it “imposing their values on government” if they merely say that they will take their business elsewhere?
It’s not like they are forcing the government to change it’s position. They aren’t even announcing well-funded PACs to oppose these politicians’ future election runs. They are just saying “Actions have consequences. In this case, the consequences are that we leave. If you choose the action, that’s your call. But be aware that you are choosing the consequences as well.”
Is it “imposing their values on government” if they merely say that they will take their business elsewhere?
It’s not like they are forcing the government to change it’s position. They aren’t even announcing well-funded PACs to oppose these politicians’ future election runs. They are just saying “Actions have consequences. In this case, the consequences are that we leave. If you choose the action, that’s your call. But be aware that you are choosing the consequences as well.”
And don’t forget Springsteen…
Is he “imposing his values on government” by boycotting NC ?
And don’t forget Springsteen…
Is he “imposing his values on government” by boycotting NC ?
And don’t forget Springsteen…
Is he “imposing his values on government” by boycotting NC ?
When facing a thorny problem of politics, I always look first for a “technological” solution
So, for the NC WC problems: install a scanner at the doorway to distinguish XY hormones from XX hormones.
Wired to death-lasers to fry anyone who attempts to violate the sanctity of the N-holer accommodation with the wrong set of DNA.
People with “XXY” (if we can even call them ‘people’, at least in NC) are just sh1t outta luck.
I’m sure that Marty will feel ever-so-comfortable not having to share the urinals with vagina-Americans, assuming he makes it past the door, that is.
When facing a thorny problem of politics, I always look first for a “technological” solution
So, for the NC WC problems: install a scanner at the doorway to distinguish XY hormones from XX hormones.
Wired to death-lasers to fry anyone who attempts to violate the sanctity of the N-holer accommodation with the wrong set of DNA.
People with “XXY” (if we can even call them ‘people’, at least in NC) are just sh1t outta luck.
I’m sure that Marty will feel ever-so-comfortable not having to share the urinals with vagina-Americans, assuming he makes it past the door, that is.
When facing a thorny problem of politics, I always look first for a “technological” solution
So, for the NC WC problems: install a scanner at the doorway to distinguish XY hormones from XX hormones.
Wired to death-lasers to fry anyone who attempts to violate the sanctity of the N-holer accommodation with the wrong set of DNA.
People with “XXY” (if we can even call them ‘people’, at least in NC) are just sh1t outta luck.
I’m sure that Marty will feel ever-so-comfortable not having to share the urinals with vagina-Americans, assuming he makes it past the door, that is.
its corporations imposing their values on government
I don’t think so. First, nothing is being imposed. If I refuse to patronize a certain business because the owner publicly and loudly expresses bigotry then I am not “imposing my values” on the owner.
Further, suppose I run a business and am planning an event like a conference, or am considering opening a new location. It seems to me I am free to consider the laws in potential sites. If I have employees who are transgender, or gay, or black, and I think they will be unwelcome in certain places why shouldn’t I look elsewhere?
Indeed, even if I just fear the PR consequences and its effect on my customers, or employee morale, I would be justified in thinking that my business interests suggest going somewhere else.
its corporations imposing their values on government
I don’t think so. First, nothing is being imposed. If I refuse to patronize a certain business because the owner publicly and loudly expresses bigotry then I am not “imposing my values” on the owner.
Further, suppose I run a business and am planning an event like a conference, or am considering opening a new location. It seems to me I am free to consider the laws in potential sites. If I have employees who are transgender, or gay, or black, and I think they will be unwelcome in certain places why shouldn’t I look elsewhere?
Indeed, even if I just fear the PR consequences and its effect on my customers, or employee morale, I would be justified in thinking that my business interests suggest going somewhere else.
its corporations imposing their values on government
I don’t think so. First, nothing is being imposed. If I refuse to patronize a certain business because the owner publicly and loudly expresses bigotry then I am not “imposing my values” on the owner.
Further, suppose I run a business and am planning an event like a conference, or am considering opening a new location. It seems to me I am free to consider the laws in potential sites. If I have employees who are transgender, or gay, or black, and I think they will be unwelcome in certain places why shouldn’t I look elsewhere?
Indeed, even if I just fear the PR consequences and its effect on my customers, or employee morale, I would be justified in thinking that my business interests suggest going somewhere else.
it doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to distinguish sexual predation from simply using the bathroom.
it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.
it doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to distinguish sexual predation from simply using the bathroom.
it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.
it doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to distinguish sexual predation from simply using the bathroom.
it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.
Byomtov, so the best interests of the business are a legitimate reason to use the power of the purse to impact laws? I couldn’t agree more.
Byomtov, so the best interests of the business are a legitimate reason to use the power of the purse to impact laws? I couldn’t agree more.
Byomtov, so the best interests of the business are a legitimate reason to use the power of the purse to impact laws? I couldn’t agree more.
I see a difference between not spending money for and actively spending against.
And both are different from direct bribes.
I see a difference between not spending money for and actively spending against.
And both are different from direct bribes.
I see a difference between not spending money for and actively spending against.
And both are different from direct bribes.
it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.
Rural political resentment rises and falls on an ~35 year cycle. We’re running up to another peak these days. So we’re seeing partial-state secession movements (California, Colorado, Maryland); federal land policy nullification laws (Arizona, Utah); marriage-license resistance (Kentucky, Alabama). Now efforts at the state level to impose restrictions on the urban areas — in much the way rural areas feel they have been imposed on.
A couple of friends in Texas tell me that the origins of the Evenwel case decided by the Supreme Court this week was aimed by rural Republicans at both urban Democrats and suburban Republicans, as a result of the creation of a fund to finance big water projects to move water from rural eastern Texas to the big city/suburban complexes.
it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.
Rural political resentment rises and falls on an ~35 year cycle. We’re running up to another peak these days. So we’re seeing partial-state secession movements (California, Colorado, Maryland); federal land policy nullification laws (Arizona, Utah); marriage-license resistance (Kentucky, Alabama). Now efforts at the state level to impose restrictions on the urban areas — in much the way rural areas feel they have been imposed on.
A couple of friends in Texas tell me that the origins of the Evenwel case decided by the Supreme Court this week was aimed by rural Republicans at both urban Democrats and suburban Republicans, as a result of the creation of a fund to finance big water projects to move water from rural eastern Texas to the big city/suburban complexes.
it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.
Rural political resentment rises and falls on an ~35 year cycle. We’re running up to another peak these days. So we’re seeing partial-state secession movements (California, Colorado, Maryland); federal land policy nullification laws (Arizona, Utah); marriage-license resistance (Kentucky, Alabama). Now efforts at the state level to impose restrictions on the urban areas — in much the way rural areas feel they have been imposed on.
A couple of friends in Texas tell me that the origins of the Evenwel case decided by the Supreme Court this week was aimed by rural Republicans at both urban Democrats and suburban Republicans, as a result of the creation of a fund to finance big water projects to move water from rural eastern Texas to the big city/suburban complexes.
If the NC GOP wants businesses based in other states not to base their decisions on NC laws, they should go ahead and pass a law to that effect.
I’m sure that such a law will get all the respect that it deserves.
If the NC GOP wants businesses based in other states not to base their decisions on NC laws, they should go ahead and pass a law to that effect.
I’m sure that such a law will get all the respect that it deserves.
If the NC GOP wants businesses based in other states not to base their decisions on NC laws, they should go ahead and pass a law to that effect.
I’m sure that such a law will get all the respect that it deserves.
Byomtov, so the best interests of the business are a legitimate reason to use the power of the purse to impact laws?
Hey, I’ll take the bait!
I have no problem with a company saying they don’t want to do business in a particular state because of the legal or other environment there.
When people object to businesses using the “power of the purse” to “impact laws”, what they more commonly object to is direct contributions from businesses to legislators, whether in the form of campaign contributions or other lobbying efforts. Or, for that matter, explicit quid-pro-quo corruption, e.g. bribes.
I don’t think it’s very hard to distinguish between those two things.
the origins of the Evenwel case decided by the Supreme Court this week was aimed by rural Republicans at both urban Democrats and suburban Republicans, as a result of the creation of a fund to finance big water projects to move water from rural eastern Texas to the big city/suburban complexes.
I can see folks in rural areas not wanting water in their area re-purposed for the benefit of other folks, e.g. cities. which is to say, I can see how the interests of the rural parties are at stake in that case.
I’m having a harder time seeing how the interests of NC residents who don’t live in Charlotte are affected by laws specific to that city about who can use what public bathroom.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
How is this anything other than socially conservative people being freaked out by the behavior of those crazy urban weirdos?
Byomtov, so the best interests of the business are a legitimate reason to use the power of the purse to impact laws?
Hey, I’ll take the bait!
I have no problem with a company saying they don’t want to do business in a particular state because of the legal or other environment there.
When people object to businesses using the “power of the purse” to “impact laws”, what they more commonly object to is direct contributions from businesses to legislators, whether in the form of campaign contributions or other lobbying efforts. Or, for that matter, explicit quid-pro-quo corruption, e.g. bribes.
I don’t think it’s very hard to distinguish between those two things.
the origins of the Evenwel case decided by the Supreme Court this week was aimed by rural Republicans at both urban Democrats and suburban Republicans, as a result of the creation of a fund to finance big water projects to move water from rural eastern Texas to the big city/suburban complexes.
I can see folks in rural areas not wanting water in their area re-purposed for the benefit of other folks, e.g. cities. which is to say, I can see how the interests of the rural parties are at stake in that case.
I’m having a harder time seeing how the interests of NC residents who don’t live in Charlotte are affected by laws specific to that city about who can use what public bathroom.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
How is this anything other than socially conservative people being freaked out by the behavior of those crazy urban weirdos?
Byomtov, so the best interests of the business are a legitimate reason to use the power of the purse to impact laws?
Hey, I’ll take the bait!
I have no problem with a company saying they don’t want to do business in a particular state because of the legal or other environment there.
When people object to businesses using the “power of the purse” to “impact laws”, what they more commonly object to is direct contributions from businesses to legislators, whether in the form of campaign contributions or other lobbying efforts. Or, for that matter, explicit quid-pro-quo corruption, e.g. bribes.
I don’t think it’s very hard to distinguish between those two things.
the origins of the Evenwel case decided by the Supreme Court this week was aimed by rural Republicans at both urban Democrats and suburban Republicans, as a result of the creation of a fund to finance big water projects to move water from rural eastern Texas to the big city/suburban complexes.
I can see folks in rural areas not wanting water in their area re-purposed for the benefit of other folks, e.g. cities. which is to say, I can see how the interests of the rural parties are at stake in that case.
I’m having a harder time seeing how the interests of NC residents who don’t live in Charlotte are affected by laws specific to that city about who can use what public bathroom.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
How is this anything other than socially conservative people being freaked out by the behavior of those crazy urban weirdos?
Marty,
I think Russell’s answer covers my point of view pretty well, though I’d add some further things.
If you are going to build a new factory you have to put it somewhere. Considering the legal and social climate of a place is a legitimate part of the decision.
Contributing to candidates is different. You don’t actually have to do it. You can just stay out of the race altogether.
Another issue is that locating a factory is inherently a corporate decision. It has to be made by management, and you can only choose one place. Contributing to candidates is different. Shareholders are perfectly free to contribute as individuals if they think a certain candidate represents their interests well. They don’t need corporate management to make that decision for them.
Marty,
I think Russell’s answer covers my point of view pretty well, though I’d add some further things.
If you are going to build a new factory you have to put it somewhere. Considering the legal and social climate of a place is a legitimate part of the decision.
Contributing to candidates is different. You don’t actually have to do it. You can just stay out of the race altogether.
Another issue is that locating a factory is inherently a corporate decision. It has to be made by management, and you can only choose one place. Contributing to candidates is different. Shareholders are perfectly free to contribute as individuals if they think a certain candidate represents their interests well. They don’t need corporate management to make that decision for them.
Marty,
I think Russell’s answer covers my point of view pretty well, though I’d add some further things.
If you are going to build a new factory you have to put it somewhere. Considering the legal and social climate of a place is a legitimate part of the decision.
Contributing to candidates is different. You don’t actually have to do it. You can just stay out of the race altogether.
Another issue is that locating a factory is inherently a corporate decision. It has to be made by management, and you can only choose one place. Contributing to candidates is different. Shareholders are perfectly free to contribute as individuals if they think a certain candidate represents their interests well. They don’t need corporate management to make that decision for them.
I’m having a harder time seeing how the interests of NC residents who don’t live in Charlotte are affected by laws specific to that city about who can use what public bathroom.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
I’d say that they care because, in their view, the Charlotte law is an example of the sort of moral depravity which is destroying the country. So they have to do whatever they can to stop the rot. Even if it isn’t directly impacting them personally in this specific case.
Personally I think American society will survive this latest change in what we see as acceptable behavior. Just as we’ve survived (indeed, florished as a result of) other changes in the past. Even though those changes were also characterized, by those opposed to them, as existenetial threats to the nation. But that doesn’t mean I can’t following the reasoning of those who are upset, and understand why they care.
I’m having a harder time seeing how the interests of NC residents who don’t live in Charlotte are affected by laws specific to that city about who can use what public bathroom.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
I’d say that they care because, in their view, the Charlotte law is an example of the sort of moral depravity which is destroying the country. So they have to do whatever they can to stop the rot. Even if it isn’t directly impacting them personally in this specific case.
Personally I think American society will survive this latest change in what we see as acceptable behavior. Just as we’ve survived (indeed, florished as a result of) other changes in the past. Even though those changes were also characterized, by those opposed to them, as existenetial threats to the nation. But that doesn’t mean I can’t following the reasoning of those who are upset, and understand why they care.
I’m having a harder time seeing how the interests of NC residents who don’t live in Charlotte are affected by laws specific to that city about who can use what public bathroom.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
I’d say that they care because, in their view, the Charlotte law is an example of the sort of moral depravity which is destroying the country. So they have to do whatever they can to stop the rot. Even if it isn’t directly impacting them personally in this specific case.
Personally I think American society will survive this latest change in what we see as acceptable behavior. Just as we’ve survived (indeed, florished as a result of) other changes in the past. Even though those changes were also characterized, by those opposed to them, as existenetial threats to the nation. But that doesn’t mean I can’t following the reasoning of those who are upset, and understand why they care.
Wired to death-lasers to fry anyone who attempts to violate the sanctity of the N-holer accommodation with the wrong set of DNA.
People with “XXY” (if we can even call them ‘people’, at least in NC) are just sh1t outta luck.
Klinefelter syndrome is one of the most common chromosomal disorders. So it’d be an added bonus: those citizens too poor to get tested and know if they can safely use public accommodations will have to deal with a bit of a crapshoot, and we’ll be able to cull a good 1/1000th of genetically androgynous “people” in the country – well, the poor ones, anyway, but those are really the worst ones, amirite?
Wired to death-lasers to fry anyone who attempts to violate the sanctity of the N-holer accommodation with the wrong set of DNA.
People with “XXY” (if we can even call them ‘people’, at least in NC) are just sh1t outta luck.
Klinefelter syndrome is one of the most common chromosomal disorders. So it’d be an added bonus: those citizens too poor to get tested and know if they can safely use public accommodations will have to deal with a bit of a crapshoot, and we’ll be able to cull a good 1/1000th of genetically androgynous “people” in the country – well, the poor ones, anyway, but those are really the worst ones, amirite?
Wired to death-lasers to fry anyone who attempts to violate the sanctity of the N-holer accommodation with the wrong set of DNA.
People with “XXY” (if we can even call them ‘people’, at least in NC) are just sh1t outta luck.
Klinefelter syndrome is one of the most common chromosomal disorders. So it’d be an added bonus: those citizens too poor to get tested and know if they can safely use public accommodations will have to deal with a bit of a crapshoot, and we’ll be able to cull a good 1/1000th of genetically androgynous “people” in the country – well, the poor ones, anyway, but those are really the worst ones, amirite?
“How did the whole issue of “birth-gendered” bathrooms even come up? Is this something that actually needs a law?”
“it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.”
both of these go back to the fact that the republican party has, over the past 30 years or so, become the party of cruelty. what better way to punish and harm one of the most abused minorities currently, the transgendered? let me relate to y’all some information about a couple i know here in texas. the husband was born female, outed himself as misgendered at 15 or 16, began transitioning at 18, and by 25 had completed surgical transition with the creation of a penis using implants. he has a full beard and is very athletic. he lives as a man, he is accepted as a man by all who know him, and according to his wife looks like a man in clothes or naked unless one were to make a very close and intrusive examination of his genitalia. he is now approaching 40 and has been married for 12 years. despite all of that, north carolina demands he use the womens restroom.
in my opinion the north carolina law serves two main purposes–1. to punish, humiliate, and out the transgendered in the state. 2. to prevent any locality from having the gall to be humane and sympathetic to any class the republican party chooses to hate.
“How did the whole issue of “birth-gendered” bathrooms even come up? Is this something that actually needs a law?”
“it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.”
both of these go back to the fact that the republican party has, over the past 30 years or so, become the party of cruelty. what better way to punish and harm one of the most abused minorities currently, the transgendered? let me relate to y’all some information about a couple i know here in texas. the husband was born female, outed himself as misgendered at 15 or 16, began transitioning at 18, and by 25 had completed surgical transition with the creation of a penis using implants. he has a full beard and is very athletic. he lives as a man, he is accepted as a man by all who know him, and according to his wife looks like a man in clothes or naked unless one were to make a very close and intrusive examination of his genitalia. he is now approaching 40 and has been married for 12 years. despite all of that, north carolina demands he use the womens restroom.
in my opinion the north carolina law serves two main purposes–1. to punish, humiliate, and out the transgendered in the state. 2. to prevent any locality from having the gall to be humane and sympathetic to any class the republican party chooses to hate.
“How did the whole issue of “birth-gendered” bathrooms even come up? Is this something that actually needs a law?”
“it’s also not clear to me why the entire state of NC needs to respond to a law passed in Charlotte.”
both of these go back to the fact that the republican party has, over the past 30 years or so, become the party of cruelty. what better way to punish and harm one of the most abused minorities currently, the transgendered? let me relate to y’all some information about a couple i know here in texas. the husband was born female, outed himself as misgendered at 15 or 16, began transitioning at 18, and by 25 had completed surgical transition with the creation of a penis using implants. he has a full beard and is very athletic. he lives as a man, he is accepted as a man by all who know him, and according to his wife looks like a man in clothes or naked unless one were to make a very close and intrusive examination of his genitalia. he is now approaching 40 and has been married for 12 years. despite all of that, north carolina demands he use the womens restroom.
in my opinion the north carolina law serves two main purposes–1. to punish, humiliate, and out the transgendered in the state. 2. to prevent any locality from having the gall to be humane and sympathetic to any class the republican party chooses to hate.
(Okay, yes, I confess: I pretty much posted all of that so I could make the crapshoot pun.)
(Okay, yes, I confess: I pretty much posted all of that so I could make the crapshoot pun.)
(Okay, yes, I confess: I pretty much posted all of that so I could make the crapshoot pun.)
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
Analogies are always tricky, but rural NC may feel the same way about prayer at high-school football games, or issuing same-sex marriage licenses. How is that Charlotte’s problem? Why do they care?
I’ve watched urban/rural animosity for a long time, and don’t think it’s ever been quite as pronounced as it has become over the last decade.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
Analogies are always tricky, but rural NC may feel the same way about prayer at high-school football games, or issuing same-sex marriage licenses. How is that Charlotte’s problem? Why do they care?
I’ve watched urban/rural animosity for a long time, and don’t think it’s ever been quite as pronounced as it has become over the last decade.
How is that their problem? Why do they care?
Analogies are always tricky, but rural NC may feel the same way about prayer at high-school football games, or issuing same-sex marriage licenses. How is that Charlotte’s problem? Why do they care?
I’ve watched urban/rural animosity for a long time, and don’t think it’s ever been quite as pronounced as it has become over the last decade.
To me this entire question is rather idiotic.
Makes me think of a dinner my late wife and I had at Supper Club in Amsterdam where the two bathrooms were Homo and Heterosexual.
We chose the Homosexual just because we thought it might be cleaner.
Just remember, these bills have a lot of things going way beyond who pee’s where. That portion of them is just dressing to get the voters behind them and push through the “meat” of them that really was the objective all along.
To me this entire question is rather idiotic.
Makes me think of a dinner my late wife and I had at Supper Club in Amsterdam where the two bathrooms were Homo and Heterosexual.
We chose the Homosexual just because we thought it might be cleaner.
Just remember, these bills have a lot of things going way beyond who pee’s where. That portion of them is just dressing to get the voters behind them and push through the “meat” of them that really was the objective all along.
To me this entire question is rather idiotic.
Makes me think of a dinner my late wife and I had at Supper Club in Amsterdam where the two bathrooms were Homo and Heterosexual.
We chose the Homosexual just because we thought it might be cleaner.
Just remember, these bills have a lot of things going way beyond who pee’s where. That portion of them is just dressing to get the voters behind them and push through the “meat” of them that really was the objective all along.
“Looks like Speith has opened the door to enable a wide open competitive weekend. Rory and Jordan get all the headlines, Willet takes the jacket.”
Good call.
“Looks like Speith has opened the door to enable a wide open competitive weekend. Rory and Jordan get all the headlines, Willet takes the jacket.”
Good call.
“Looks like Speith has opened the door to enable a wide open competitive weekend. Rory and Jordan get all the headlines, Willet takes the jacket.”
Good call.
Good call.
I’m going to agree, even though I have no idea what those quoted words mean. (Well, not really no idea. I could guess they have something to do with golf.)
Good call.
I’m going to agree, even though I have no idea what those quoted words mean. (Well, not really no idea. I could guess they have something to do with golf.)
Good call.
I’m going to agree, even though I have no idea what those quoted words mean. (Well, not really no idea. I could guess they have something to do with golf.)
It was a hell of a call, made when it was. (I had to go back and look that up.) I do follow golf – from a distance – and let me tell you, brethren, we have a prophet in our midst. (That’s bobbyp, if you, like I, have forgotten.) A Daniel come to judgment!
It was a hell of a call, made when it was. (I had to go back and look that up.) I do follow golf – from a distance – and let me tell you, brethren, we have a prophet in our midst. (That’s bobbyp, if you, like I, have forgotten.) A Daniel come to judgment!
It was a hell of a call, made when it was. (I had to go back and look that up.) I do follow golf – from a distance – and let me tell you, brethren, we have a prophet in our midst. (That’s bobbyp, if you, like I, have forgotten.) A Daniel come to judgment!
Sorry for making the conversation nastier by using “bathroom panic” as a description. It clearly expressed my contempt for the law, by it also worsened the conversation about the law for a few comments.
I agree that a restaurant (or other establishment) with universal facilities with a locking door would be better–especially for line length–than fixed gender toilet rooms. Unfortunately the Plumbing Codes (both International and Uniform) both require separate toilet facilities for each gender, with an exception for small establishments that are allowed to install only a single bathroom.
Interestingly, “unisex” restrooms are getting a new push in larger facilities, like airports and stadiums. Instead of installing the 13th urinal in a row (for example), builders are installing a separate single toilet restroom. The success of requiring these facilities is partially from rebranding–the new restrooms are “family or assisted-use” bathroom. They’re intended to provide better options for parents and caregivers who are opposite gender from their charges. It fixes the minor disturbances that come about by bringing boys into the women’s restroom when a mom is cleaning them up, or the same for a health care aide and her client.
Sorry for making the conversation nastier by using “bathroom panic” as a description. It clearly expressed my contempt for the law, by it also worsened the conversation about the law for a few comments.
I agree that a restaurant (or other establishment) with universal facilities with a locking door would be better–especially for line length–than fixed gender toilet rooms. Unfortunately the Plumbing Codes (both International and Uniform) both require separate toilet facilities for each gender, with an exception for small establishments that are allowed to install only a single bathroom.
Interestingly, “unisex” restrooms are getting a new push in larger facilities, like airports and stadiums. Instead of installing the 13th urinal in a row (for example), builders are installing a separate single toilet restroom. The success of requiring these facilities is partially from rebranding–the new restrooms are “family or assisted-use” bathroom. They’re intended to provide better options for parents and caregivers who are opposite gender from their charges. It fixes the minor disturbances that come about by bringing boys into the women’s restroom when a mom is cleaning them up, or the same for a health care aide and her client.
Sorry for making the conversation nastier by using “bathroom panic” as a description. It clearly expressed my contempt for the law, by it also worsened the conversation about the law for a few comments.
I agree that a restaurant (or other establishment) with universal facilities with a locking door would be better–especially for line length–than fixed gender toilet rooms. Unfortunately the Plumbing Codes (both International and Uniform) both require separate toilet facilities for each gender, with an exception for small establishments that are allowed to install only a single bathroom.
Interestingly, “unisex” restrooms are getting a new push in larger facilities, like airports and stadiums. Instead of installing the 13th urinal in a row (for example), builders are installing a separate single toilet restroom. The success of requiring these facilities is partially from rebranding–the new restrooms are “family or assisted-use” bathroom. They’re intended to provide better options for parents and caregivers who are opposite gender from their charges. It fixes the minor disturbances that come about by bringing boys into the women’s restroom when a mom is cleaning them up, or the same for a health care aide and her client.
Unfortunately the Plumbing Codes (both International and Uniform) both require separate toilet facilities for each gender
Shouldna known that Joe The Plumber was part of the conspiracy…
Unfortunately the Plumbing Codes (both International and Uniform) both require separate toilet facilities for each gender
Shouldna known that Joe The Plumber was part of the conspiracy…
Unfortunately the Plumbing Codes (both International and Uniform) both require separate toilet facilities for each gender
Shouldna known that Joe The Plumber was part of the conspiracy…
Having been through this in Houston, and not knowing what the NC statute says, there are two sides to the story.
The Houston statute was intentionally written very broadly to pick up any gender identity and allow any such identity to pick the restroom of that person’s choice. Here’s the problem: gender identity is what the person says it is and no one can disagree.
Some people, apparently, are Bi-Gender. Here is the definition: Bigender – (adj) a person who fluctuates between traditionally “woman” and “man” gender-based behavior and identities, identifying with both genders (and sometimes a third gender) – See more at: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.28Wd3e5t.dpuf
Ok, because of my litigation experience, I will compare my experience with sexual predators with anyone’s here at ObWi that I am aware of. Pedophilia is real and it is common. Active pedophiles–not those who suppress–are without conscience. Under the Houston ordinance, any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference. Based on a ton of ancecdotal evidence, no women I knew or knew of or read about were in favor of biologically intact and outwardly-appearing men entering the women’s bathroom. The ordinance’s proponents refused to make an exception to prevent this from happening. If this is ignorant bigotry, then there are a lot of ignorant bigots out there. I say there is no imposition in requiring outwardly appearing males to do what they’ve done all of their lives, i.e. use the men’s room.
As for taxes:
40% all up, regardless of name (FICA, Medicare, Income Tax) kicking in at 450K in combined family income.
28% tax on capital assets held for 1-3 years.
20% tax on capital assets held for 3-5 years.
15% on capital assets held for more than 5 years.
Don’t know enough about stock options. I strongly suspect that Fortune 500 CEO’s are not born everyday. The good ones are like Super Bowl capable quarterbacks–few and far between.
Fowler can’t win because he wears too much orange. Spieth just needed to carry that hazard once and it would have been a different outcome, maybe. Should make him more competitive downstream.
Having been through this in Houston, and not knowing what the NC statute says, there are two sides to the story.
The Houston statute was intentionally written very broadly to pick up any gender identity and allow any such identity to pick the restroom of that person’s choice. Here’s the problem: gender identity is what the person says it is and no one can disagree.
Some people, apparently, are Bi-Gender. Here is the definition: Bigender – (adj) a person who fluctuates between traditionally “woman” and “man” gender-based behavior and identities, identifying with both genders (and sometimes a third gender) – See more at: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.28Wd3e5t.dpuf
Ok, because of my litigation experience, I will compare my experience with sexual predators with anyone’s here at ObWi that I am aware of. Pedophilia is real and it is common. Active pedophiles–not those who suppress–are without conscience. Under the Houston ordinance, any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference. Based on a ton of ancecdotal evidence, no women I knew or knew of or read about were in favor of biologically intact and outwardly-appearing men entering the women’s bathroom. The ordinance’s proponents refused to make an exception to prevent this from happening. If this is ignorant bigotry, then there are a lot of ignorant bigots out there. I say there is no imposition in requiring outwardly appearing males to do what they’ve done all of their lives, i.e. use the men’s room.
As for taxes:
40% all up, regardless of name (FICA, Medicare, Income Tax) kicking in at 450K in combined family income.
28% tax on capital assets held for 1-3 years.
20% tax on capital assets held for 3-5 years.
15% on capital assets held for more than 5 years.
Don’t know enough about stock options. I strongly suspect that Fortune 500 CEO’s are not born everyday. The good ones are like Super Bowl capable quarterbacks–few and far between.
Fowler can’t win because he wears too much orange. Spieth just needed to carry that hazard once and it would have been a different outcome, maybe. Should make him more competitive downstream.
Having been through this in Houston, and not knowing what the NC statute says, there are two sides to the story.
The Houston statute was intentionally written very broadly to pick up any gender identity and allow any such identity to pick the restroom of that person’s choice. Here’s the problem: gender identity is what the person says it is and no one can disagree.
Some people, apparently, are Bi-Gender. Here is the definition: Bigender – (adj) a person who fluctuates between traditionally “woman” and “man” gender-based behavior and identities, identifying with both genders (and sometimes a third gender) – See more at: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.28Wd3e5t.dpuf
Ok, because of my litigation experience, I will compare my experience with sexual predators with anyone’s here at ObWi that I am aware of. Pedophilia is real and it is common. Active pedophiles–not those who suppress–are without conscience. Under the Houston ordinance, any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference. Based on a ton of ancecdotal evidence, no women I knew or knew of or read about were in favor of biologically intact and outwardly-appearing men entering the women’s bathroom. The ordinance’s proponents refused to make an exception to prevent this from happening. If this is ignorant bigotry, then there are a lot of ignorant bigots out there. I say there is no imposition in requiring outwardly appearing males to do what they’ve done all of their lives, i.e. use the men’s room.
As for taxes:
40% all up, regardless of name (FICA, Medicare, Income Tax) kicking in at 450K in combined family income.
28% tax on capital assets held for 1-3 years.
20% tax on capital assets held for 3-5 years.
15% on capital assets held for more than 5 years.
Don’t know enough about stock options. I strongly suspect that Fortune 500 CEO’s are not born everyday. The good ones are like Super Bowl capable quarterbacks–few and far between.
Fowler can’t win because he wears too much orange. Spieth just needed to carry that hazard once and it would have been a different outcome, maybe. Should make him more competitive downstream.
Active pedophiles–not those who suppress–are without conscience. Under the Houston ordinance, any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference.
What bathroom do male active pedophiles with same-sex preferences use?
Active pedophiles–not those who suppress–are without conscience. Under the Houston ordinance, any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference.
What bathroom do male active pedophiles with same-sex preferences use?
Active pedophiles–not those who suppress–are without conscience. Under the Houston ordinance, any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference.
What bathroom do male active pedophiles with same-sex preferences use?
dr ngo, marty: Thanks. Pure luck. I was thinking of a Schwartzel-like come-from-nowhere birdie barrage, not a chunked wedge shot into the water. Neither D.J. or Rory could hit a lick with their putter…so searching further down the list was obvious.
If you want to see a collapse, check out my NCAA bracket picks.
McKinney: Rickie didn’t wear orange Thursday or Friday. Perhaps he should have.
Good executives are not “hard to find”. They are hard to pay. We pay the most demanding executive job in the world for far, far less.
Taxes: Any income over $5m/year, including capital gains-90%. Annual one percent wealth tax on holdings over $100m. Increase the estate tax.
Alternatively: Revisit the rules governing the money making game to have less concentrated wealth accumulation to begin with.
dr ngo, marty: Thanks. Pure luck. I was thinking of a Schwartzel-like come-from-nowhere birdie barrage, not a chunked wedge shot into the water. Neither D.J. or Rory could hit a lick with their putter…so searching further down the list was obvious.
If you want to see a collapse, check out my NCAA bracket picks.
McKinney: Rickie didn’t wear orange Thursday or Friday. Perhaps he should have.
Good executives are not “hard to find”. They are hard to pay. We pay the most demanding executive job in the world for far, far less.
Taxes: Any income over $5m/year, including capital gains-90%. Annual one percent wealth tax on holdings over $100m. Increase the estate tax.
Alternatively: Revisit the rules governing the money making game to have less concentrated wealth accumulation to begin with.
dr ngo, marty: Thanks. Pure luck. I was thinking of a Schwartzel-like come-from-nowhere birdie barrage, not a chunked wedge shot into the water. Neither D.J. or Rory could hit a lick with their putter…so searching further down the list was obvious.
If you want to see a collapse, check out my NCAA bracket picks.
McKinney: Rickie didn’t wear orange Thursday or Friday. Perhaps he should have.
Good executives are not “hard to find”. They are hard to pay. We pay the most demanding executive job in the world for far, far less.
Taxes: Any income over $5m/year, including capital gains-90%. Annual one percent wealth tax on holdings over $100m. Increase the estate tax.
Alternatively: Revisit the rules governing the money making game to have less concentrated wealth accumulation to begin with.
What bathroom do male active pedophiles with same-sex preferences use?
The men’s room, same as always. Your question proves nothing other than it’s not a perfect world. If your solution is to make it even less perfect in aid of some heretofore completely unknown “basic human right*, please say so. Intelligent, responsible men take notice of unaccompanied boys and are alert to predatory behavior by other men, which usually consists of grooming type behavior and more than casual greeting attention. Just as intelligent, responsible men intervene when sexually predatory men accost women in public places. You can’t have a rape culture *and* open places of private, intimate activity to all comers at the same time.
What bathroom do male active pedophiles with same-sex preferences use?
The men’s room, same as always. Your question proves nothing other than it’s not a perfect world. If your solution is to make it even less perfect in aid of some heretofore completely unknown “basic human right*, please say so. Intelligent, responsible men take notice of unaccompanied boys and are alert to predatory behavior by other men, which usually consists of grooming type behavior and more than casual greeting attention. Just as intelligent, responsible men intervene when sexually predatory men accost women in public places. You can’t have a rape culture *and* open places of private, intimate activity to all comers at the same time.
What bathroom do male active pedophiles with same-sex preferences use?
The men’s room, same as always. Your question proves nothing other than it’s not a perfect world. If your solution is to make it even less perfect in aid of some heretofore completely unknown “basic human right*, please say so. Intelligent, responsible men take notice of unaccompanied boys and are alert to predatory behavior by other men, which usually consists of grooming type behavior and more than casual greeting attention. Just as intelligent, responsible men intervene when sexually predatory men accost women in public places. You can’t have a rape culture *and* open places of private, intimate activity to all comers at the same time.
…any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference.
But not free of notice and suspicion, I would guess. Then there’s the actual molestation, which I assume wasn’t allowed under the Houston ordinance, because that would be weird.
…any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference.
But not free of notice and suspicion, I would guess. Then there’s the actual molestation, which I assume wasn’t allowed under the Houston ordinance, because that would be weird.
…any pedophile or pervert could declare himself to be momentarily bi-gender and enter the women’s restroom at will free of interference.
But not free of notice and suspicion, I would guess. Then there’s the actual molestation, which I assume wasn’t allowed under the Houston ordinance, because that would be weird.
You can’t have a rape culture *and* open places of private, intimate activity to all comers at the same time.
Please explain how these places are both open and private. Or maybe I can take a crack at it.
If you’re the only person in either bathroom, it really doesn’t matter what sex the other person who walks in is. It’s just the two of you, and if the other person is a rapist (i.e. someone who is willing to rape someone), they’re probably willing to walk into a public restroom whether they’re supposed to or not.
You can’t have a rape culture *and* open places of private, intimate activity to all comers at the same time.
Please explain how these places are both open and private. Or maybe I can take a crack at it.
If you’re the only person in either bathroom, it really doesn’t matter what sex the other person who walks in is. It’s just the two of you, and if the other person is a rapist (i.e. someone who is willing to rape someone), they’re probably willing to walk into a public restroom whether they’re supposed to or not.
You can’t have a rape culture *and* open places of private, intimate activity to all comers at the same time.
Please explain how these places are both open and private. Or maybe I can take a crack at it.
If you’re the only person in either bathroom, it really doesn’t matter what sex the other person who walks in is. It’s just the two of you, and if the other person is a rapist (i.e. someone who is willing to rape someone), they’re probably willing to walk into a public restroom whether they’re supposed to or not.
But not free of notice and suspicion, I would guess.
Does anyone not give a damn about how uncomfortable most women are with strange men hanging around while they use the restroom, do their hair, etc? IS the PC left so hell f’ing bent on having their way that there is no limit to whatever f’ing *right* happens to enter Amanda Marcotte’s or one of her friend’s brain?
I have to say, I was completely unaware of how downtrodden some men were by not being allowed to use the women’s restroom. Anybody have any stats on this?
But not free of notice and suspicion, I would guess.
Does anyone not give a damn about how uncomfortable most women are with strange men hanging around while they use the restroom, do their hair, etc? IS the PC left so hell f’ing bent on having their way that there is no limit to whatever f’ing *right* happens to enter Amanda Marcotte’s or one of her friend’s brain?
I have to say, I was completely unaware of how downtrodden some men were by not being allowed to use the women’s restroom. Anybody have any stats on this?
But not free of notice and suspicion, I would guess.
Does anyone not give a damn about how uncomfortable most women are with strange men hanging around while they use the restroom, do their hair, etc? IS the PC left so hell f’ing bent on having their way that there is no limit to whatever f’ing *right* happens to enter Amanda Marcotte’s or one of her friend’s brain?
I have to say, I was completely unaware of how downtrodden some men were by not being allowed to use the women’s restroom. Anybody have any stats on this?
At least when we were talking about people simply being uncomfortable, we were discussing something that’s actually more likely to happen when transgender people are allowed to use the restroom of their choice. Now we’re talking about sexual assaults, as though no one else will notice or, if no one else will notice, they would have noticed but for these new trans accommodations.
At least when we were talking about people simply being uncomfortable, we were discussing something that’s actually more likely to happen when transgender people are allowed to use the restroom of their choice. Now we’re talking about sexual assaults, as though no one else will notice or, if no one else will notice, they would have noticed but for these new trans accommodations.
At least when we were talking about people simply being uncomfortable, we were discussing something that’s actually more likely to happen when transgender people are allowed to use the restroom of their choice. Now we’re talking about sexual assaults, as though no one else will notice or, if no one else will notice, they would have noticed but for these new trans accommodations.
I think someone’s status as a transgendered person should be challengeable. I don’t buy that you can flip flop back and forth willy-nilly, or, if your gender is that temporary, you’ll have to live with using the bathroom you wanted to use last week. Maybe the Houston ordinance was too loose. That’s certainly possible.
If you’re Larry the Cable Guy (my shorthand for “just a guy”) in every aspect of your life, but you continually hang out in the women’s room for no apparent reason, you should face whatever consequences you would for doing so in the absence of a trans-accommodation law.
But you need to make up your mind if this is about assault or just making people uncomfortable.
I think someone’s status as a transgendered person should be challengeable. I don’t buy that you can flip flop back and forth willy-nilly, or, if your gender is that temporary, you’ll have to live with using the bathroom you wanted to use last week. Maybe the Houston ordinance was too loose. That’s certainly possible.
If you’re Larry the Cable Guy (my shorthand for “just a guy”) in every aspect of your life, but you continually hang out in the women’s room for no apparent reason, you should face whatever consequences you would for doing so in the absence of a trans-accommodation law.
But you need to make up your mind if this is about assault or just making people uncomfortable.
I think someone’s status as a transgendered person should be challengeable. I don’t buy that you can flip flop back and forth willy-nilly, or, if your gender is that temporary, you’ll have to live with using the bathroom you wanted to use last week. Maybe the Houston ordinance was too loose. That’s certainly possible.
If you’re Larry the Cable Guy (my shorthand for “just a guy”) in every aspect of your life, but you continually hang out in the women’s room for no apparent reason, you should face whatever consequences you would for doing so in the absence of a trans-accommodation law.
But you need to make up your mind if this is about assault or just making people uncomfortable.
if you’re the only person in either bathroom, it really doesn’t matter what sex the other person who walks in is. It’s just the two of you, and if the other person is a rapist (i.e. someone who is willing to rape someone), they’re probably willing to walk into a public restroom whether they’re supposed to or not.
You are very cavalier about something you will never be exposed to but that others will.
This is one of the few instances where the PC left’s arrogance is most evident. Y’all know better because you are better and everyone else needs to just fall the fuck in line.
Unfortunately, rape in public accommodations is common. This BS will make it more common. And make intervention prior to actual assault impossible.
Spend some time with a 14 or 15 year old kid who’s been orally and anally sodomized at knife point and ask him or her how they feel about all of this. I have met more than my share. This theoretical treatment of real life impacts is sickening.
But, y’all have the answer. You always do.
if you’re the only person in either bathroom, it really doesn’t matter what sex the other person who walks in is. It’s just the two of you, and if the other person is a rapist (i.e. someone who is willing to rape someone), they’re probably willing to walk into a public restroom whether they’re supposed to or not.
You are very cavalier about something you will never be exposed to but that others will.
This is one of the few instances where the PC left’s arrogance is most evident. Y’all know better because you are better and everyone else needs to just fall the fuck in line.
Unfortunately, rape in public accommodations is common. This BS will make it more common. And make intervention prior to actual assault impossible.
Spend some time with a 14 or 15 year old kid who’s been orally and anally sodomized at knife point and ask him or her how they feel about all of this. I have met more than my share. This theoretical treatment of real life impacts is sickening.
But, y’all have the answer. You always do.
if you’re the only person in either bathroom, it really doesn’t matter what sex the other person who walks in is. It’s just the two of you, and if the other person is a rapist (i.e. someone who is willing to rape someone), they’re probably willing to walk into a public restroom whether they’re supposed to or not.
You are very cavalier about something you will never be exposed to but that others will.
This is one of the few instances where the PC left’s arrogance is most evident. Y’all know better because you are better and everyone else needs to just fall the fuck in line.
Unfortunately, rape in public accommodations is common. This BS will make it more common. And make intervention prior to actual assault impossible.
Spend some time with a 14 or 15 year old kid who’s been orally and anally sodomized at knife point and ask him or her how they feel about all of this. I have met more than my share. This theoretical treatment of real life impacts is sickening.
But, y’all have the answer. You always do.
McKinneyTexas: We have noticed how disturbed most women are to have men hanging out in the same restroom as them. That’s why North Carolina’s law, to insist that people who have transitioned to male must use the women’s restroom is so perplexing.
McKinneyTexas: We have noticed how disturbed most women are to have men hanging out in the same restroom as them. That’s why North Carolina’s law, to insist that people who have transitioned to male must use the women’s restroom is so perplexing.
McKinneyTexas: We have noticed how disturbed most women are to have men hanging out in the same restroom as them. That’s why North Carolina’s law, to insist that people who have transitioned to male must use the women’s restroom is so perplexing.
I have to say, I was completely unaware of how downtrodden some men were by not being allowed to use the women’s restroom.
Allow me to note that you seem to have the same exclusive focus on “men” (using whatever definition you choose) using women’s restrooms. While ignoring the possibility of “women” (likewise on any definition) using men’s restrooms. It’s like a woman had never molested a boy — even though I keeps seeing news stories where exactly that is being (criminally) charged.
The fact is, women are pretty clearly the downtrodden, when it comes to only being able to use “their” restroom. At least, I’ve never noticed a men’s room with a line out the door during intermission at the theater. Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
I have to say, I was completely unaware of how downtrodden some men were by not being allowed to use the women’s restroom.
Allow me to note that you seem to have the same exclusive focus on “men” (using whatever definition you choose) using women’s restrooms. While ignoring the possibility of “women” (likewise on any definition) using men’s restrooms. It’s like a woman had never molested a boy — even though I keeps seeing news stories where exactly that is being (criminally) charged.
The fact is, women are pretty clearly the downtrodden, when it comes to only being able to use “their” restroom. At least, I’ve never noticed a men’s room with a line out the door during intermission at the theater. Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
I have to say, I was completely unaware of how downtrodden some men were by not being allowed to use the women’s restroom.
Allow me to note that you seem to have the same exclusive focus on “men” (using whatever definition you choose) using women’s restrooms. While ignoring the possibility of “women” (likewise on any definition) using men’s restrooms. It’s like a woman had never molested a boy — even though I keeps seeing news stories where exactly that is being (criminally) charged.
The fact is, women are pretty clearly the downtrodden, when it comes to only being able to use “their” restroom. At least, I’ve never noticed a men’s room with a line out the door during intermission at the theater. Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
I think someone’s status as a transgendered person should be challengeable. I don’t buy that you can flip flop back and forth willy-nilly, or, if your gender is that temporary, you’ll have to live with using the bathroom you wanted to use last week. Maybe the Houston ordinance was too loose. That’s certainly possible.
If you’re Larry the Cable Guy (my shorthand for “just a guy”) in every aspect of your life, but you continually hang out in the women’s room for no apparent reason, you should face whatever consequences you would for doing so in the absence of a trans-accommodation law.
You need to read more about gender identity. It is a completely fluid, subjective condition. I wouldn’t have bothered but for the ordinance here in Houston. If someone outwardly appears to be a woman, use the women’s room. No one is talking about looking under the dress or inside the pants.
The issue is that no one can say who is or is not what they say they are. Depending on your source, there are north of 60 different genders. Which I have no problem with, so long as biologically intact, outwardly appearing men use the men’s room. Period, full stop. Beyond that, too each his/her/?? own.
Moreover, if a law could be written to account for your exceptions–it can’t, and be enforceable at the same time–I’d be fine with that.
Finally, I over-reacted against you personally above and am now apologetically walking that back.
I think someone’s status as a transgendered person should be challengeable. I don’t buy that you can flip flop back and forth willy-nilly, or, if your gender is that temporary, you’ll have to live with using the bathroom you wanted to use last week. Maybe the Houston ordinance was too loose. That’s certainly possible.
If you’re Larry the Cable Guy (my shorthand for “just a guy”) in every aspect of your life, but you continually hang out in the women’s room for no apparent reason, you should face whatever consequences you would for doing so in the absence of a trans-accommodation law.
You need to read more about gender identity. It is a completely fluid, subjective condition. I wouldn’t have bothered but for the ordinance here in Houston. If someone outwardly appears to be a woman, use the women’s room. No one is talking about looking under the dress or inside the pants.
The issue is that no one can say who is or is not what they say they are. Depending on your source, there are north of 60 different genders. Which I have no problem with, so long as biologically intact, outwardly appearing men use the men’s room. Period, full stop. Beyond that, too each his/her/?? own.
Moreover, if a law could be written to account for your exceptions–it can’t, and be enforceable at the same time–I’d be fine with that.
Finally, I over-reacted against you personally above and am now apologetically walking that back.
I think someone’s status as a transgendered person should be challengeable. I don’t buy that you can flip flop back and forth willy-nilly, or, if your gender is that temporary, you’ll have to live with using the bathroom you wanted to use last week. Maybe the Houston ordinance was too loose. That’s certainly possible.
If you’re Larry the Cable Guy (my shorthand for “just a guy”) in every aspect of your life, but you continually hang out in the women’s room for no apparent reason, you should face whatever consequences you would for doing so in the absence of a trans-accommodation law.
You need to read more about gender identity. It is a completely fluid, subjective condition. I wouldn’t have bothered but for the ordinance here in Houston. If someone outwardly appears to be a woman, use the women’s room. No one is talking about looking under the dress or inside the pants.
The issue is that no one can say who is or is not what they say they are. Depending on your source, there are north of 60 different genders. Which I have no problem with, so long as biologically intact, outwardly appearing men use the men’s room. Period, full stop. Beyond that, too each his/her/?? own.
Moreover, if a law could be written to account for your exceptions–it can’t, and be enforceable at the same time–I’d be fine with that.
Finally, I over-reacted against you personally above and am now apologetically walking that back.
You are very cavalier about something you will never be exposed to but that others will.
Am I? Or am I being realistic? (Or, let’s say I am wrong, what’s going to change? You might be surprised to know my blog comments don’t amount to legislation.)
Unfortunately, rape in public accommodations is common. This BS will make it more common. And make intervention prior to actual assault impossible.
I’m not convince that this is true (the “more common” part). If I were, I might have a different opinion about these laws, at least in their specifics. And what about transgendered people who get the shit beat out of them in the men’s room?
Spend some time with a 14 or 15 year old kid who’s been orally and anally sodomized at knife point and ask him or her how they feel about all of this. I have met more than my share. This theoretical treatment of real life impacts is sickening.
Ah, yes, I obviously don’t care about them. Kiss my ass, McKinney.
You are very cavalier about something you will never be exposed to but that others will.
Am I? Or am I being realistic? (Or, let’s say I am wrong, what’s going to change? You might be surprised to know my blog comments don’t amount to legislation.)
Unfortunately, rape in public accommodations is common. This BS will make it more common. And make intervention prior to actual assault impossible.
I’m not convince that this is true (the “more common” part). If I were, I might have a different opinion about these laws, at least in their specifics. And what about transgendered people who get the shit beat out of them in the men’s room?
Spend some time with a 14 or 15 year old kid who’s been orally and anally sodomized at knife point and ask him or her how they feel about all of this. I have met more than my share. This theoretical treatment of real life impacts is sickening.
Ah, yes, I obviously don’t care about them. Kiss my ass, McKinney.
You are very cavalier about something you will never be exposed to but that others will.
Am I? Or am I being realistic? (Or, let’s say I am wrong, what’s going to change? You might be surprised to know my blog comments don’t amount to legislation.)
Unfortunately, rape in public accommodations is common. This BS will make it more common. And make intervention prior to actual assault impossible.
I’m not convince that this is true (the “more common” part). If I were, I might have a different opinion about these laws, at least in their specifics. And what about transgendered people who get the shit beat out of them in the men’s room?
Spend some time with a 14 or 15 year old kid who’s been orally and anally sodomized at knife point and ask him or her how they feel about all of this. I have met more than my share. This theoretical treatment of real life impacts is sickening.
Ah, yes, I obviously don’t care about them. Kiss my ass, McKinney.
Finally, I over-reacted against you personally above and am now apologetically walking that back.
Okay. Don’t kiss my ass. ;^)
Finally, I over-reacted against you personally above and am now apologetically walking that back.
Okay. Don’t kiss my ass. ;^)
Finally, I over-reacted against you personally above and am now apologetically walking that back.
Okay. Don’t kiss my ass. ;^)
McKinneyTexas: We have noticed how disturbed most women are to have men hanging out in the same restroom as them. That’s why North Carolina’s law, to insist that people who have transitioned to male must use the women’s restroom is so perplexing.
Ok, I agree, assuming that is what the statute says.
Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
Off topic. This happens and when it does, men should make as much privacy for the woman forced to use the men’s room as possible. I am confident that 99% of women would enter the men’s room only under very real duress. Unfortunately, that is not the same for some percentage of men.
McKinneyTexas: We have noticed how disturbed most women are to have men hanging out in the same restroom as them. That’s why North Carolina’s law, to insist that people who have transitioned to male must use the women’s restroom is so perplexing.
Ok, I agree, assuming that is what the statute says.
Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
Off topic. This happens and when it does, men should make as much privacy for the woman forced to use the men’s room as possible. I am confident that 99% of women would enter the men’s room only under very real duress. Unfortunately, that is not the same for some percentage of men.
McKinneyTexas: We have noticed how disturbed most women are to have men hanging out in the same restroom as them. That’s why North Carolina’s law, to insist that people who have transitioned to male must use the women’s restroom is so perplexing.
Ok, I agree, assuming that is what the statute says.
Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
Off topic. This happens and when it does, men should make as much privacy for the woman forced to use the men’s room as possible. I am confident that 99% of women would enter the men’s room only under very real duress. Unfortunately, that is not the same for some percentage of men.
Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
I can tell you that, in my younger hanging-out-in-really-crowded-bars days, there were regularly women using the men’s room because the line was so much shorter.
Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
I can tell you that, in my younger hanging-out-in-really-crowded-bars days, there were regularly women using the men’s room because the line was so much shorter.
Transgender or not, I could see a woman deciding that it was a better choice to head for the room without a line. (But perhaps the ladies here will correct my perception.)
I can tell you that, in my younger hanging-out-in-really-crowded-bars days, there were regularly women using the men’s room because the line was so much shorter.
You need to read more about gender identity. It is a completely fluid, subjective condition.
No, I don’t. I’m talking about what can reasonably be accommodated, not the universe of what exists.
You need to read more about gender identity. It is a completely fluid, subjective condition.
No, I don’t. I’m talking about what can reasonably be accommodated, not the universe of what exists.
You need to read more about gender identity. It is a completely fluid, subjective condition.
No, I don’t. I’m talking about what can reasonably be accommodated, not the universe of what exists.
Okay. Don’t kiss my ass. ;^)
I won’t, and I reiterate my apology and I also recommend acquainting yourself with the in’s and out’s of opportunistic sexually assaultive behaviors. It is a very, very real problem.
And what about transgendered people who get the shit beat out of them in the men’s room?
To repeat what I said to MooseKing: transgendered people get to use the bathroom they identify with. You are correct: compelling a transgendered man, now a woman, to use the men’s room, exposes that person to a high risk of serious assault. It’s as much BS as the other.
Okay. Don’t kiss my ass. ;^)
I won’t, and I reiterate my apology and I also recommend acquainting yourself with the in’s and out’s of opportunistic sexually assaultive behaviors. It is a very, very real problem.
And what about transgendered people who get the shit beat out of them in the men’s room?
To repeat what I said to MooseKing: transgendered people get to use the bathroom they identify with. You are correct: compelling a transgendered man, now a woman, to use the men’s room, exposes that person to a high risk of serious assault. It’s as much BS as the other.
Okay. Don’t kiss my ass. ;^)
I won’t, and I reiterate my apology and I also recommend acquainting yourself with the in’s and out’s of opportunistic sexually assaultive behaviors. It is a very, very real problem.
And what about transgendered people who get the shit beat out of them in the men’s room?
To repeat what I said to MooseKing: transgendered people get to use the bathroom they identify with. You are correct: compelling a transgendered man, now a woman, to use the men’s room, exposes that person to a high risk of serious assault. It’s as much BS as the other.
No, I don’t. I’m talking about what can reasonably be accommodated, not the universe of what exists.
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point. My rule: for restroom purposes, a person is what that person most appears to be biologically.
No, I don’t. I’m talking about what can reasonably be accommodated, not the universe of what exists.
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point. My rule: for restroom purposes, a person is what that person most appears to be biologically.
No, I don’t. I’m talking about what can reasonably be accommodated, not the universe of what exists.
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point. My rule: for restroom purposes, a person is what that person most appears to be biologically.
It is a very, very real problem.
And, again, whether I’m right or wrong, it’s not that I’m denying the problem; it’s that I don’t think trans accommodations are going to significantly change the problem.
A man can hide in either bathroom whether he’s supposed to or not so long as he’s willing to do so. If he’s willing to assault someone at knife-point in a public restroom, he probably doesn’t care whether or not he’s “supposed” to be in there.
It is a very, very real problem.
And, again, whether I’m right or wrong, it’s not that I’m denying the problem; it’s that I don’t think trans accommodations are going to significantly change the problem.
A man can hide in either bathroom whether he’s supposed to or not so long as he’s willing to do so. If he’s willing to assault someone at knife-point in a public restroom, he probably doesn’t care whether or not he’s “supposed” to be in there.
It is a very, very real problem.
And, again, whether I’m right or wrong, it’s not that I’m denying the problem; it’s that I don’t think trans accommodations are going to significantly change the problem.
A man can hide in either bathroom whether he’s supposed to or not so long as he’s willing to do so. If he’s willing to assault someone at knife-point in a public restroom, he probably doesn’t care whether or not he’s “supposed” to be in there.
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point.
Even if this were true, so what?
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point.
Even if this were true, so what?
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point.
Even if this were true, so what?
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point.
I haven’t noticed anybody here, even the mpost liberal of us, caring overmuch what the PC left thinks. Except when heaping scorn on it, of course.
But then, nobody much seems reflexively compelled to make the PC right case either. Guess that’s why we are here….
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point.
I haven’t noticed anybody here, even the mpost liberal of us, caring overmuch what the PC left thinks. Except when heaping scorn on it, of course.
But then, nobody much seems reflexively compelled to make the PC right case either. Guess that’s why we are here….
Then you are arguing against the PC left on this point.
I haven’t noticed anybody here, even the mpost liberal of us, caring overmuch what the PC left thinks. Except when heaping scorn on it, of course.
But then, nobody much seems reflexively compelled to make the PC right case either. Guess that’s why we are here….
“Ah, yes, I obviously don’t care about them. Kiss my ass, McKinney”
Funny, I almost used this same line yesterday(replacing McKinney)but restrained. That would be when I was faced with this:
“Ah, yes, I obviously don’t care about them. Kiss my ass, McKinney”
Funny, I almost used this same line yesterday(replacing McKinney)but restrained. That would be when I was faced with this:
“Ah, yes, I obviously don’t care about them. Kiss my ass, McKinney”
Funny, I almost used this same line yesterday(replacing McKinney)but restrained. That would be when I was faced with this:
“To repeat what I said to MooseKing: transgendered people get to use the bathroom they identify with. You are correct: compelling a transgendered man, now a woman, to use the men’s room, exposes that person to a high risk of serious assault. It’s as much BS as the other. ”
This and everything else you are saying can’t be true. Unless you mean fully transitioned transgender people or something more specific. Or are you going to write in the law that just anyone presenting as male can’t use a female restroom?
“To repeat what I said to MooseKing: transgendered people get to use the bathroom they identify with. You are correct: compelling a transgendered man, now a woman, to use the men’s room, exposes that person to a high risk of serious assault. It’s as much BS as the other. ”
This and everything else you are saying can’t be true. Unless you mean fully transitioned transgender people or something more specific. Or are you going to write in the law that just anyone presenting as male can’t use a female restroom?
“To repeat what I said to MooseKing: transgendered people get to use the bathroom they identify with. You are correct: compelling a transgendered man, now a woman, to use the men’s room, exposes that person to a high risk of serious assault. It’s as much BS as the other. ”
This and everything else you are saying can’t be true. Unless you mean fully transitioned transgender people or something more specific. Or are you going to write in the law that just anyone presenting as male can’t use a female restroom?
Who let these people loose?
Who let these people loose?
Who let these people loose?
This and everything else you are saying can’t be true. Unless you mean fully transitioned transgender people or something more specific. Or are you going to write in the law that just anyone presenting as male can’t use a female restroom?
Sure it can. If someone outwardly appears to be a women, that person uses the women’s restroom. If someone outwardly appears to be a man, that person uses the men’s restroom. A transgendered woman, formerly a man, uses the women’s room. It’s unsafe for that person otherwise.
This and everything else you are saying can’t be true. Unless you mean fully transitioned transgender people or something more specific. Or are you going to write in the law that just anyone presenting as male can’t use a female restroom?
Sure it can. If someone outwardly appears to be a women, that person uses the women’s restroom. If someone outwardly appears to be a man, that person uses the men’s restroom. A transgendered woman, formerly a man, uses the women’s room. It’s unsafe for that person otherwise.
This and everything else you are saying can’t be true. Unless you mean fully transitioned transgender people or something more specific. Or are you going to write in the law that just anyone presenting as male can’t use a female restroom?
Sure it can. If someone outwardly appears to be a women, that person uses the women’s restroom. If someone outwardly appears to be a man, that person uses the men’s restroom. A transgendered woman, formerly a man, uses the women’s room. It’s unsafe for that person otherwise.
” A transgendered woman, formerly a man, ”
Define formerly, or is it simply presentation?
” A transgendered woman, formerly a man, ”
Define formerly, or is it simply presentation?
” A transgendered woman, formerly a man, ”
Define formerly, or is it simply presentation?
Define formerly, or is it simply presentation?
You mean, presenting like a transvestite? A transgender, as I understand the situation, is a person whose sense of who and what they are is the opposite of their biological situation, and so by various devices, including medicine, counseling and surgery, they become who they believe they are. I can’t relate, I can only note that more than one person seems to roll this way, suggesting there is something more to it than a one-off whimsy. The one formerly male, now female person I’ve known on a personal level–that I know of–looked and acted in every way like a woman. So, to me, she’s a woman, regardless of chromosomes.
She is not Larry the Cable guy slipping into a dress to hang out in the ladies room.
I knew a kid when I was in the age 5-6 range, he was the same age. He never wanted to wear boy’s clothes, or play games with the boys. It was always dresses and dolls. From my limited ability to see how things really were, it appeared his parents went along with it at that age. I have no idea how it worked out. Probably not well, those times being what they were.
Define formerly, or is it simply presentation?
You mean, presenting like a transvestite? A transgender, as I understand the situation, is a person whose sense of who and what they are is the opposite of their biological situation, and so by various devices, including medicine, counseling and surgery, they become who they believe they are. I can’t relate, I can only note that more than one person seems to roll this way, suggesting there is something more to it than a one-off whimsy. The one formerly male, now female person I’ve known on a personal level–that I know of–looked and acted in every way like a woman. So, to me, she’s a woman, regardless of chromosomes.
She is not Larry the Cable guy slipping into a dress to hang out in the ladies room.
I knew a kid when I was in the age 5-6 range, he was the same age. He never wanted to wear boy’s clothes, or play games with the boys. It was always dresses and dolls. From my limited ability to see how things really were, it appeared his parents went along with it at that age. I have no idea how it worked out. Probably not well, those times being what they were.
Define formerly, or is it simply presentation?
You mean, presenting like a transvestite? A transgender, as I understand the situation, is a person whose sense of who and what they are is the opposite of their biological situation, and so by various devices, including medicine, counseling and surgery, they become who they believe they are. I can’t relate, I can only note that more than one person seems to roll this way, suggesting there is something more to it than a one-off whimsy. The one formerly male, now female person I’ve known on a personal level–that I know of–looked and acted in every way like a woman. So, to me, she’s a woman, regardless of chromosomes.
She is not Larry the Cable guy slipping into a dress to hang out in the ladies room.
I knew a kid when I was in the age 5-6 range, he was the same age. He never wanted to wear boy’s clothes, or play games with the boys. It was always dresses and dolls. From my limited ability to see how things really were, it appeared his parents went along with it at that age. I have no idea how it worked out. Probably not well, those times being what they were.
Funny, I almost used this same line yesterday(replacing McKinney)but restrained.
If I had characterized your argument as sickening and thrown in some more dramatic flourishes, you might not have. (I tend to be a little more bland.)
But fair enough. My apologies.
Funny, I almost used this same line yesterday(replacing McKinney)but restrained.
If I had characterized your argument as sickening and thrown in some more dramatic flourishes, you might not have. (I tend to be a little more bland.)
But fair enough. My apologies.
Funny, I almost used this same line yesterday(replacing McKinney)but restrained.
If I had characterized your argument as sickening and thrown in some more dramatic flourishes, you might not have. (I tend to be a little more bland.)
But fair enough. My apologies.
She is not Larry the Cable guy slipping into a dress to hang out in the ladies room.
You’re infringing on my IP there, bud.
She is not Larry the Cable guy slipping into a dress to hang out in the ladies room.
You’re infringing on my IP there, bud.
She is not Larry the Cable guy slipping into a dress to hang out in the ladies room.
You’re infringing on my IP there, bud.
No McK, we are talking about a law. You said trans woman, formerly a man, uses the women’s restroom. At what point in the transition process is the trans woman formerly a man? I couldn’t care less about chromosomes. I just want the legal definition of who can use which bathroom if we aren’t using biology. Is it simply presentation, which is better than no presentation, like “I just feel masculine today”.
No McK, we are talking about a law. You said trans woman, formerly a man, uses the women’s restroom. At what point in the transition process is the trans woman formerly a man? I couldn’t care less about chromosomes. I just want the legal definition of who can use which bathroom if we aren’t using biology. Is it simply presentation, which is better than no presentation, like “I just feel masculine today”.
No McK, we are talking about a law. You said trans woman, formerly a man, uses the women’s restroom. At what point in the transition process is the trans woman formerly a man? I couldn’t care less about chromosomes. I just want the legal definition of who can use which bathroom if we aren’t using biology. Is it simply presentation, which is better than no presentation, like “I just feel masculine today”.
hsh, thanks, you’re right, I really restrained because it wasn’t all that aggressive.
hsh, thanks, you’re right, I really restrained because it wasn’t all that aggressive.
hsh, thanks, you’re right, I really restrained because it wasn’t all that aggressive.
You’re infringing on my IP there, bud.
You put it in the public domain and invited comment. Ergo, waiver. 😉
You’re infringing on my IP there, bud.
You put it in the public domain and invited comment. Ergo, waiver. 😉
You’re infringing on my IP there, bud.
You put it in the public domain and invited comment. Ergo, waiver. 😉
At what point in the transition process is the trans woman formerly a man? I couldn’t care less about chromosomes. I just want the legal definition of who can use which bathroom if we aren’t using biology. Is it simply presentation, which is better than no presentation, like “I just feel masculine today”.
First stab at a statutory definition: for the purpose of public accomodations such as restrooms, private areas for changing clothes and other physically restricted areas objectively intended to create an objective expectation of personal privacy, a person is deemed ‘gendered’ masculine or feminine by the clothes they wear, the gender-specific appearance they project and the manner in which they self-identify and live their lives. If a person cannot be objectively identified by reasonable people as masculine or feminine, then such person shall be gendered according to his or her biological assignment at birth.
In other words, for the purpose of using public facilities intended for a private/personal purpose and to protect and accommodate everyone, adults have to make a choice and stick with it. The rest of us have to respect that choice. This is a first stab at a definition. I’m confident it needs tweaking.
At what point in the transition process is the trans woman formerly a man? I couldn’t care less about chromosomes. I just want the legal definition of who can use which bathroom if we aren’t using biology. Is it simply presentation, which is better than no presentation, like “I just feel masculine today”.
First stab at a statutory definition: for the purpose of public accomodations such as restrooms, private areas for changing clothes and other physically restricted areas objectively intended to create an objective expectation of personal privacy, a person is deemed ‘gendered’ masculine or feminine by the clothes they wear, the gender-specific appearance they project and the manner in which they self-identify and live their lives. If a person cannot be objectively identified by reasonable people as masculine or feminine, then such person shall be gendered according to his or her biological assignment at birth.
In other words, for the purpose of using public facilities intended for a private/personal purpose and to protect and accommodate everyone, adults have to make a choice and stick with it. The rest of us have to respect that choice. This is a first stab at a definition. I’m confident it needs tweaking.
At what point in the transition process is the trans woman formerly a man? I couldn’t care less about chromosomes. I just want the legal definition of who can use which bathroom if we aren’t using biology. Is it simply presentation, which is better than no presentation, like “I just feel masculine today”.
First stab at a statutory definition: for the purpose of public accomodations such as restrooms, private areas for changing clothes and other physically restricted areas objectively intended to create an objective expectation of personal privacy, a person is deemed ‘gendered’ masculine or feminine by the clothes they wear, the gender-specific appearance they project and the manner in which they self-identify and live their lives. If a person cannot be objectively identified by reasonable people as masculine or feminine, then such person shall be gendered according to his or her biological assignment at birth.
In other words, for the purpose of using public facilities intended for a private/personal purpose and to protect and accommodate everyone, adults have to make a choice and stick with it. The rest of us have to respect that choice. This is a first stab at a definition. I’m confident it needs tweaking.
McK, I think that actually makes sense as a definition. It may need some tweaks (although nothing jumps to mind).
If we managed to get agreement on it (not holding my breath), most of the unhappiness on both sides would evaporate. Not on the part of those who would prefer to live in the 19th century, of course. But most.
McK, I think that actually makes sense as a definition. It may need some tweaks (although nothing jumps to mind).
If we managed to get agreement on it (not holding my breath), most of the unhappiness on both sides would evaporate. Not on the part of those who would prefer to live in the 19th century, of course. But most.
McK, I think that actually makes sense as a definition. It may need some tweaks (although nothing jumps to mind).
If we managed to get agreement on it (not holding my breath), most of the unhappiness on both sides would evaporate. Not on the part of those who would prefer to live in the 19th century, of course. But most.
McK, works for me
McK, works for me
McK, works for me
So how does that draft definition apply to some who is a cross-dresser but who does not consider themself to be a gender different from the one assigned at birth? For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
So how does that draft definition apply to some who is a cross-dresser but who does not consider themself to be a gender different from the one assigned at birth? For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
So how does that draft definition apply to some who is a cross-dresser but who does not consider themself to be a gender different from the one assigned at birth? For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
It may need some tweaks (although nothing jumps to mind).
It does not address the problem of bright orange golf attire.
It may need some tweaks (although nothing jumps to mind).
It does not address the problem of bright orange golf attire.
It may need some tweaks (although nothing jumps to mind).
It does not address the problem of bright orange golf attire.
So how does that draft definition apply to some who is a cross-dresser but who does not consider themself to be a gender different from the one assigned at birth? For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
It doesn’t. I’d say, he enters at his own risk.
So how does that draft definition apply to some who is a cross-dresser but who does not consider themself to be a gender different from the one assigned at birth? For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
It doesn’t. I’d say, he enters at his own risk.
So how does that draft definition apply to some who is a cross-dresser but who does not consider themself to be a gender different from the one assigned at birth? For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
It doesn’t. I’d say, he enters at his own risk.
It doesn’t. I’d say, he enters at his own risk.
So that poor guy is “at his own risk” entering any gendered specified public bathroom?
Sometimes it just sucks to be different.
It doesn’t. I’d say, he enters at his own risk.
So that poor guy is “at his own risk” entering any gendered specified public bathroom?
Sometimes it just sucks to be different.
It doesn’t. I’d say, he enters at his own risk.
So that poor guy is “at his own risk” entering any gendered specified public bathroom?
Sometimes it just sucks to be different.
I guess what I was getting at was whether or not someone has to use the restroom consistent with outer appearance when it isn’t the one aligned with birth-assigned gender.
I can see someone going back and forth over time between men’s and women’s rooms, along with presentation, if that’s how they want to handle it, at least in terms of ideal legal compliance. In practical terms, someone can more or less do what they want in different situations and in different places on a day-to-day basis, anyway. It’s not like there’s some record of which restroom you used over the course of time that has to be presented for admission to the restroom when you have to pee at the mall.
I’m guessing this stuff will sort of play out more or less organically most of the time, and these laws will only come into play on the relatively rare basis of stuff going really sideways for whatever reasons and someone get charged with something or sued.
I guess what I was getting at was whether or not someone has to use the restroom consistent with outer appearance when it isn’t the one aligned with birth-assigned gender.
I can see someone going back and forth over time between men’s and women’s rooms, along with presentation, if that’s how they want to handle it, at least in terms of ideal legal compliance. In practical terms, someone can more or less do what they want in different situations and in different places on a day-to-day basis, anyway. It’s not like there’s some record of which restroom you used over the course of time that has to be presented for admission to the restroom when you have to pee at the mall.
I’m guessing this stuff will sort of play out more or less organically most of the time, and these laws will only come into play on the relatively rare basis of stuff going really sideways for whatever reasons and someone get charged with something or sued.
I guess what I was getting at was whether or not someone has to use the restroom consistent with outer appearance when it isn’t the one aligned with birth-assigned gender.
I can see someone going back and forth over time between men’s and women’s rooms, along with presentation, if that’s how they want to handle it, at least in terms of ideal legal compliance. In practical terms, someone can more or less do what they want in different situations and in different places on a day-to-day basis, anyway. It’s not like there’s some record of which restroom you used over the course of time that has to be presented for admission to the restroom when you have to pee at the mall.
I’m guessing this stuff will sort of play out more or less organically most of the time, and these laws will only come into play on the relatively rare basis of stuff going really sideways for whatever reasons and someone get charged with something or sued.
So that poor guy is “at his own risk” entering any gendered specified public bathroom?
Sometimes it just sucks to be different.
Not to dispute that it sometimes sucks to be different, but we were discussing was a cross-dressing man who still wants to use the men’s room and whether or not he should be compelled to use the women’s room.
So that poor guy is “at his own risk” entering any gendered specified public bathroom?
Sometimes it just sucks to be different.
Not to dispute that it sometimes sucks to be different, but we were discussing was a cross-dressing man who still wants to use the men’s room and whether or not he should be compelled to use the women’s room.
So that poor guy is “at his own risk” entering any gendered specified public bathroom?
Sometimes it just sucks to be different.
Not to dispute that it sometimes sucks to be different, but we were discussing was a cross-dressing man who still wants to use the men’s room and whether or not he should be compelled to use the women’s room.
Mental italics, please.
Mental italics, please.
Mental italics, please.
I suspect the first objection to that definition would be from an ACLU type questioning how the state gets to decide how one should dress to use a specific restroom. What constitutes presenting as male? No makeup? Shaved head? Work boots? Sorry, no female restroom for you.
I suspect the first objection to that definition would be from an ACLU type questioning how the state gets to decide how one should dress to use a specific restroom. What constitutes presenting as male? No makeup? Shaved head? Work boots? Sorry, no female restroom for you.
I suspect the first objection to that definition would be from an ACLU type questioning how the state gets to decide how one should dress to use a specific restroom. What constitutes presenting as male? No makeup? Shaved head? Work boots? Sorry, no female restroom for you.
I meant to present my observation in a waggish kind of way, but could not find the appropriate html code 😉
I meant to present my observation in a waggish kind of way, but could not find the appropriate html code 😉
I meant to present my observation in a waggish kind of way, but could not find the appropriate html code 😉
My rule: for restroom purposes, a person is what that person most appears to be biologically.
I think that’s what the law in Charlotte allows. Emphasis on ‘allows’, nobody is required to pee in one place or another.
That was one provision in a broader law that banned discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations of all kinds.
And yes, ‘gender identity’ can be fluid, but the point seems to be if you are presenting yourself as a woman, use the ladies, and if as a man, use the mens.
The alternative is that people who appear to be men will use the ladies, and vice versa. Which, given that folks are concerned about everyone’s comfort level, seems counter-intuitive.
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
My rule: for restroom purposes, a person is what that person most appears to be biologically.
I think that’s what the law in Charlotte allows. Emphasis on ‘allows’, nobody is required to pee in one place or another.
That was one provision in a broader law that banned discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations of all kinds.
And yes, ‘gender identity’ can be fluid, but the point seems to be if you are presenting yourself as a woman, use the ladies, and if as a man, use the mens.
The alternative is that people who appear to be men will use the ladies, and vice versa. Which, given that folks are concerned about everyone’s comfort level, seems counter-intuitive.
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
My rule: for restroom purposes, a person is what that person most appears to be biologically.
I think that’s what the law in Charlotte allows. Emphasis on ‘allows’, nobody is required to pee in one place or another.
That was one provision in a broader law that banned discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations of all kinds.
And yes, ‘gender identity’ can be fluid, but the point seems to be if you are presenting yourself as a woman, use the ladies, and if as a man, use the mens.
The alternative is that people who appear to be men will use the ladies, and vice versa. Which, given that folks are concerned about everyone’s comfort level, seems counter-intuitive.
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
From my fb feed, because I’m an Onion guy, not a golf guy:
http://www.theonion.com/article/jordan-spieths-family-wait-few-days-asking-him-wha-52717
From my fb feed, because I’m an Onion guy, not a golf guy:
http://www.theonion.com/article/jordan-spieths-family-wait-few-days-asking-him-wha-52717
From my fb feed, because I’m an Onion guy, not a golf guy:
http://www.theonion.com/article/jordan-spieths-family-wait-few-days-asking-him-wha-52717
hsh, I got that on mine too. It was a riot.
hsh, I got that on mine too. It was a riot.
hsh, I got that on mine too. It was a riot.
At least Spieth made sane mental decisions, even though he mishit a couple of shots. Compare that to van de Velde at the British Open in 1999. I still claim that the caddy there had to take some of the blame. When van de Velde asked for the driver, the correct response by the caddy was to pull the driver, break it over his knee, and hand vam de Velde the four-iron. Four-iron, four-iron, chip, two-putt, win the Open — hell, I could have won from that situation on the 18th tee.
At least Spieth made sane mental decisions, even though he mishit a couple of shots. Compare that to van de Velde at the British Open in 1999. I still claim that the caddy there had to take some of the blame. When van de Velde asked for the driver, the correct response by the caddy was to pull the driver, break it over his knee, and hand vam de Velde the four-iron. Four-iron, four-iron, chip, two-putt, win the Open — hell, I could have won from that situation on the 18th tee.
At least Spieth made sane mental decisions, even though he mishit a couple of shots. Compare that to van de Velde at the British Open in 1999. I still claim that the caddy there had to take some of the blame. When van de Velde asked for the driver, the correct response by the caddy was to pull the driver, break it over his knee, and hand vam de Velde the four-iron. Four-iron, four-iron, chip, two-putt, win the Open — hell, I could have won from that situation on the 18th tee.
It does not address the problem of bright orange golf attire.
I just want to chime in and say that, for total unironic sartorial un-hipness, golfers have nothing – nothing whatsoever – on boaters. Especially sail boaters.
Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts. I kid you not.
Don’t let this happen to you.
It does not address the problem of bright orange golf attire.
I just want to chime in and say that, for total unironic sartorial un-hipness, golfers have nothing – nothing whatsoever – on boaters. Especially sail boaters.
Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts. I kid you not.
Don’t let this happen to you.
It does not address the problem of bright orange golf attire.
I just want to chime in and say that, for total unironic sartorial un-hipness, golfers have nothing – nothing whatsoever – on boaters. Especially sail boaters.
Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts. I kid you not.
Don’t let this happen to you.
“It’s not like there’s some record of which restroom you used over the course of time that has to be presented for admission to the restroom when you have to pee at the mall.”
I just want to highlight this, because the natural result of the NC law is the requirement that one carry a “pissport”.
Could it also be used as a voter ID?
“It’s not like there’s some record of which restroom you used over the course of time that has to be presented for admission to the restroom when you have to pee at the mall.”
I just want to highlight this, because the natural result of the NC law is the requirement that one carry a “pissport”.
Could it also be used as a voter ID?
“It’s not like there’s some record of which restroom you used over the course of time that has to be presented for admission to the restroom when you have to pee at the mall.”
I just want to highlight this, because the natural result of the NC law is the requirement that one carry a “pissport”.
Could it also be used as a voter ID?
“Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts.”
I just drove through South Carolina and North Carolina dressed in exactly that outfit, and I held my urine the entire trip to avoid entering their rest stop bathrooms of whatever gender, let me tell you.
I was so verklempt in the nether regions by the time I reached West Virginia that I turned myself into their bathroom ombudsmen who held me over to testify before their legislature regarding are you now or have you ever been confused about where you go when you gotta go.
“Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts.”
I just drove through South Carolina and North Carolina dressed in exactly that outfit, and I held my urine the entire trip to avoid entering their rest stop bathrooms of whatever gender, let me tell you.
I was so verklempt in the nether regions by the time I reached West Virginia that I turned myself into their bathroom ombudsmen who held me over to testify before their legislature regarding are you now or have you ever been confused about where you go when you gotta go.
“Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts.”
I just drove through South Carolina and North Carolina dressed in exactly that outfit, and I held my urine the entire trip to avoid entering their rest stop bathrooms of whatever gender, let me tell you.
I was so verklempt in the nether regions by the time I reached West Virginia that I turned myself into their bathroom ombudsmen who held me over to testify before their legislature regarding are you now or have you ever been confused about where you go when you gotta go.
Count, they don’t have a bathroom on land for that outfit.
Count, they don’t have a bathroom on land for that outfit.
Count, they don’t have a bathroom on land for that outfit.
At least Spieth made sane mental decisions, even though he mishit a couple of shots.
Nope. Even he admitted he made a big mental error on the tee at 12. One of his biggest strengths is superb course management, and it deserted him at that moment.
Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts.
It’s a toss-up with really loud plaid plus fours and neon knee high socks.
At least Spieth made sane mental decisions, even though he mishit a couple of shots.
Nope. Even he admitted he made a big mental error on the tee at 12. One of his biggest strengths is superb course management, and it deserted him at that moment.
Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts.
It’s a toss-up with really loud plaid plus fours and neon knee high socks.
At least Spieth made sane mental decisions, even though he mishit a couple of shots.
Nope. Even he admitted he made a big mental error on the tee at 12. One of his biggest strengths is superb course management, and it deserted him at that moment.
Belts with little whales on them. With those salmon-pink chino shorts.
It’s a toss-up with really loud plaid plus fours and neon knee high socks.
McKT’s proposal, at least as I understand it, appears sensible. Good for him. The law in North Carolina, where I live, does not. Yar boo sucks to them: the GOP-dominated legislature (and GOP Gov. McCrory) for passing laws that are not only bigoted, but counter-productive (*) and bound to be overturned. The only reason, as far as I can see? Ramp up the bigot vote for November.
(*) If people were to actually obey the law, the result would be lots more people presenting as men using the women’s loo, and lots more people presenting as women using the men’s loo, because that’s what it says on their birth certificates. Awful for them, and I fail to see how this decreases the sense of irritation and angst some people apparently feel at someone using the “wrong” restroom.
McKT’s proposal, at least as I understand it, appears sensible. Good for him. The law in North Carolina, where I live, does not. Yar boo sucks to them: the GOP-dominated legislature (and GOP Gov. McCrory) for passing laws that are not only bigoted, but counter-productive (*) and bound to be overturned. The only reason, as far as I can see? Ramp up the bigot vote for November.
(*) If people were to actually obey the law, the result would be lots more people presenting as men using the women’s loo, and lots more people presenting as women using the men’s loo, because that’s what it says on their birth certificates. Awful for them, and I fail to see how this decreases the sense of irritation and angst some people apparently feel at someone using the “wrong” restroom.
McKT’s proposal, at least as I understand it, appears sensible. Good for him. The law in North Carolina, where I live, does not. Yar boo sucks to them: the GOP-dominated legislature (and GOP Gov. McCrory) for passing laws that are not only bigoted, but counter-productive (*) and bound to be overturned. The only reason, as far as I can see? Ramp up the bigot vote for November.
(*) If people were to actually obey the law, the result would be lots more people presenting as men using the women’s loo, and lots more people presenting as women using the men’s loo, because that’s what it says on their birth certificates. Awful for them, and I fail to see how this decreases the sense of irritation and angst some people apparently feel at someone using the “wrong” restroom.
The obvious solution to the bathroom predator problem is to install cameras in every stall and more in every corner and to hire some pervs to constantly monitor them. Of course it must be the right kinds of pervs, i.e. jealous ones that would cry havoc if someone else gets the fun they’d like to have themselves. Alternatively use drool detectors on them.
“The kiddie pörn afficionado is wetting, send an officer to bathroom X!”.
The obvious solution to the bathroom predator problem is to install cameras in every stall and more in every corner and to hire some pervs to constantly monitor them. Of course it must be the right kinds of pervs, i.e. jealous ones that would cry havoc if someone else gets the fun they’d like to have themselves. Alternatively use drool detectors on them.
“The kiddie pörn afficionado is wetting, send an officer to bathroom X!”.
The obvious solution to the bathroom predator problem is to install cameras in every stall and more in every corner and to hire some pervs to constantly monitor them. Of course it must be the right kinds of pervs, i.e. jealous ones that would cry havoc if someone else gets the fun they’d like to have themselves. Alternatively use drool detectors on them.
“The kiddie pörn afficionado is wetting, send an officer to bathroom X!”.
I do wonder if legislation mandating who uses what bathroom based on sex/gender is in fact constitutional under current SCOTUS doctrine. Seems like it could go either way.
I do wonder if legislation mandating who uses what bathroom based on sex/gender is in fact constitutional under current SCOTUS doctrine. Seems like it could go either way.
I do wonder if legislation mandating who uses what bathroom based on sex/gender is in fact constitutional under current SCOTUS doctrine. Seems like it could go either way.
The obvious solution to the bathroom predator problem is to install cameras in every stall and more in every corner and to hire some pervs to constantly monitor them. Of course it must be the right kinds of pervs, i.e. jealous ones that would cry havoc if someone else gets the fun they’d like to have themselves. Alternatively use drool detectors on them.
This from someone whose life will almost certainly never, ever be impacted by the kind of sexual predation women and children are most definitely at risk for. Some quick online research indicates the guestimate for the prevalence of pedophilia to be at or just below 5%, or one in twenty. The most generous number I found for transgenderism is 1:170. A number of commenters here are remarkably blase about sexual predation in the general population but when the topic turns to rape on campus, it’s all hands on deck. Statistical ignorance is a hallmark among this population.
Spend some actual time with assault victims, particularly children and spend some time with law enforcement people who deal with human trafficking. It’s an eye opener. Or, just pretend you already know what you need to know and dismiss others’ concerns that run against your narrative. By all means. It’s the style these days.
I do wonder if legislation mandating who uses what bathroom based on sex/gender is in fact constitutional under current SCOTUS doctrine. Seems like it could go either way.
I wonder how women and young girls will feel about constitutional theory when men can stand right outside their stall while they are using the restroom. So much for the right to privacy. I guess they just need to get over themselves and appreciate the liberating wonder of complete sexual and gender equality.
The obvious solution to the bathroom predator problem is to install cameras in every stall and more in every corner and to hire some pervs to constantly monitor them. Of course it must be the right kinds of pervs, i.e. jealous ones that would cry havoc if someone else gets the fun they’d like to have themselves. Alternatively use drool detectors on them.
This from someone whose life will almost certainly never, ever be impacted by the kind of sexual predation women and children are most definitely at risk for. Some quick online research indicates the guestimate for the prevalence of pedophilia to be at or just below 5%, or one in twenty. The most generous number I found for transgenderism is 1:170. A number of commenters here are remarkably blase about sexual predation in the general population but when the topic turns to rape on campus, it’s all hands on deck. Statistical ignorance is a hallmark among this population.
Spend some actual time with assault victims, particularly children and spend some time with law enforcement people who deal with human trafficking. It’s an eye opener. Or, just pretend you already know what you need to know and dismiss others’ concerns that run against your narrative. By all means. It’s the style these days.
I do wonder if legislation mandating who uses what bathroom based on sex/gender is in fact constitutional under current SCOTUS doctrine. Seems like it could go either way.
I wonder how women and young girls will feel about constitutional theory when men can stand right outside their stall while they are using the restroom. So much for the right to privacy. I guess they just need to get over themselves and appreciate the liberating wonder of complete sexual and gender equality.
The obvious solution to the bathroom predator problem is to install cameras in every stall and more in every corner and to hire some pervs to constantly monitor them. Of course it must be the right kinds of pervs, i.e. jealous ones that would cry havoc if someone else gets the fun they’d like to have themselves. Alternatively use drool detectors on them.
This from someone whose life will almost certainly never, ever be impacted by the kind of sexual predation women and children are most definitely at risk for. Some quick online research indicates the guestimate for the prevalence of pedophilia to be at or just below 5%, or one in twenty. The most generous number I found for transgenderism is 1:170. A number of commenters here are remarkably blase about sexual predation in the general population but when the topic turns to rape on campus, it’s all hands on deck. Statistical ignorance is a hallmark among this population.
Spend some actual time with assault victims, particularly children and spend some time with law enforcement people who deal with human trafficking. It’s an eye opener. Or, just pretend you already know what you need to know and dismiss others’ concerns that run against your narrative. By all means. It’s the style these days.
I do wonder if legislation mandating who uses what bathroom based on sex/gender is in fact constitutional under current SCOTUS doctrine. Seems like it could go either way.
I wonder how women and young girls will feel about constitutional theory when men can stand right outside their stall while they are using the restroom. So much for the right to privacy. I guess they just need to get over themselves and appreciate the liberating wonder of complete sexual and gender equality.
Incidentally, as a new father I find myself going into the women’s toilets on a semi-regular basis – particularly in mainland Europe – because that’s where the baby change station is. What would Marty et al like me to do in that situation?
Incidentally, as a new father I find myself going into the women’s toilets on a semi-regular basis – particularly in mainland Europe – because that’s where the baby change station is. What would Marty et al like me to do in that situation?
Incidentally, as a new father I find myself going into the women’s toilets on a semi-regular basis – particularly in mainland Europe – because that’s where the baby change station is. What would Marty et al like me to do in that situation?
I would like for you to do whatever you are doing. In the US baby changing stations are often being moved to “family” bathrooms as described somewhere above. I have been in a few men’s bathrooms that have them now. I am sure when you point to the baby and the diaper it is understood why you are there.
I would like for you to do whatever you are doing. In the US baby changing stations are often being moved to “family” bathrooms as described somewhere above. I have been in a few men’s bathrooms that have them now. I am sure when you point to the baby and the diaper it is understood why you are there.
I would like for you to do whatever you are doing. In the US baby changing stations are often being moved to “family” bathrooms as described somewhere above. I have been in a few men’s bathrooms that have them now. I am sure when you point to the baby and the diaper it is understood why you are there.
Incidentally, as a new father I find myself going into the women’s toilets on a semi-regular basis – particularly in mainland Europe – because that’s where the baby change station is. What would Marty et al like me to do in that situation?
You say this as if it answers the concerns of sexual predation. It does not. Otherwise, what Marty said.
Incidentally, as a new father I find myself going into the women’s toilets on a semi-regular basis – particularly in mainland Europe – because that’s where the baby change station is. What would Marty et al like me to do in that situation?
You say this as if it answers the concerns of sexual predation. It does not. Otherwise, what Marty said.
Incidentally, as a new father I find myself going into the women’s toilets on a semi-regular basis – particularly in mainland Europe – because that’s where the baby change station is. What would Marty et al like me to do in that situation?
You say this as if it answers the concerns of sexual predation. It does not. Otherwise, what Marty said.
It is not that unusual to see a baby changing station in the men’s room at public facilities these days.
It is not that unusual to see a baby changing station in the men’s room at public facilities these days.
It is not that unusual to see a baby changing station in the men’s room at public facilities these days.
It is not that unusual to see a baby changing station in the men’s room at public facilities these days.
It may be a Building Code requirement. Life requires a little common sense. A father takes a baby in the women’s restroom to change the baby, no one is going to complain, there being no other good option. A single male entering the women’s room is something else entirely. The social justice people don’t pay much attention to *that* issue. They are purists, and in their view, their mission is pure. You can’t argue with them. I get that the traditionalists have their corresponding issue. If the choice is A or B and nothing else, then I’ll go with Tradition. If people of good will can, first, recognize the need for a middle ground, then finding that middle ground ought to be do-able.
If you think your 11 year old daughter, granddaughter or niece ought to have to be exposed to men while she’s using the restroom, feel free to speak up.
It is not that unusual to see a baby changing station in the men’s room at public facilities these days.
It may be a Building Code requirement. Life requires a little common sense. A father takes a baby in the women’s restroom to change the baby, no one is going to complain, there being no other good option. A single male entering the women’s room is something else entirely. The social justice people don’t pay much attention to *that* issue. They are purists, and in their view, their mission is pure. You can’t argue with them. I get that the traditionalists have their corresponding issue. If the choice is A or B and nothing else, then I’ll go with Tradition. If people of good will can, first, recognize the need for a middle ground, then finding that middle ground ought to be do-able.
If you think your 11 year old daughter, granddaughter or niece ought to have to be exposed to men while she’s using the restroom, feel free to speak up.
It is not that unusual to see a baby changing station in the men’s room at public facilities these days.
It may be a Building Code requirement. Life requires a little common sense. A father takes a baby in the women’s restroom to change the baby, no one is going to complain, there being no other good option. A single male entering the women’s room is something else entirely. The social justice people don’t pay much attention to *that* issue. They are purists, and in their view, their mission is pure. You can’t argue with them. I get that the traditionalists have their corresponding issue. If the choice is A or B and nothing else, then I’ll go with Tradition. If people of good will can, first, recognize the need for a middle ground, then finding that middle ground ought to be do-able.
If you think your 11 year old daughter, granddaughter or niece ought to have to be exposed to men while she’s using the restroom, feel free to speak up.
I wonder how women and young girls will feel about constitutional theory when men can stand right outside their stall while they are using the restroom. So much for the right to privacy.
Oh come off it. Any system of rights or restrictions on what the government can do is going to have negative consequences for somebody, whether it’s a someone the victim of a crime perpetrated by a criminal let off on a “technicality” because of a defective warrant, someone whose reputation is ruined because of press reporting that turns out not to be true but not “reckless,” or what have you.
The current constitutional standard to uphold government enforced sex/gender based distinctions is more than just “common sense” or a “rational basis.” OTOH it’s not “strict scrutiny” either (or at least not yet). Do state enforced restrictions on who can use what bathroom based on the sex of the user pass that standard? Like I said I can see a case being made either way.
Also, Hartmut was kidding with his 3:06am comment.
I wonder how women and young girls will feel about constitutional theory when men can stand right outside their stall while they are using the restroom. So much for the right to privacy.
Oh come off it. Any system of rights or restrictions on what the government can do is going to have negative consequences for somebody, whether it’s a someone the victim of a crime perpetrated by a criminal let off on a “technicality” because of a defective warrant, someone whose reputation is ruined because of press reporting that turns out not to be true but not “reckless,” or what have you.
The current constitutional standard to uphold government enforced sex/gender based distinctions is more than just “common sense” or a “rational basis.” OTOH it’s not “strict scrutiny” either (or at least not yet). Do state enforced restrictions on who can use what bathroom based on the sex of the user pass that standard? Like I said I can see a case being made either way.
Also, Hartmut was kidding with his 3:06am comment.
I wonder how women and young girls will feel about constitutional theory when men can stand right outside their stall while they are using the restroom. So much for the right to privacy.
Oh come off it. Any system of rights or restrictions on what the government can do is going to have negative consequences for somebody, whether it’s a someone the victim of a crime perpetrated by a criminal let off on a “technicality” because of a defective warrant, someone whose reputation is ruined because of press reporting that turns out not to be true but not “reckless,” or what have you.
The current constitutional standard to uphold government enforced sex/gender based distinctions is more than just “common sense” or a “rational basis.” OTOH it’s not “strict scrutiny” either (or at least not yet). Do state enforced restrictions on who can use what bathroom based on the sex of the user pass that standard? Like I said I can see a case being made either way.
Also, Hartmut was kidding with his 3:06am comment.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear; I thought NC just banned me from doing exactly that…?
Sorry, I wasn’t clear; I thought NC just banned me from doing exactly that…?
Sorry, I wasn’t clear; I thought NC just banned me from doing exactly that…?
Oh come off it. Any system of rights or restrictions on what the government can do is going to have negative consequences for somebody, whether it’s a someone the victim of a crime perpetrated by a criminal let off on a “technicality” because of a defective warrant, someone whose reputation is ruined because of press reporting that turns out not to be true but not “reckless,” or what have you.
And, in this case, it’s half the population. But, the important thing is that we vindicate the theoretical right to not be the victim of invidious discrimination by being forced to use separate but equal bathroom or changing room facilities. Because that’s a vindication we can all agree is long overdue.
If current constitutional law is such that an argument voiding as unconstitutional separate sex bathrooms has a 50-50 chance of prevailing, then that says a lot more about constitutional theory than it does about anything else.
It is one thing to protect minority rights, but to impute some kind of bigotry, some kind of invidious discriminatory intent to same sex private facilities is the kind of form over substance word salad that all too often these days emanates from the social justice left. The idea that men have a constitutional right to follow women into the women’s bathroom, if grounded in actual law, points how f’ing stupid the law has become.
Oh come off it. Any system of rights or restrictions on what the government can do is going to have negative consequences for somebody, whether it’s a someone the victim of a crime perpetrated by a criminal let off on a “technicality” because of a defective warrant, someone whose reputation is ruined because of press reporting that turns out not to be true but not “reckless,” or what have you.
And, in this case, it’s half the population. But, the important thing is that we vindicate the theoretical right to not be the victim of invidious discrimination by being forced to use separate but equal bathroom or changing room facilities. Because that’s a vindication we can all agree is long overdue.
If current constitutional law is such that an argument voiding as unconstitutional separate sex bathrooms has a 50-50 chance of prevailing, then that says a lot more about constitutional theory than it does about anything else.
It is one thing to protect minority rights, but to impute some kind of bigotry, some kind of invidious discriminatory intent to same sex private facilities is the kind of form over substance word salad that all too often these days emanates from the social justice left. The idea that men have a constitutional right to follow women into the women’s bathroom, if grounded in actual law, points how f’ing stupid the law has become.
Oh come off it. Any system of rights or restrictions on what the government can do is going to have negative consequences for somebody, whether it’s a someone the victim of a crime perpetrated by a criminal let off on a “technicality” because of a defective warrant, someone whose reputation is ruined because of press reporting that turns out not to be true but not “reckless,” or what have you.
And, in this case, it’s half the population. But, the important thing is that we vindicate the theoretical right to not be the victim of invidious discrimination by being forced to use separate but equal bathroom or changing room facilities. Because that’s a vindication we can all agree is long overdue.
If current constitutional law is such that an argument voiding as unconstitutional separate sex bathrooms has a 50-50 chance of prevailing, then that says a lot more about constitutional theory than it does about anything else.
It is one thing to protect minority rights, but to impute some kind of bigotry, some kind of invidious discriminatory intent to same sex private facilities is the kind of form over substance word salad that all too often these days emanates from the social justice left. The idea that men have a constitutional right to follow women into the women’s bathroom, if grounded in actual law, points how f’ing stupid the law has become.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear; I thought NC just banned me from doing exactly that…?
No problem. I was clearly not addressing NC, as I stated above. Rather, as I stated above, I am addressing the general topic of what limitations might reasonably be imposed on use of public facilities by members of different sexes/genders.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear; I thought NC just banned me from doing exactly that…?
No problem. I was clearly not addressing NC, as I stated above. Rather, as I stated above, I am addressing the general topic of what limitations might reasonably be imposed on use of public facilities by members of different sexes/genders.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear; I thought NC just banned me from doing exactly that…?
No problem. I was clearly not addressing NC, as I stated above. Rather, as I stated above, I am addressing the general topic of what limitations might reasonably be imposed on use of public facilities by members of different sexes/genders.
It would void state enforced/mandated separate sex bathrooms. Private owned facilities could continue to have single sex restrooms and kick out anyone who didn’t go along, like anything else declared unconstitutional. I’m not even sure states couldn’t have separate sex bathrooms on property owned/operated by the state under such a ruling (e.g., you don’t have a constitutional right to make a speech on the senate floor under the first amendment).
The idea that men have a constitutional right to follow women into the women’s bathroom, if grounded in actual law, points how f’ing stupid the law has become.
This is your own f’ing framing. Men (and women) have a constitutional right to be free from state enforced gender based restrictions unless said restrictions pass the current constitutional standard as articulated by SCOTUS. That the application of the right/standard in this particular situation strikes you as absurd can mean either – hey, you’re right, this kind of thing is constitutionally kosher under the standard – or that you’re wrong and if your parade of horribles follows that’s the price we pay for the larger principle.
In my mind this is analogous to the recent marriage debate. As I would have framed it, laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional sex discrimination under the equal protection clause. That is, you don’t have a “right” to have your marriage recognized by the state, but once the state is going to recognize marriage and bless the arrangement with certain advantages (and disadvantages), it can’t do so selectively based upon constitutionally suspect criteria unless it meets the relevant standard. As it happens SCOTUS didn’t take that approach.
The same here. Perhaps this would be an area where SCOTUS agrees with you that, in this case, a gender based distinction is just fine. But it ain’t going to be a three page opinion laughing the argument out of court.
It would void state enforced/mandated separate sex bathrooms. Private owned facilities could continue to have single sex restrooms and kick out anyone who didn’t go along, like anything else declared unconstitutional. I’m not even sure states couldn’t have separate sex bathrooms on property owned/operated by the state under such a ruling (e.g., you don’t have a constitutional right to make a speech on the senate floor under the first amendment).
The idea that men have a constitutional right to follow women into the women’s bathroom, if grounded in actual law, points how f’ing stupid the law has become.
This is your own f’ing framing. Men (and women) have a constitutional right to be free from state enforced gender based restrictions unless said restrictions pass the current constitutional standard as articulated by SCOTUS. That the application of the right/standard in this particular situation strikes you as absurd can mean either – hey, you’re right, this kind of thing is constitutionally kosher under the standard – or that you’re wrong and if your parade of horribles follows that’s the price we pay for the larger principle.
In my mind this is analogous to the recent marriage debate. As I would have framed it, laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional sex discrimination under the equal protection clause. That is, you don’t have a “right” to have your marriage recognized by the state, but once the state is going to recognize marriage and bless the arrangement with certain advantages (and disadvantages), it can’t do so selectively based upon constitutionally suspect criteria unless it meets the relevant standard. As it happens SCOTUS didn’t take that approach.
The same here. Perhaps this would be an area where SCOTUS agrees with you that, in this case, a gender based distinction is just fine. But it ain’t going to be a three page opinion laughing the argument out of court.
It would void state enforced/mandated separate sex bathrooms. Private owned facilities could continue to have single sex restrooms and kick out anyone who didn’t go along, like anything else declared unconstitutional. I’m not even sure states couldn’t have separate sex bathrooms on property owned/operated by the state under such a ruling (e.g., you don’t have a constitutional right to make a speech on the senate floor under the first amendment).
The idea that men have a constitutional right to follow women into the women’s bathroom, if grounded in actual law, points how f’ing stupid the law has become.
This is your own f’ing framing. Men (and women) have a constitutional right to be free from state enforced gender based restrictions unless said restrictions pass the current constitutional standard as articulated by SCOTUS. That the application of the right/standard in this particular situation strikes you as absurd can mean either – hey, you’re right, this kind of thing is constitutionally kosher under the standard – or that you’re wrong and if your parade of horribles follows that’s the price we pay for the larger principle.
In my mind this is analogous to the recent marriage debate. As I would have framed it, laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional sex discrimination under the equal protection clause. That is, you don’t have a “right” to have your marriage recognized by the state, but once the state is going to recognize marriage and bless the arrangement with certain advantages (and disadvantages), it can’t do so selectively based upon constitutionally suspect criteria unless it meets the relevant standard. As it happens SCOTUS didn’t take that approach.
The same here. Perhaps this would be an area where SCOTUS agrees with you that, in this case, a gender based distinction is just fine. But it ain’t going to be a three page opinion laughing the argument out of court.
If we’re going to get worked up about sexual predation (and I certainly agree that we should, as a society, be more worked up), then we ought to think about whether laws about who uses which restroom are really critical. It seems to me that there are LOTS of other areas where we need attention far more.
I realize that this doesn’t solve the restroom question. But since the discussion turned in that direction, maybe we should look at the predation problem in general.
If we’re going to get worked up about sexual predation (and I certainly agree that we should, as a society, be more worked up), then we ought to think about whether laws about who uses which restroom are really critical. It seems to me that there are LOTS of other areas where we need attention far more.
I realize that this doesn’t solve the restroom question. But since the discussion turned in that direction, maybe we should look at the predation problem in general.
If we’re going to get worked up about sexual predation (and I certainly agree that we should, as a society, be more worked up), then we ought to think about whether laws about who uses which restroom are really critical. It seems to me that there are LOTS of other areas where we need attention far more.
I realize that this doesn’t solve the restroom question. But since the discussion turned in that direction, maybe we should look at the predation problem in general.
For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
What does that individual do now?
I confess I’m puzzled by this whole discussion. My assumption is that a biological woman, for example, who is transgender male is, as a matter of preference, going to dress and look and generally act like a man. Is this not so? Why then would that person arouse any concern at all on entering the men’s room. And vice-versa.
Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the cope of discussion of the legislation? I think I need a key that I can hit that says, “I agree with Russell.”
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
What does that individual do now?
I confess I’m puzzled by this whole discussion. My assumption is that a biological woman, for example, who is transgender male is, as a matter of preference, going to dress and look and generally act like a man. Is this not so? Why then would that person arouse any concern at all on entering the men’s room. And vice-versa.
Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the cope of discussion of the legislation? I think I need a key that I can hit that says, “I agree with Russell.”
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
For example, a man who dresses like a woman, does his hair and make-up like a woman, but still considers himself male and still wants to use the men’s room while cross-dressing.
What does that individual do now?
I confess I’m puzzled by this whole discussion. My assumption is that a biological woman, for example, who is transgender male is, as a matter of preference, going to dress and look and generally act like a man. Is this not so? Why then would that person arouse any concern at all on entering the men’s room. And vice-versa.
Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the cope of discussion of the legislation? I think I need a key that I can hit that says, “I agree with Russell.”
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
Not sure what outlawing a cities power to create a minimum wage had to do with perverts and sexual predators.
Not sure what outlawing a cities power to create a minimum wage had to do with perverts and sexual predators.
Not sure what outlawing a cities power to create a minimum wage had to do with perverts and sexual predators.
“Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the scope of discussion of the legislation?”
Wait, the “scope of discussion” ISN’T bitching and moaning about how evil liberal Social Justice Warriors are? Wow, I would never have guessed.
“Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the scope of discussion of the legislation?”
Wait, the “scope of discussion” ISN’T bitching and moaning about how evil liberal Social Justice Warriors are? Wow, I would never have guessed.
“Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the scope of discussion of the legislation?”
Wait, the “scope of discussion” ISN’T bitching and moaning about how evil liberal Social Justice Warriors are? Wow, I would never have guessed.
just saying who is being opportunistic with over reach here?
just saying who is being opportunistic with over reach here?
just saying who is being opportunistic with over reach here?
McTx: A father takes a baby in the women’s restroom to change the baby, no one is going to complain, there being no other good option.
Really? That is not at all self evident to me. I can easily see lots of loud complaints being lodged by women in the bathroom when a man walks in with a baby. Would he have more defenders than if he walked in by himself? Sure.
When my kids were in diapers (just a couple years ago for one), it never would have occurred to me to go use the women’s restroom if there was not baby changing station in the men’s room.
I mean, hell, people complain about women publicly breast feeding all the time, sometimes vociferously, despite it being legal (IIRC) in all 50 states and DC. You think a man carrying a baby into a woman’s restrooms is going to go smoothly?
OTOH, maybe I’m proving your point about segregating sexes for restroom purposes.
McTx: A father takes a baby in the women’s restroom to change the baby, no one is going to complain, there being no other good option.
Really? That is not at all self evident to me. I can easily see lots of loud complaints being lodged by women in the bathroom when a man walks in with a baby. Would he have more defenders than if he walked in by himself? Sure.
When my kids were in diapers (just a couple years ago for one), it never would have occurred to me to go use the women’s restroom if there was not baby changing station in the men’s room.
I mean, hell, people complain about women publicly breast feeding all the time, sometimes vociferously, despite it being legal (IIRC) in all 50 states and DC. You think a man carrying a baby into a woman’s restrooms is going to go smoothly?
OTOH, maybe I’m proving your point about segregating sexes for restroom purposes.
McTx: A father takes a baby in the women’s restroom to change the baby, no one is going to complain, there being no other good option.
Really? That is not at all self evident to me. I can easily see lots of loud complaints being lodged by women in the bathroom when a man walks in with a baby. Would he have more defenders than if he walked in by himself? Sure.
When my kids were in diapers (just a couple years ago for one), it never would have occurred to me to go use the women’s restroom if there was not baby changing station in the men’s room.
I mean, hell, people complain about women publicly breast feeding all the time, sometimes vociferously, despite it being legal (IIRC) in all 50 states and DC. You think a man carrying a baby into a woman’s restrooms is going to go smoothly?
OTOH, maybe I’m proving your point about segregating sexes for restroom purposes.
OTOH, maybe I’m proving your point about segregating sexes for restroom purposes.
I don’t know about proving it but you did hit a key comment. My take is that all this probably wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t have happened in NC if Charlotte hadn’t decided to codify the “right” to use the restroom of your choice.
It is really not any different than the discussion in Massachusetts was in 2010-2011 on the same topic.
OTOH, maybe I’m proving your point about segregating sexes for restroom purposes.
I don’t know about proving it but you did hit a key comment. My take is that all this probably wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t have happened in NC if Charlotte hadn’t decided to codify the “right” to use the restroom of your choice.
It is really not any different than the discussion in Massachusetts was in 2010-2011 on the same topic.
OTOH, maybe I’m proving your point about segregating sexes for restroom purposes.
I don’t know about proving it but you did hit a key comment. My take is that all this probably wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t have happened in NC if Charlotte hadn’t decided to codify the “right” to use the restroom of your choice.
It is really not any different than the discussion in Massachusetts was in 2010-2011 on the same topic.
Men (and women) have a constitutional right to be free from state enforced gender based restrictions unless said restrictions pass the current constitutional standard as articulated by SCOTUS.
Yes, this is a freedom women have been demanding for decades, the freedom from not having men join them in the restroom. Jesus. Rote citing of legal principles derived in other contexts followed by mechanistic and mindless application out of context is the new reality, I’ll grant you that.
then we ought to think about whether laws about who uses which restroom are really critical. It seems to me that there are LOTS of other areas where we need attention far more.
Really? Like changing rooms at public facilities.
Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the cope of discussion of the legislation?
Well, of course. Men having the statutory or constitutional right to enter women’s private function facilities has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual predation.
I think I need a key that I can hit that says, “I agree with Russell.”
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
Actually, no offense to Russell, but if you take Houston’s proposed ordinance, this is simply a wishful dismissal of a very difficult problem. Gender, to repeat, is subjective and self-determined. Anyone can declare any gender they want or just make one up. I gave a cite on precisely that point. In Houston, had the ordinance passed, adult men could enter the women’s restroom, period full stop.
And, once men are allowed in the women’s room, they don’t have to “hit” to make women uncomfortable, they just have to be there. So far, the commenters have all been male. I’m waiting for the ObWi women to declare they are fine with men joining them and their daughters in the restroom. And, I’m waiting for the men to say they are fine with other men following their wives, daughters, etc into the restroom.
Here are some simple, declarative statements that everyone can all repeat:
1. I don’t care who follows my daughter into the bathroom.
2. I don’t care if a man inadvertently exposes himself to my daughter while lawfully exercising his constitutional right to follow my daughter into the bathroom.
3. I don’t care if a man inadvertently opens the stall door while my daughter is using the restroom while lawfully exercising his constitutional right to be in the women’s bathroom.
4. I have the right to impose my lack of concern on every other person in America because I am right and they are wrong.
Men (and women) have a constitutional right to be free from state enforced gender based restrictions unless said restrictions pass the current constitutional standard as articulated by SCOTUS.
Yes, this is a freedom women have been demanding for decades, the freedom from not having men join them in the restroom. Jesus. Rote citing of legal principles derived in other contexts followed by mechanistic and mindless application out of context is the new reality, I’ll grant you that.
then we ought to think about whether laws about who uses which restroom are really critical. It seems to me that there are LOTS of other areas where we need attention far more.
Really? Like changing rooms at public facilities.
Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the cope of discussion of the legislation?
Well, of course. Men having the statutory or constitutional right to enter women’s private function facilities has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual predation.
I think I need a key that I can hit that says, “I agree with Russell.”
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
Actually, no offense to Russell, but if you take Houston’s proposed ordinance, this is simply a wishful dismissal of a very difficult problem. Gender, to repeat, is subjective and self-determined. Anyone can declare any gender they want or just make one up. I gave a cite on precisely that point. In Houston, had the ordinance passed, adult men could enter the women’s restroom, period full stop.
And, once men are allowed in the women’s room, they don’t have to “hit” to make women uncomfortable, they just have to be there. So far, the commenters have all been male. I’m waiting for the ObWi women to declare they are fine with men joining them and their daughters in the restroom. And, I’m waiting for the men to say they are fine with other men following their wives, daughters, etc into the restroom.
Here are some simple, declarative statements that everyone can all repeat:
1. I don’t care who follows my daughter into the bathroom.
2. I don’t care if a man inadvertently exposes himself to my daughter while lawfully exercising his constitutional right to follow my daughter into the bathroom.
3. I don’t care if a man inadvertently opens the stall door while my daughter is using the restroom while lawfully exercising his constitutional right to be in the women’s bathroom.
4. I have the right to impose my lack of concern on every other person in America because I am right and they are wrong.
Men (and women) have a constitutional right to be free from state enforced gender based restrictions unless said restrictions pass the current constitutional standard as articulated by SCOTUS.
Yes, this is a freedom women have been demanding for decades, the freedom from not having men join them in the restroom. Jesus. Rote citing of legal principles derived in other contexts followed by mechanistic and mindless application out of context is the new reality, I’ll grant you that.
then we ought to think about whether laws about who uses which restroom are really critical. It seems to me that there are LOTS of other areas where we need attention far more.
Really? Like changing rooms at public facilities.
Sexual predation is a serious matter, of course, but isn’t that outside the cope of discussion of the legislation?
Well, of course. Men having the statutory or constitutional right to enter women’s private function facilities has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual predation.
I think I need a key that I can hit that says, “I agree with Russell.”
I appreciate that folks are also concerned about sexual predation, but I would think the difference between someone going to the bathroom because they had to pee vs. someone going into the bathroom to hit on other folks, of whatever age or gender, would be kind of apparent.
And, could be dealt with exactly as it is dealt with now.
Actually, no offense to Russell, but if you take Houston’s proposed ordinance, this is simply a wishful dismissal of a very difficult problem. Gender, to repeat, is subjective and self-determined. Anyone can declare any gender they want or just make one up. I gave a cite on precisely that point. In Houston, had the ordinance passed, adult men could enter the women’s restroom, period full stop.
And, once men are allowed in the women’s room, they don’t have to “hit” to make women uncomfortable, they just have to be there. So far, the commenters have all been male. I’m waiting for the ObWi women to declare they are fine with men joining them and their daughters in the restroom. And, I’m waiting for the men to say they are fine with other men following their wives, daughters, etc into the restroom.
Here are some simple, declarative statements that everyone can all repeat:
1. I don’t care who follows my daughter into the bathroom.
2. I don’t care if a man inadvertently exposes himself to my daughter while lawfully exercising his constitutional right to follow my daughter into the bathroom.
3. I don’t care if a man inadvertently opens the stall door while my daughter is using the restroom while lawfully exercising his constitutional right to be in the women’s bathroom.
4. I have the right to impose my lack of concern on every other person in America because I am right and they are wrong.
Yes, Ugh, you are making my point. And, yes Marty, activists in cities want to push the envelope. It’s their way or the highway. I can tell you for a fact, there was no compromise to be had in Houston and everyone who raised questions was dismissed as fear mongering bigots while the proponents simply refused to concede what everyone knew: the statute effectively dismantled separate sex restrooms and other private function facilities. And, yes, these are social justice warriors at their finest, imposing ridiculous rules on society to vindicate some theoretical right.
Yes, Ugh, you are making my point. And, yes Marty, activists in cities want to push the envelope. It’s their way or the highway. I can tell you for a fact, there was no compromise to be had in Houston and everyone who raised questions was dismissed as fear mongering bigots while the proponents simply refused to concede what everyone knew: the statute effectively dismantled separate sex restrooms and other private function facilities. And, yes, these are social justice warriors at their finest, imposing ridiculous rules on society to vindicate some theoretical right.
Yes, Ugh, you are making my point. And, yes Marty, activists in cities want to push the envelope. It’s their way or the highway. I can tell you for a fact, there was no compromise to be had in Houston and everyone who raised questions was dismissed as fear mongering bigots while the proponents simply refused to concede what everyone knew: the statute effectively dismantled separate sex restrooms and other private function facilities. And, yes, these are social justice warriors at their finest, imposing ridiculous rules on society to vindicate some theoretical right.
…yes, these are social justice warriors at their finest, imposing ridiculous rules on society to vindicate some theoretical right….
You post this, with a straight face, in the context of the NC statute ?
…yes, these are social justice warriors at their finest, imposing ridiculous rules on society to vindicate some theoretical right….
You post this, with a straight face, in the context of the NC statute ?
…yes, these are social justice warriors at their finest, imposing ridiculous rules on society to vindicate some theoretical right….
You post this, with a straight face, in the context of the NC statute ?
You post this, with a straight face, in the context of the NC statute ?
How much of this thread have you read?
You post this, with a straight face, in the context of the NC statute ?
How much of this thread have you read?
You post this, with a straight face, in the context of the NC statute ?
How much of this thread have you read?
McTx:
I think the confusion comes from your continuing to discuss the Houston implementation (anyone in any restroom at their current whim, as you describe), from the NC implementation (you must use the restroom matching your birth certificate–so a female at birth transitioned to man would be compelled by law to use the women’s restroom).
I suspect that the heart of the issue comes from the fact that absent laws compelling specific bathroom use, most people–including transgender people–will use the bathroom that match their presentation.
The perverse effect of North Carolina’s law is to mandate that men must use women’s restrooms (and vice versa). People who care about the issue are frustrated the ill consequences were pointed out while the bill was being debated, but that their input was ignored for point scoring reasons.
McTx:
I think the confusion comes from your continuing to discuss the Houston implementation (anyone in any restroom at their current whim, as you describe), from the NC implementation (you must use the restroom matching your birth certificate–so a female at birth transitioned to man would be compelled by law to use the women’s restroom).
I suspect that the heart of the issue comes from the fact that absent laws compelling specific bathroom use, most people–including transgender people–will use the bathroom that match their presentation.
The perverse effect of North Carolina’s law is to mandate that men must use women’s restrooms (and vice versa). People who care about the issue are frustrated the ill consequences were pointed out while the bill was being debated, but that their input was ignored for point scoring reasons.
McTx:
I think the confusion comes from your continuing to discuss the Houston implementation (anyone in any restroom at their current whim, as you describe), from the NC implementation (you must use the restroom matching your birth certificate–so a female at birth transitioned to man would be compelled by law to use the women’s restroom).
I suspect that the heart of the issue comes from the fact that absent laws compelling specific bathroom use, most people–including transgender people–will use the bathroom that match their presentation.
The perverse effect of North Carolina’s law is to mandate that men must use women’s restrooms (and vice versa). People who care about the issue are frustrated the ill consequences were pointed out while the bill was being debated, but that their input was ignored for point scoring reasons.
(you must use the restroom matching your birth certificate–so a female at birth transitioned to man would be compelled by law to use the women’s restroom).
I haven’t read the NC thing. It looks ridiculous on its face and is exactly the kind of thing that invites judicial over-reach in addressing.
(you must use the restroom matching your birth certificate–so a female at birth transitioned to man would be compelled by law to use the women’s restroom).
I haven’t read the NC thing. It looks ridiculous on its face and is exactly the kind of thing that invites judicial over-reach in addressing.
(you must use the restroom matching your birth certificate–so a female at birth transitioned to man would be compelled by law to use the women’s restroom).
I haven’t read the NC thing. It looks ridiculous on its face and is exactly the kind of thing that invites judicial over-reach in addressing.
It’s another problem that could be better solved with an ID card. That would at least be up to date on the sex question unlike the birth certificate (plus, it would be less cumbersome than a long piece of paper).
It’s another problem that could be better solved with an ID card. That would at least be up to date on the sex question unlike the birth certificate (plus, it would be less cumbersome than a long piece of paper).
It’s another problem that could be better solved with an ID card. That would at least be up to date on the sex question unlike the birth certificate (plus, it would be less cumbersome than a long piece of paper).
It looks ridiculous on its face and is exactly the kind of thing that invites judicial over-reach in addressing.
I agree,, but I keep going back to this: the NC bill is an overreaction to the Charlotte ordnance that echoed the Houston law. The Governor warned the Charlotte folks that there would be a reaction, and they didn’t take his input into account. So, when the reaction came no one listened to the original concerns.
And I will, reiterate, the exact discussion happened in Mass and the transgender public accomodations part of the bill was not included in the protections bill in 2011. Nor since. Do we think Bruce will cancel his Boston show?
It looks ridiculous on its face and is exactly the kind of thing that invites judicial over-reach in addressing.
I agree,, but I keep going back to this: the NC bill is an overreaction to the Charlotte ordnance that echoed the Houston law. The Governor warned the Charlotte folks that there would be a reaction, and they didn’t take his input into account. So, when the reaction came no one listened to the original concerns.
And I will, reiterate, the exact discussion happened in Mass and the transgender public accomodations part of the bill was not included in the protections bill in 2011. Nor since. Do we think Bruce will cancel his Boston show?
It looks ridiculous on its face and is exactly the kind of thing that invites judicial over-reach in addressing.
I agree,, but I keep going back to this: the NC bill is an overreaction to the Charlotte ordnance that echoed the Houston law. The Governor warned the Charlotte folks that there would be a reaction, and they didn’t take his input into account. So, when the reaction came no one listened to the original concerns.
And I will, reiterate, the exact discussion happened in Mass and the transgender public accomodations part of the bill was not included in the protections bill in 2011. Nor since. Do we think Bruce will cancel his Boston show?
McKinney – Again, the point is not about a specific freestanding right for women to use the men’s restroom. It’s about state imposed / sanctioned / enforced discrimination on the basis of sex.
To put it differently, do you believe that the federal and state governments should be free to make sex-based distinctions with only minimal judicial oversight (the “rational basis” standard of review which has historically blessed just about anything), or should such distinctions be subject to some kind of heightened judicial review standard (either “intermediate” or “strict” scrutiny)?
If the latter, then how does state enforced different sex bathrooms fit into that heightened standard of review and what is the analysis?
I’m not asking you to lay it out here, but once it has been determined that government imposed sex-based distinctions are automatically suspect, as current SCOTUS doctrine has, then that analysis has to be applied to any sex based distinction, no matter how seemingly benign.
And ISTM that the historical reasons for different bathrooms for the sexes has to do with female chastity, sexual mores, and morality and nothing at all to do with tamping down sexual predation. Indeed, the argument that we need to maintain a state enforced sexual classification because sex X tends to be more aggressive, be frail, be prone to predation, need protection, more responsible etc. is part of the reason for making sex a protected classification in the first place (and indeed SCOTUS has struck down statutes that were justified by one or more of those arguments).
AFAICT your argument is based on the fact (which is true as far as i know) that men are more likely to be sexual predators. Does that carry constitutional muster for bathroom distinctions? You say yes. Does that carry constitutional muster should the same argument be used to, say, ban men from teaching (or other) positions in public Elementary Schools? Or from being pediatricians or OB-GYNs? If not, then what is the basis for the distinction?
McKinney – Again, the point is not about a specific freestanding right for women to use the men’s restroom. It’s about state imposed / sanctioned / enforced discrimination on the basis of sex.
To put it differently, do you believe that the federal and state governments should be free to make sex-based distinctions with only minimal judicial oversight (the “rational basis” standard of review which has historically blessed just about anything), or should such distinctions be subject to some kind of heightened judicial review standard (either “intermediate” or “strict” scrutiny)?
If the latter, then how does state enforced different sex bathrooms fit into that heightened standard of review and what is the analysis?
I’m not asking you to lay it out here, but once it has been determined that government imposed sex-based distinctions are automatically suspect, as current SCOTUS doctrine has, then that analysis has to be applied to any sex based distinction, no matter how seemingly benign.
And ISTM that the historical reasons for different bathrooms for the sexes has to do with female chastity, sexual mores, and morality and nothing at all to do with tamping down sexual predation. Indeed, the argument that we need to maintain a state enforced sexual classification because sex X tends to be more aggressive, be frail, be prone to predation, need protection, more responsible etc. is part of the reason for making sex a protected classification in the first place (and indeed SCOTUS has struck down statutes that were justified by one or more of those arguments).
AFAICT your argument is based on the fact (which is true as far as i know) that men are more likely to be sexual predators. Does that carry constitutional muster for bathroom distinctions? You say yes. Does that carry constitutional muster should the same argument be used to, say, ban men from teaching (or other) positions in public Elementary Schools? Or from being pediatricians or OB-GYNs? If not, then what is the basis for the distinction?
McKinney – Again, the point is not about a specific freestanding right for women to use the men’s restroom. It’s about state imposed / sanctioned / enforced discrimination on the basis of sex.
To put it differently, do you believe that the federal and state governments should be free to make sex-based distinctions with only minimal judicial oversight (the “rational basis” standard of review which has historically blessed just about anything), or should such distinctions be subject to some kind of heightened judicial review standard (either “intermediate” or “strict” scrutiny)?
If the latter, then how does state enforced different sex bathrooms fit into that heightened standard of review and what is the analysis?
I’m not asking you to lay it out here, but once it has been determined that government imposed sex-based distinctions are automatically suspect, as current SCOTUS doctrine has, then that analysis has to be applied to any sex based distinction, no matter how seemingly benign.
And ISTM that the historical reasons for different bathrooms for the sexes has to do with female chastity, sexual mores, and morality and nothing at all to do with tamping down sexual predation. Indeed, the argument that we need to maintain a state enforced sexual classification because sex X tends to be more aggressive, be frail, be prone to predation, need protection, more responsible etc. is part of the reason for making sex a protected classification in the first place (and indeed SCOTUS has struck down statutes that were justified by one or more of those arguments).
AFAICT your argument is based on the fact (which is true as far as i know) that men are more likely to be sexual predators. Does that carry constitutional muster for bathroom distinctions? You say yes. Does that carry constitutional muster should the same argument be used to, say, ban men from teaching (or other) positions in public Elementary Schools? Or from being pediatricians or OB-GYNs? If not, then what is the basis for the distinction?
It’s about state imposed / sanctioned / enforced discrimination on the basis of sex.
First, unless I missed it, discrimination is not unconstitutional, only invidious discrimination. You will have to explain by separate bathrooms by sex are invidiously discriminatory.
To put it differently, do you believe that the federal and state governments should be free to make sex-based distinctions with only minimal judicial oversight (the “rational basis” standard of review which has historically blessed just about anything), or should such distinctions be subject to some kind of heightened judicial review standard (either “intermediate” or “strict” scrutiny)?
Sex based distinctions make sense when a person’s sex actually matters. BTW, you’ve moved from “discrimination” to “distinction”. Which is it? Preventing a woman from doing something a man is allowed to do–or vice versa–is, in almost every context, invidiously discriminatory. Separate bathrooms do not rise to the level of *invidious*, so you never get to which standard of review applies.
If the latter, then how does state enforced different sex bathrooms fit into that heightened standard of review and what is the analysis?
Because it isn’t invidious discrimination, you never get to any standard of review, other than maybe “rational basis”.
I’m not asking you to lay it out here, but once it has been determined that government imposed sex-based distinctions are automatically suspect, as current SCOTUS doctrine has,
They may be facially suspect, but surely not in every instance regardless of substance. If so, then the fuckers on the SCT went crazy when no one was looking.
then that analysis has to be applied to any sex based distinction, no matter how seemingly benign.
This is what happens when rote, mechanistic principles are applied irrespective of context: you get stupid outcomes.
And ISTM that the historical reasons for different bathrooms for the sexes has to do with female chastity, sexual mores, and morality and nothing at all to do with tamping down sexual predation.
Yes, and historically we understood very little about pedophilia, it’s prevalence, or the prevalence of sexual predation AND no one was talking about allowing men in the women’s bathroom. It was less chastity, sexual mores, etc, than just straight up privacy. Does you wife want you in close proximity when she’s using the bathroom? I doubt it.
Indeed, the argument that we need to maintain a state enforced sexual classification because sex X tends to be more aggressive, be frail, be prone to predation, need protection, more responsible etc. is part of the reason for making sex a protected classification in the first place (and indeed SCOTUS has struck down statutes that were justified by one or more of those arguments).
I guess the Orwellian “yes means yes” regime is unconstitutional then. Aside from its gross due process problems.
AFAICT your argument is based on the fact (which is true as far as i know) that men are more likely to be sexual predators.
That and privacy. And a general resistance to dumbass rule changes because some asshole has decided in the name of his/her BS ideology that it’s time to change the rules for no better reason than the asshole thinks its time for a change.
Does that carry constitutional muster for bathroom distinctions?
You say yes.
Yes, because it’s not invidious discrimination. If anything, your construction–and for all I know, SCOTUS’–is arbitrary and capricious.
Does that carry constitutional muster should the same argument be used to, say, ban men from teaching (or other) positions in public Elementary Schools? Or from being pediatricians or OB-GYNs? If not, then what is the basis for the distinction?
Ok, if you want to make the pitch that performing bodily functions, changing clothes, nursing a child are the functional equivalent of teaching or rendering professional services, have at it. It’s why debating with ideologues–no offense–is such a pain in the ass. Believe me, my Tea Party amigos drive me equally bonkers.
It’s about state imposed / sanctioned / enforced discrimination on the basis of sex.
First, unless I missed it, discrimination is not unconstitutional, only invidious discrimination. You will have to explain by separate bathrooms by sex are invidiously discriminatory.
To put it differently, do you believe that the federal and state governments should be free to make sex-based distinctions with only minimal judicial oversight (the “rational basis” standard of review which has historically blessed just about anything), or should such distinctions be subject to some kind of heightened judicial review standard (either “intermediate” or “strict” scrutiny)?
Sex based distinctions make sense when a person’s sex actually matters. BTW, you’ve moved from “discrimination” to “distinction”. Which is it? Preventing a woman from doing something a man is allowed to do–or vice versa–is, in almost every context, invidiously discriminatory. Separate bathrooms do not rise to the level of *invidious*, so you never get to which standard of review applies.
If the latter, then how does state enforced different sex bathrooms fit into that heightened standard of review and what is the analysis?
Because it isn’t invidious discrimination, you never get to any standard of review, other than maybe “rational basis”.
I’m not asking you to lay it out here, but once it has been determined that government imposed sex-based distinctions are automatically suspect, as current SCOTUS doctrine has,
They may be facially suspect, but surely not in every instance regardless of substance. If so, then the fuckers on the SCT went crazy when no one was looking.
then that analysis has to be applied to any sex based distinction, no matter how seemingly benign.
This is what happens when rote, mechanistic principles are applied irrespective of context: you get stupid outcomes.
And ISTM that the historical reasons for different bathrooms for the sexes has to do with female chastity, sexual mores, and morality and nothing at all to do with tamping down sexual predation.
Yes, and historically we understood very little about pedophilia, it’s prevalence, or the prevalence of sexual predation AND no one was talking about allowing men in the women’s bathroom. It was less chastity, sexual mores, etc, than just straight up privacy. Does you wife want you in close proximity when she’s using the bathroom? I doubt it.
Indeed, the argument that we need to maintain a state enforced sexual classification because sex X tends to be more aggressive, be frail, be prone to predation, need protection, more responsible etc. is part of the reason for making sex a protected classification in the first place (and indeed SCOTUS has struck down statutes that were justified by one or more of those arguments).
I guess the Orwellian “yes means yes” regime is unconstitutional then. Aside from its gross due process problems.
AFAICT your argument is based on the fact (which is true as far as i know) that men are more likely to be sexual predators.
That and privacy. And a general resistance to dumbass rule changes because some asshole has decided in the name of his/her BS ideology that it’s time to change the rules for no better reason than the asshole thinks its time for a change.
Does that carry constitutional muster for bathroom distinctions?
You say yes.
Yes, because it’s not invidious discrimination. If anything, your construction–and for all I know, SCOTUS’–is arbitrary and capricious.
Does that carry constitutional muster should the same argument be used to, say, ban men from teaching (or other) positions in public Elementary Schools? Or from being pediatricians or OB-GYNs? If not, then what is the basis for the distinction?
Ok, if you want to make the pitch that performing bodily functions, changing clothes, nursing a child are the functional equivalent of teaching or rendering professional services, have at it. It’s why debating with ideologues–no offense–is such a pain in the ass. Believe me, my Tea Party amigos drive me equally bonkers.
It’s about state imposed / sanctioned / enforced discrimination on the basis of sex.
First, unless I missed it, discrimination is not unconstitutional, only invidious discrimination. You will have to explain by separate bathrooms by sex are invidiously discriminatory.
To put it differently, do you believe that the federal and state governments should be free to make sex-based distinctions with only minimal judicial oversight (the “rational basis” standard of review which has historically blessed just about anything), or should such distinctions be subject to some kind of heightened judicial review standard (either “intermediate” or “strict” scrutiny)?
Sex based distinctions make sense when a person’s sex actually matters. BTW, you’ve moved from “discrimination” to “distinction”. Which is it? Preventing a woman from doing something a man is allowed to do–or vice versa–is, in almost every context, invidiously discriminatory. Separate bathrooms do not rise to the level of *invidious*, so you never get to which standard of review applies.
If the latter, then how does state enforced different sex bathrooms fit into that heightened standard of review and what is the analysis?
Because it isn’t invidious discrimination, you never get to any standard of review, other than maybe “rational basis”.
I’m not asking you to lay it out here, but once it has been determined that government imposed sex-based distinctions are automatically suspect, as current SCOTUS doctrine has,
They may be facially suspect, but surely not in every instance regardless of substance. If so, then the fuckers on the SCT went crazy when no one was looking.
then that analysis has to be applied to any sex based distinction, no matter how seemingly benign.
This is what happens when rote, mechanistic principles are applied irrespective of context: you get stupid outcomes.
And ISTM that the historical reasons for different bathrooms for the sexes has to do with female chastity, sexual mores, and morality and nothing at all to do with tamping down sexual predation.
Yes, and historically we understood very little about pedophilia, it’s prevalence, or the prevalence of sexual predation AND no one was talking about allowing men in the women’s bathroom. It was less chastity, sexual mores, etc, than just straight up privacy. Does you wife want you in close proximity when she’s using the bathroom? I doubt it.
Indeed, the argument that we need to maintain a state enforced sexual classification because sex X tends to be more aggressive, be frail, be prone to predation, need protection, more responsible etc. is part of the reason for making sex a protected classification in the first place (and indeed SCOTUS has struck down statutes that were justified by one or more of those arguments).
I guess the Orwellian “yes means yes” regime is unconstitutional then. Aside from its gross due process problems.
AFAICT your argument is based on the fact (which is true as far as i know) that men are more likely to be sexual predators.
That and privacy. And a general resistance to dumbass rule changes because some asshole has decided in the name of his/her BS ideology that it’s time to change the rules for no better reason than the asshole thinks its time for a change.
Does that carry constitutional muster for bathroom distinctions?
You say yes.
Yes, because it’s not invidious discrimination. If anything, your construction–and for all I know, SCOTUS’–is arbitrary and capricious.
Does that carry constitutional muster should the same argument be used to, say, ban men from teaching (or other) positions in public Elementary Schools? Or from being pediatricians or OB-GYNs? If not, then what is the basis for the distinction?
Ok, if you want to make the pitch that performing bodily functions, changing clothes, nursing a child are the functional equivalent of teaching or rendering professional services, have at it. It’s why debating with ideologues–no offense–is such a pain in the ass. Believe me, my Tea Party amigos drive me equally bonkers.
Well, here is the wikipedia page for “intermediate scrutiny.”
As it notes, “in order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.”
And that, “In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination.” Note it begins sex-based “classification” hence my use of “distinction” rather than “discrimination.”
As I understand it, if the government makes a sex based classification, it’s going to have to justify it under the intermediate scrutiny standard.
And it’s arguments like “Sex based distinctions make sense when a person’s sex actually matters,” that are the root of the problem in the fist place. “Everyone knows” that women can’t be lawyers because “On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.”
Admittedly the quote is from a concurrence to the SCOTUS opinion ruling against the woman.
Well, here is the wikipedia page for “intermediate scrutiny.”
As it notes, “in order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.”
And that, “In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination.” Note it begins sex-based “classification” hence my use of “distinction” rather than “discrimination.”
As I understand it, if the government makes a sex based classification, it’s going to have to justify it under the intermediate scrutiny standard.
And it’s arguments like “Sex based distinctions make sense when a person’s sex actually matters,” that are the root of the problem in the fist place. “Everyone knows” that women can’t be lawyers because “On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.”
Admittedly the quote is from a concurrence to the SCOTUS opinion ruling against the woman.
Well, here is the wikipedia page for “intermediate scrutiny.”
As it notes, “in order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.”
And that, “In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination.” Note it begins sex-based “classification” hence my use of “distinction” rather than “discrimination.”
As I understand it, if the government makes a sex based classification, it’s going to have to justify it under the intermediate scrutiny standard.
And it’s arguments like “Sex based distinctions make sense when a person’s sex actually matters,” that are the root of the problem in the fist place. “Everyone knows” that women can’t be lawyers because “On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.”
Admittedly the quote is from a concurrence to the SCOTUS opinion ruling against the woman.
I confess I’m puzzled by this whole discussion. My assumption is that a biological woman, for example, who is transgender male is, as a matter of preference, going to dress and look and generally act like a man. Is this not so? Why then would that person arouse any concern at all on entering the men’s room. And vice-versa.
It wasn’t a practical question, rather a theoretical one about McKinney’s proposed standard for gender. What I wanted to know is whether or not a birth-assigned male who presented as female would, in theory, be compelled to use the women’s room, as opposed to simply being allowed to use the women’s room.
The practical side is that the overwhelming majority of people will use whatever bathroom they would have used in the absence of any of these laws, be they trans accommodating or enforcements of birth assignment. That includes pervs who want to follow women and girls into the women’s room. I don’t even know what someone would have gotten charged with simply for entering the “wrong” bathroom in a public place so long as they didn’t cause trouble, but here’s something I googled:
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/is-it-illegal-for-a-man-to-use-the-ladies-room/
The sexual-predation thing seems like an overblown issue insofar is it concerns the trans-accommodation laws in question.. (I italicized for emphasis because I’m little tired of being lectured about how cavalier I must be about sexual assault, as though I think it’s a non-problem in general.) Sexual assault is a far more serious crime than any of those listed in the link above, at least certainly the ones that would have any likelihood of applying. I don’t see why someone who isn’t deterred by the penalties for sexual assault is going to care about, say, trespassing.
I confess I’m puzzled by this whole discussion. My assumption is that a biological woman, for example, who is transgender male is, as a matter of preference, going to dress and look and generally act like a man. Is this not so? Why then would that person arouse any concern at all on entering the men’s room. And vice-versa.
It wasn’t a practical question, rather a theoretical one about McKinney’s proposed standard for gender. What I wanted to know is whether or not a birth-assigned male who presented as female would, in theory, be compelled to use the women’s room, as opposed to simply being allowed to use the women’s room.
The practical side is that the overwhelming majority of people will use whatever bathroom they would have used in the absence of any of these laws, be they trans accommodating or enforcements of birth assignment. That includes pervs who want to follow women and girls into the women’s room. I don’t even know what someone would have gotten charged with simply for entering the “wrong” bathroom in a public place so long as they didn’t cause trouble, but here’s something I googled:
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/is-it-illegal-for-a-man-to-use-the-ladies-room/
The sexual-predation thing seems like an overblown issue insofar is it concerns the trans-accommodation laws in question.. (I italicized for emphasis because I’m little tired of being lectured about how cavalier I must be about sexual assault, as though I think it’s a non-problem in general.) Sexual assault is a far more serious crime than any of those listed in the link above, at least certainly the ones that would have any likelihood of applying. I don’t see why someone who isn’t deterred by the penalties for sexual assault is going to care about, say, trespassing.
I confess I’m puzzled by this whole discussion. My assumption is that a biological woman, for example, who is transgender male is, as a matter of preference, going to dress and look and generally act like a man. Is this not so? Why then would that person arouse any concern at all on entering the men’s room. And vice-versa.
It wasn’t a practical question, rather a theoretical one about McKinney’s proposed standard for gender. What I wanted to know is whether or not a birth-assigned male who presented as female would, in theory, be compelled to use the women’s room, as opposed to simply being allowed to use the women’s room.
The practical side is that the overwhelming majority of people will use whatever bathroom they would have used in the absence of any of these laws, be they trans accommodating or enforcements of birth assignment. That includes pervs who want to follow women and girls into the women’s room. I don’t even know what someone would have gotten charged with simply for entering the “wrong” bathroom in a public place so long as they didn’t cause trouble, but here’s something I googled:
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/is-it-illegal-for-a-man-to-use-the-ladies-room/
The sexual-predation thing seems like an overblown issue insofar is it concerns the trans-accommodation laws in question.. (I italicized for emphasis because I’m little tired of being lectured about how cavalier I must be about sexual assault, as though I think it’s a non-problem in general.) Sexual assault is a far more serious crime than any of those listed in the link above, at least certainly the ones that would have any likelihood of applying. I don’t see why someone who isn’t deterred by the penalties for sexual assault is going to care about, say, trespassing.
“In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination.”
I see the word “discrimination” here. Can you please explain why separate bathrooms are discriminatory? Who is being harmed in any meaningful way?
“In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination.”
I see the word “discrimination” here. Can you please explain why separate bathrooms are discriminatory? Who is being harmed in any meaningful way?
“In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination.”
I see the word “discrimination” here. Can you please explain why separate bathrooms are discriminatory? Who is being harmed in any meaningful way?
I would say the question is whether it is unconstitutionally discriminatory or constitutionally discriminatory when a statute on its face distinguishes between the sexes. That is, the statute treats men and women differently and in order to do that under intermediate scrutiny the statue must satisfy the standard. You may say no one is being treated differently, but that it seems to me is similar to the argument defending miscegenation statutes in Loving V Virginia.
That is white people are just as prohibited fr marrying black people as black people are prohibited from marrying white people therefore there’s no racial discrimination.
I would say the question is whether it is unconstitutionally discriminatory or constitutionally discriminatory when a statute on its face distinguishes between the sexes. That is, the statute treats men and women differently and in order to do that under intermediate scrutiny the statue must satisfy the standard. You may say no one is being treated differently, but that it seems to me is similar to the argument defending miscegenation statutes in Loving V Virginia.
That is white people are just as prohibited fr marrying black people as black people are prohibited from marrying white people therefore there’s no racial discrimination.
I would say the question is whether it is unconstitutionally discriminatory or constitutionally discriminatory when a statute on its face distinguishes between the sexes. That is, the statute treats men and women differently and in order to do that under intermediate scrutiny the statue must satisfy the standard. You may say no one is being treated differently, but that it seems to me is similar to the argument defending miscegenation statutes in Loving V Virginia.
That is white people are just as prohibited fr marrying black people as black people are prohibited from marrying white people therefore there’s no racial discrimination.
That is white people are just as prohibited fr marrying black people as black people are prohibited from marrying white people therefore there’s no racial discrimination.
Except that in Loving, a black and a white person wanted to marry. I don’t think anyone has brought suit alleging that using the opposite sex’s restroom is a basic right which, to them, is being denied. Really.
So, explain why using the opposite sex’s restroom is a basic right. No one is being denied equality under the law. In these very limited instances, separate facilities are not discriminatory, because there is no material, substantive difference or outcome based on where someone performs bodily functions or changes clothes.
That is white people are just as prohibited fr marrying black people as black people are prohibited from marrying white people therefore there’s no racial discrimination.
Except that in Loving, a black and a white person wanted to marry. I don’t think anyone has brought suit alleging that using the opposite sex’s restroom is a basic right which, to them, is being denied. Really.
So, explain why using the opposite sex’s restroom is a basic right. No one is being denied equality under the law. In these very limited instances, separate facilities are not discriminatory, because there is no material, substantive difference or outcome based on where someone performs bodily functions or changes clothes.
That is white people are just as prohibited fr marrying black people as black people are prohibited from marrying white people therefore there’s no racial discrimination.
Except that in Loving, a black and a white person wanted to marry. I don’t think anyone has brought suit alleging that using the opposite sex’s restroom is a basic right which, to them, is being denied. Really.
So, explain why using the opposite sex’s restroom is a basic right. No one is being denied equality under the law. In these very limited instances, separate facilities are not discriminatory, because there is no material, substantive difference or outcome based on where someone performs bodily functions or changes clothes.
What I wanted to know is whether or not a birth-assigned male who presented as female would, in theory, be compelled to use the women’s room, as opposed to simply being allowed to use the women’s room.
It’s a policy question on which I would vote that you are bound by how you live and present. I’m not worried about transgenders. The law should recognize that some people are born in the wrong body, and when they change that body, they become who they should have been in the first place. I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others. Or, in Ugh’s world, I’m opposed to disallowing same sex bathrooms because it is, in some incoherent form or fashion, discriminatory.
As a practical matter, women will rarely use the men’s room other than in extremis (google “houston potty parity” as an example). The issue is men, and more specifically sexual predators, whether they are voyeurs, exhibitionists or physical threats to women or young girls.
As for deterrence, the reasoning above is misplaced. What keeps most bad men out of women’s restrooms is that the mere act of entering is a crime. Most are deterred, some are not. In Ugh’s world, men can enter legally, they just can’t do anything illegal. As if “accidents” won’t happen, as if “she misunderstood me, I was just trying to help” won’t be the next get of jail free cards. Meanwhile, the traumatized women/girl has no recourse. None. Fuck that.
What I wanted to know is whether or not a birth-assigned male who presented as female would, in theory, be compelled to use the women’s room, as opposed to simply being allowed to use the women’s room.
It’s a policy question on which I would vote that you are bound by how you live and present. I’m not worried about transgenders. The law should recognize that some people are born in the wrong body, and when they change that body, they become who they should have been in the first place. I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others. Or, in Ugh’s world, I’m opposed to disallowing same sex bathrooms because it is, in some incoherent form or fashion, discriminatory.
As a practical matter, women will rarely use the men’s room other than in extremis (google “houston potty parity” as an example). The issue is men, and more specifically sexual predators, whether they are voyeurs, exhibitionists or physical threats to women or young girls.
As for deterrence, the reasoning above is misplaced. What keeps most bad men out of women’s restrooms is that the mere act of entering is a crime. Most are deterred, some are not. In Ugh’s world, men can enter legally, they just can’t do anything illegal. As if “accidents” won’t happen, as if “she misunderstood me, I was just trying to help” won’t be the next get of jail free cards. Meanwhile, the traumatized women/girl has no recourse. None. Fuck that.
What I wanted to know is whether or not a birth-assigned male who presented as female would, in theory, be compelled to use the women’s room, as opposed to simply being allowed to use the women’s room.
It’s a policy question on which I would vote that you are bound by how you live and present. I’m not worried about transgenders. The law should recognize that some people are born in the wrong body, and when they change that body, they become who they should have been in the first place. I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others. Or, in Ugh’s world, I’m opposed to disallowing same sex bathrooms because it is, in some incoherent form or fashion, discriminatory.
As a practical matter, women will rarely use the men’s room other than in extremis (google “houston potty parity” as an example). The issue is men, and more specifically sexual predators, whether they are voyeurs, exhibitionists or physical threats to women or young girls.
As for deterrence, the reasoning above is misplaced. What keeps most bad men out of women’s restrooms is that the mere act of entering is a crime. Most are deterred, some are not. In Ugh’s world, men can enter legally, they just can’t do anything illegal. As if “accidents” won’t happen, as if “she misunderstood me, I was just trying to help” won’t be the next get of jail free cards. Meanwhile, the traumatized women/girl has no recourse. None. Fuck that.
Perhaps you can clear up for me at what point we reach invidious discrimination. For example, if the size of the facilities for men and women are equal, does that ipso facto mean that there is no discrimination? Or does the fact that the women’s restrooms routinely have lines while the men’s do not constitute evidence of discrimination?
Note, I am not talking about who uses which restroom. I’m just trying to get clear about how we determine what is problematic discrimination, and at what point it becomes “invidious.”
Thanks
Perhaps you can clear up for me at what point we reach invidious discrimination. For example, if the size of the facilities for men and women are equal, does that ipso facto mean that there is no discrimination? Or does the fact that the women’s restrooms routinely have lines while the men’s do not constitute evidence of discrimination?
Note, I am not talking about who uses which restroom. I’m just trying to get clear about how we determine what is problematic discrimination, and at what point it becomes “invidious.”
Thanks
Perhaps you can clear up for me at what point we reach invidious discrimination. For example, if the size of the facilities for men and women are equal, does that ipso facto mean that there is no discrimination? Or does the fact that the women’s restrooms routinely have lines while the men’s do not constitute evidence of discrimination?
Note, I am not talking about who uses which restroom. I’m just trying to get clear about how we determine what is problematic discrimination, and at what point it becomes “invidious.”
Thanks
Are we discussing Houston or NC?
If the law in Houston is as McT says, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I agree with him when he says,
I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others. Or for less villainous amusement.
Let’s leave predation aside and just consider something simple like “being uncomfortable.” So John (intentional) is male, looks, dresses, and acts male, but feels that his proper gender is female. We tell John to use the men’s room. He is uncomfortable. Well, OK, I can understand that. But if he uses the women’s room he is going to make a lot of other people uncomfortable, and their reasons are no worse, and carry as much weight, as John’s.
If this boils down to a matter of personal comfort then doesn’t everyone count the same?
I don’t think the Loving example is analogous, because the right being denied in Loving was a right of two people to do something jointly.
Are we discussing Houston or NC?
If the law in Houston is as McT says, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I agree with him when he says,
I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others. Or for less villainous amusement.
Let’s leave predation aside and just consider something simple like “being uncomfortable.” So John (intentional) is male, looks, dresses, and acts male, but feels that his proper gender is female. We tell John to use the men’s room. He is uncomfortable. Well, OK, I can understand that. But if he uses the women’s room he is going to make a lot of other people uncomfortable, and their reasons are no worse, and carry as much weight, as John’s.
If this boils down to a matter of personal comfort then doesn’t everyone count the same?
I don’t think the Loving example is analogous, because the right being denied in Loving was a right of two people to do something jointly.
Are we discussing Houston or NC?
If the law in Houston is as McT says, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I agree with him when he says,
I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others. Or for less villainous amusement.
Let’s leave predation aside and just consider something simple like “being uncomfortable.” So John (intentional) is male, looks, dresses, and acts male, but feels that his proper gender is female. We tell John to use the men’s room. He is uncomfortable. Well, OK, I can understand that. But if he uses the women’s room he is going to make a lot of other people uncomfortable, and their reasons are no worse, and carry as much weight, as John’s.
If this boils down to a matter of personal comfort then doesn’t everyone count the same?
I don’t think the Loving example is analogous, because the right being denied in Loving was a right of two people to do something jointly.
If this boils down to a matter of personal comfort then doesn’t everyone count the same?
At the risk of being offensive (:-), you are channeling my opposition to the Houston ordinance.
If this boils down to a matter of personal comfort then doesn’t everyone count the same?
At the risk of being offensive (:-), you are channeling my opposition to the Houston ordinance.
If this boils down to a matter of personal comfort then doesn’t everyone count the same?
At the risk of being offensive (:-), you are channeling my opposition to the Houston ordinance.
the NC bill is an overreaction to the Charlotte ordnance that echoed the Houston law. The Governor warned the Charlotte folks that there would be a reaction, and they didn’t take his input into account. So, when the reaction came no one listened to the original concerns.
I find it curious – yet curiously unsurprising – that in a thread that touches on unwelcome sexual advances Marty comes up with the classic rape defense: “They were asking for it!”
the NC bill is an overreaction to the Charlotte ordnance that echoed the Houston law. The Governor warned the Charlotte folks that there would be a reaction, and they didn’t take his input into account. So, when the reaction came no one listened to the original concerns.
I find it curious – yet curiously unsurprising – that in a thread that touches on unwelcome sexual advances Marty comes up with the classic rape defense: “They were asking for it!”
the NC bill is an overreaction to the Charlotte ordnance that echoed the Houston law. The Governor warned the Charlotte folks that there would be a reaction, and they didn’t take his input into account. So, when the reaction came no one listened to the original concerns.
I find it curious – yet curiously unsurprising – that in a thread that touches on unwelcome sexual advances Marty comes up with the classic rape defense: “They were asking for it!”
I wonder if we’re confusedly mostly agreeing with each other. I think Marty is the only one who agrees that the North Carolina version of the law makes sense–that gender assigned at birth is immutable and reflects the bathroom you should use, no matter that you’ve transitioned since birth.
Marty, do I have your opinion wrong? Do you also disagree with the North Carolina “use the restroom of your birth gender” statute?
I wonder if we’re confusedly mostly agreeing with each other. I think Marty is the only one who agrees that the North Carolina version of the law makes sense–that gender assigned at birth is immutable and reflects the bathroom you should use, no matter that you’ve transitioned since birth.
Marty, do I have your opinion wrong? Do you also disagree with the North Carolina “use the restroom of your birth gender” statute?
I wonder if we’re confusedly mostly agreeing with each other. I think Marty is the only one who agrees that the North Carolina version of the law makes sense–that gender assigned at birth is immutable and reflects the bathroom you should use, no matter that you’ve transitioned since birth.
Marty, do I have your opinion wrong? Do you also disagree with the North Carolina “use the restroom of your birth gender” statute?
I’m waiting for the ObWi women to declare they are fine with men joining them and their daughters in the restroom.
Well. I have to admit that much as I try, out of respect for you all, to follow this thread while concentrating, I find that my eyes glaze over within a couple of sentences. This subject does not seem worthy of the kind of detailed discussion being lavished on it. However, I can give a numbered list of comments, a la McK’s request.
1. I’ve never as far as I can recall had a man join me in a restroom. I think, on doing the thought experiment, that I wouldn’t mind if there were other women around, but might possibly be anxious if I was alone and the man had a weird vibe. Ergo, I probably prefer separate restrooms if there’s space.
2. I almost always want a “What Russell Said” button. Seriously, he generally seems the very soul and definition of reasonableness.
3. McKinney’s concern about women and kids being safe from sexual predation does him credit, but on the other hand, his conviction that a majority of us are loony lefty knee-jerk liberals who are always convinced we are right, and comparing us to a mirror image of the Tea Party is just nuts.
4. We have an open thread. Why are we talking about this subject, while Rome burns? McKinney, you favoured Fiorina, and Marty you favoured Jeb. Where are you both going from here?
I’m waiting for the ObWi women to declare they are fine with men joining them and their daughters in the restroom.
Well. I have to admit that much as I try, out of respect for you all, to follow this thread while concentrating, I find that my eyes glaze over within a couple of sentences. This subject does not seem worthy of the kind of detailed discussion being lavished on it. However, I can give a numbered list of comments, a la McK’s request.
1. I’ve never as far as I can recall had a man join me in a restroom. I think, on doing the thought experiment, that I wouldn’t mind if there were other women around, but might possibly be anxious if I was alone and the man had a weird vibe. Ergo, I probably prefer separate restrooms if there’s space.
2. I almost always want a “What Russell Said” button. Seriously, he generally seems the very soul and definition of reasonableness.
3. McKinney’s concern about women and kids being safe from sexual predation does him credit, but on the other hand, his conviction that a majority of us are loony lefty knee-jerk liberals who are always convinced we are right, and comparing us to a mirror image of the Tea Party is just nuts.
4. We have an open thread. Why are we talking about this subject, while Rome burns? McKinney, you favoured Fiorina, and Marty you favoured Jeb. Where are you both going from here?
I’m waiting for the ObWi women to declare they are fine with men joining them and their daughters in the restroom.
Well. I have to admit that much as I try, out of respect for you all, to follow this thread while concentrating, I find that my eyes glaze over within a couple of sentences. This subject does not seem worthy of the kind of detailed discussion being lavished on it. However, I can give a numbered list of comments, a la McK’s request.
1. I’ve never as far as I can recall had a man join me in a restroom. I think, on doing the thought experiment, that I wouldn’t mind if there were other women around, but might possibly be anxious if I was alone and the man had a weird vibe. Ergo, I probably prefer separate restrooms if there’s space.
2. I almost always want a “What Russell Said” button. Seriously, he generally seems the very soul and definition of reasonableness.
3. McKinney’s concern about women and kids being safe from sexual predation does him credit, but on the other hand, his conviction that a majority of us are loony lefty knee-jerk liberals who are always convinced we are right, and comparing us to a mirror image of the Tea Party is just nuts.
4. We have an open thread. Why are we talking about this subject, while Rome burns? McKinney, you favoured Fiorina, and Marty you favoured Jeb. Where are you both going from here?
Life requires a little common sense.
The topic began as a discussion of a law passed in North Carolina. The law generally prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and as part of that, states that people can use public bathrooms appropriate for the gender they identify as, even if that is not their biological gender of birth.
The obvious (I would think) point being that, if you present yourself in the world as a woman, you may use the ladies room, and if as a man, you may use the men’s.
Which is most likely what folks like that do now, and have done. Most of us, at some point or other, have no doubt shared a bathroom with someone whose official birth gender would have directed them to a different facility. Most likely, when that happened, we were not even aware of it.
All the law states is that folks be allowed to do that.
The state of North Carolina has responded to what strikes me as an eminently sensible and pragmatic policy by requiring, by law, folks to only use public restrooms appropriate to the gender that is on their birth certificate.
Aside from questions of fairness or civil rights, that is a policy that is, for all practical purposes, not enforceable short of some kind of extremely intrusive inspection of people’s private parts, combined with a requirement for people to carry their birth certificates around with them all the time.
Regardless of how you feel about trans-gendered people, or just people who dress and generally present themselves as the opposite gender, it’s a stupid freaking law, because nobody is going to put up with what will be required to enforce it.
So instead of addressing the fact that the law is a piece of pointless intrusive nonsense, folks want to argue about sexual predation.
The assumption being, apparently, that men who want to prey upon women are going to claim that they “identify as” females, so that they can sneak into the ladies room and assault women there.
At the risk of pointing out the glaringly obvious, unless there are armed guards at the doors of the public bathrooms in your town, sexual predators can do that now. They don’t have to pretend to “identify as” women, they can just walk into the ladies room and assault whoever they like.
It’s not like there is some weird lock on the door that only opens at the touch of an apparently feminine hand.
Sexual predation is a problem, and deserves all the concern and attention we can give it.
As far as I can tell it has bugger all to do with the law in Charlotte, and likely has little or nothing to do with the law in Houston.
The same ambiguity that McK worries about regarding the topic of ‘gender identity’ applies when people who look and behave like men are forced to use the ladies room because their birth certificate says “gender: female”.
Life is complicated, some people don’t fit exactly into the binary classification of clearly and unambiguously one gender or the other. Or, they appear to fit clearly and unambiguously into one or the other, but it might not be the one they were born as.
And, those folks occasionally have to use a public loo.
The law in Charlotte says you’re allowed to use the one that is most appropriate for the gender you appear to be.
I can’t think of anything more sensible than that.
Life requires a little common sense.
The topic began as a discussion of a law passed in North Carolina. The law generally prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and as part of that, states that people can use public bathrooms appropriate for the gender they identify as, even if that is not their biological gender of birth.
The obvious (I would think) point being that, if you present yourself in the world as a woman, you may use the ladies room, and if as a man, you may use the men’s.
Which is most likely what folks like that do now, and have done. Most of us, at some point or other, have no doubt shared a bathroom with someone whose official birth gender would have directed them to a different facility. Most likely, when that happened, we were not even aware of it.
All the law states is that folks be allowed to do that.
The state of North Carolina has responded to what strikes me as an eminently sensible and pragmatic policy by requiring, by law, folks to only use public restrooms appropriate to the gender that is on their birth certificate.
Aside from questions of fairness or civil rights, that is a policy that is, for all practical purposes, not enforceable short of some kind of extremely intrusive inspection of people’s private parts, combined with a requirement for people to carry their birth certificates around with them all the time.
Regardless of how you feel about trans-gendered people, or just people who dress and generally present themselves as the opposite gender, it’s a stupid freaking law, because nobody is going to put up with what will be required to enforce it.
So instead of addressing the fact that the law is a piece of pointless intrusive nonsense, folks want to argue about sexual predation.
The assumption being, apparently, that men who want to prey upon women are going to claim that they “identify as” females, so that they can sneak into the ladies room and assault women there.
At the risk of pointing out the glaringly obvious, unless there are armed guards at the doors of the public bathrooms in your town, sexual predators can do that now. They don’t have to pretend to “identify as” women, they can just walk into the ladies room and assault whoever they like.
It’s not like there is some weird lock on the door that only opens at the touch of an apparently feminine hand.
Sexual predation is a problem, and deserves all the concern and attention we can give it.
As far as I can tell it has bugger all to do with the law in Charlotte, and likely has little or nothing to do with the law in Houston.
The same ambiguity that McK worries about regarding the topic of ‘gender identity’ applies when people who look and behave like men are forced to use the ladies room because their birth certificate says “gender: female”.
Life is complicated, some people don’t fit exactly into the binary classification of clearly and unambiguously one gender or the other. Or, they appear to fit clearly and unambiguously into one or the other, but it might not be the one they were born as.
And, those folks occasionally have to use a public loo.
The law in Charlotte says you’re allowed to use the one that is most appropriate for the gender you appear to be.
I can’t think of anything more sensible than that.
Life requires a little common sense.
The topic began as a discussion of a law passed in North Carolina. The law generally prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and as part of that, states that people can use public bathrooms appropriate for the gender they identify as, even if that is not their biological gender of birth.
The obvious (I would think) point being that, if you present yourself in the world as a woman, you may use the ladies room, and if as a man, you may use the men’s.
Which is most likely what folks like that do now, and have done. Most of us, at some point or other, have no doubt shared a bathroom with someone whose official birth gender would have directed them to a different facility. Most likely, when that happened, we were not even aware of it.
All the law states is that folks be allowed to do that.
The state of North Carolina has responded to what strikes me as an eminently sensible and pragmatic policy by requiring, by law, folks to only use public restrooms appropriate to the gender that is on their birth certificate.
Aside from questions of fairness or civil rights, that is a policy that is, for all practical purposes, not enforceable short of some kind of extremely intrusive inspection of people’s private parts, combined with a requirement for people to carry their birth certificates around with them all the time.
Regardless of how you feel about trans-gendered people, or just people who dress and generally present themselves as the opposite gender, it’s a stupid freaking law, because nobody is going to put up with what will be required to enforce it.
So instead of addressing the fact that the law is a piece of pointless intrusive nonsense, folks want to argue about sexual predation.
The assumption being, apparently, that men who want to prey upon women are going to claim that they “identify as” females, so that they can sneak into the ladies room and assault women there.
At the risk of pointing out the glaringly obvious, unless there are armed guards at the doors of the public bathrooms in your town, sexual predators can do that now. They don’t have to pretend to “identify as” women, they can just walk into the ladies room and assault whoever they like.
It’s not like there is some weird lock on the door that only opens at the touch of an apparently feminine hand.
Sexual predation is a problem, and deserves all the concern and attention we can give it.
As far as I can tell it has bugger all to do with the law in Charlotte, and likely has little or nothing to do with the law in Houston.
The same ambiguity that McK worries about regarding the topic of ‘gender identity’ applies when people who look and behave like men are forced to use the ladies room because their birth certificate says “gender: female”.
Life is complicated, some people don’t fit exactly into the binary classification of clearly and unambiguously one gender or the other. Or, they appear to fit clearly and unambiguously into one or the other, but it might not be the one they were born as.
And, those folks occasionally have to use a public loo.
The law in Charlotte says you’re allowed to use the one that is most appropriate for the gender you appear to be.
I can’t think of anything more sensible than that.
I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others.
If I may be allowed to state your position for you, it seems like what you find problematic is the lack of clarity about what exactly is meant by language like “the gender you identify with”.
In other words, a man who looks and acts like a man can state, perhaps on whim, and perhaps even with ill intent, that he “identifies as” a woman, and so should be allowed to use the ladies. To the discomfort and possible endangerment of all parties.
Basically, Bernie’s example.
Rather than rant about the malign intentions of lefties, perhaps it would be simpler to say that the law in Houston needs to be written with more precision.
I doubt many folks here would argue against that.
I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others.
If I may be allowed to state your position for you, it seems like what you find problematic is the lack of clarity about what exactly is meant by language like “the gender you identify with”.
In other words, a man who looks and acts like a man can state, perhaps on whim, and perhaps even with ill intent, that he “identifies as” a woman, and so should be allowed to use the ladies. To the discomfort and possible endangerment of all parties.
Basically, Bernie’s example.
Rather than rant about the malign intentions of lefties, perhaps it would be simpler to say that the law in Houston needs to be written with more precision.
I doubt many folks here would argue against that.
I am opposed to anyone being able to declare themselves to be one gender one minute and another gender another for the purpose of exploiting others.
If I may be allowed to state your position for you, it seems like what you find problematic is the lack of clarity about what exactly is meant by language like “the gender you identify with”.
In other words, a man who looks and acts like a man can state, perhaps on whim, and perhaps even with ill intent, that he “identifies as” a woman, and so should be allowed to use the ladies. To the discomfort and possible endangerment of all parties.
Basically, Bernie’s example.
Rather than rant about the malign intentions of lefties, perhaps it would be simpler to say that the law in Houston needs to be written with more precision.
I doubt many folks here would argue against that.
The state of North Carolina has responded to what strikes me as an eminently sensible and pragmatic policy by requiring, by law, folks to only use public restrooms appropriate to the gender that is on their birth certificate.
Russell, was this supposed to be in italics (i.e. a quote)? Because it seems counter to everything else you wrote here….
The state of North Carolina has responded to what strikes me as an eminently sensible and pragmatic policy by requiring, by law, folks to only use public restrooms appropriate to the gender that is on their birth certificate.
Russell, was this supposed to be in italics (i.e. a quote)? Because it seems counter to everything else you wrote here….
The state of North Carolina has responded to what strikes me as an eminently sensible and pragmatic policy by requiring, by law, folks to only use public restrooms appropriate to the gender that is on their birth certificate.
Russell, was this supposed to be in italics (i.e. a quote)? Because it seems counter to everything else you wrote here….
McKinney, I just want to say I thought your stab at a proposal from Monday the 11th was brilliantly composed. If there’s anything wrong with it, it’s not apparent to me, and I think citing ‘presentation’ is the least harmful way of dealing with it, but I’m also of the opinion it takes responsibility on the part of all parties.
I’ll shift the frame just a bit to try and explain what I mean. I’m a woman, therefore I use the women’s locker room at my gym. I’m also a lesbian, so knowing I’m attracted to other women, is it fair for me to use that locker room? Of course. Nobody’s going to expect me to use the men’s locker room, because that puts me in a horribly uncomfortable (and potentially dangerous) situation, and sets up a similar discomforting situation for the men as well. Yet women using the women’s locker room (and men using the men’s room) have to know they might be seen by members of the same sex who find them attractive.
The way I see it, my right is to use the women’s locker room, but my responsibility is not to be a creeper about it. If I accidentally catch the occasional flash of skin as someone’s stepping out of the shower, or dressing in front of me, I can’t help that. I CAN help blatantly staring at someone else though and potentially making her uncomfortable. Thus I use the locker room as a locker room, as opposed to a place to pick up women, and hopefully don’t weird anybody else out in the process. 🙂
I think the transgender bathroom situation is the similar in that respect. You should have the right to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender you prefer to present. You should also have the responsibility to avoid deliberately drawing attention to yourself while doing it, or intentionally provoking discomfort in others with your actions in that bathroom.
My experience with the (admittedly few) trans- or gender-fluid individuals I know personally is that they simply want to be left to their own devices, because when you gotta go, you gotta go, and then you leave. 🙂
McKinney, I just want to say I thought your stab at a proposal from Monday the 11th was brilliantly composed. If there’s anything wrong with it, it’s not apparent to me, and I think citing ‘presentation’ is the least harmful way of dealing with it, but I’m also of the opinion it takes responsibility on the part of all parties.
I’ll shift the frame just a bit to try and explain what I mean. I’m a woman, therefore I use the women’s locker room at my gym. I’m also a lesbian, so knowing I’m attracted to other women, is it fair for me to use that locker room? Of course. Nobody’s going to expect me to use the men’s locker room, because that puts me in a horribly uncomfortable (and potentially dangerous) situation, and sets up a similar discomforting situation for the men as well. Yet women using the women’s locker room (and men using the men’s room) have to know they might be seen by members of the same sex who find them attractive.
The way I see it, my right is to use the women’s locker room, but my responsibility is not to be a creeper about it. If I accidentally catch the occasional flash of skin as someone’s stepping out of the shower, or dressing in front of me, I can’t help that. I CAN help blatantly staring at someone else though and potentially making her uncomfortable. Thus I use the locker room as a locker room, as opposed to a place to pick up women, and hopefully don’t weird anybody else out in the process. 🙂
I think the transgender bathroom situation is the similar in that respect. You should have the right to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender you prefer to present. You should also have the responsibility to avoid deliberately drawing attention to yourself while doing it, or intentionally provoking discomfort in others with your actions in that bathroom.
My experience with the (admittedly few) trans- or gender-fluid individuals I know personally is that they simply want to be left to their own devices, because when you gotta go, you gotta go, and then you leave. 🙂
McKinney, I just want to say I thought your stab at a proposal from Monday the 11th was brilliantly composed. If there’s anything wrong with it, it’s not apparent to me, and I think citing ‘presentation’ is the least harmful way of dealing with it, but I’m also of the opinion it takes responsibility on the part of all parties.
I’ll shift the frame just a bit to try and explain what I mean. I’m a woman, therefore I use the women’s locker room at my gym. I’m also a lesbian, so knowing I’m attracted to other women, is it fair for me to use that locker room? Of course. Nobody’s going to expect me to use the men’s locker room, because that puts me in a horribly uncomfortable (and potentially dangerous) situation, and sets up a similar discomforting situation for the men as well. Yet women using the women’s locker room (and men using the men’s room) have to know they might be seen by members of the same sex who find them attractive.
The way I see it, my right is to use the women’s locker room, but my responsibility is not to be a creeper about it. If I accidentally catch the occasional flash of skin as someone’s stepping out of the shower, or dressing in front of me, I can’t help that. I CAN help blatantly staring at someone else though and potentially making her uncomfortable. Thus I use the locker room as a locker room, as opposed to a place to pick up women, and hopefully don’t weird anybody else out in the process. 🙂
I think the transgender bathroom situation is the similar in that respect. You should have the right to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender you prefer to present. You should also have the responsibility to avoid deliberately drawing attention to yourself while doing it, or intentionally provoking discomfort in others with your actions in that bathroom.
My experience with the (admittedly few) trans- or gender-fluid individuals I know personally is that they simply want to be left to their own devices, because when you gotta go, you gotta go, and then you leave. 🙂
No, it’s just an overly and unnecessarily convoluted sentence.
The Charlotte law : IMO eminently sensible and pragmatic. Use the bathroom that suits the gender you present yourself to be.
The NC response : unenforceable reactionary drivel.
No, it’s just an overly and unnecessarily convoluted sentence.
The Charlotte law : IMO eminently sensible and pragmatic. Use the bathroom that suits the gender you present yourself to be.
The NC response : unenforceable reactionary drivel.
No, it’s just an overly and unnecessarily convoluted sentence.
The Charlotte law : IMO eminently sensible and pragmatic. Use the bathroom that suits the gender you present yourself to be.
The NC response : unenforceable reactionary drivel.
Stepping back from this a bit, let me suggest that what we are seeing here is just another case of the world changing. Whether we like it or not. And the law (and society) needing to adapt to those changes.
A century ago, it didn’t matter what gender you “identified with.” Because the plumbing you were born with was what you had for life. But now, if you want to (and can afford it) you can have surgery which will make you over, at least to the naked (sorry!) eye, as a different gender. And some people are sufficiently unhappy with the way they were born that they are willing to go to the pain and expense of doing so.
That being the case, how does the law cope? (More broadly, how does society cope?) As yet, we are still at the phase where we flail around, trying to come up with something that will work “well enough.” Pretty clearly, we haven’t got there yet.
Even when we do, there will still be people who hate the solution. Or even refuse to admit that there was a problem. That will last roughly a lifetime. And then there will be only a tiny fringe left who dislikes the fact that the world changed before they were born. (We have, after all, still got folks who think that slavery was a good thing for most slaves. And should therefore have been retained. They are a fringe, but they are out there.)
P.S. Just to preempt a possible response, I’m not saying that all changes are desireable. Nor that we can never reject a change. But in some cases (and I think this is one of them), once the cat is out of the bag, it isn’t really going to be possible to turn back the clock. (Apologies for the seriously mixed metaphor.)
Stepping back from this a bit, let me suggest that what we are seeing here is just another case of the world changing. Whether we like it or not. And the law (and society) needing to adapt to those changes.
A century ago, it didn’t matter what gender you “identified with.” Because the plumbing you were born with was what you had for life. But now, if you want to (and can afford it) you can have surgery which will make you over, at least to the naked (sorry!) eye, as a different gender. And some people are sufficiently unhappy with the way they were born that they are willing to go to the pain and expense of doing so.
That being the case, how does the law cope? (More broadly, how does society cope?) As yet, we are still at the phase where we flail around, trying to come up with something that will work “well enough.” Pretty clearly, we haven’t got there yet.
Even when we do, there will still be people who hate the solution. Or even refuse to admit that there was a problem. That will last roughly a lifetime. And then there will be only a tiny fringe left who dislikes the fact that the world changed before they were born. (We have, after all, still got folks who think that slavery was a good thing for most slaves. And should therefore have been retained. They are a fringe, but they are out there.)
P.S. Just to preempt a possible response, I’m not saying that all changes are desireable. Nor that we can never reject a change. But in some cases (and I think this is one of them), once the cat is out of the bag, it isn’t really going to be possible to turn back the clock. (Apologies for the seriously mixed metaphor.)
Stepping back from this a bit, let me suggest that what we are seeing here is just another case of the world changing. Whether we like it or not. And the law (and society) needing to adapt to those changes.
A century ago, it didn’t matter what gender you “identified with.” Because the plumbing you were born with was what you had for life. But now, if you want to (and can afford it) you can have surgery which will make you over, at least to the naked (sorry!) eye, as a different gender. And some people are sufficiently unhappy with the way they were born that they are willing to go to the pain and expense of doing so.
That being the case, how does the law cope? (More broadly, how does society cope?) As yet, we are still at the phase where we flail around, trying to come up with something that will work “well enough.” Pretty clearly, we haven’t got there yet.
Even when we do, there will still be people who hate the solution. Or even refuse to admit that there was a problem. That will last roughly a lifetime. And then there will be only a tiny fringe left who dislikes the fact that the world changed before they were born. (We have, after all, still got folks who think that slavery was a good thing for most slaves. And should therefore have been retained. They are a fringe, but they are out there.)
P.S. Just to preempt a possible response, I’m not saying that all changes are desireable. Nor that we can never reject a change. But in some cases (and I think this is one of them), once the cat is out of the bag, it isn’t really going to be possible to turn back the clock. (Apologies for the seriously mixed metaphor.)
I guess in my world what would happen if someone filed a lawsuit alleging their constitutional right to be free from state sanctioned sex classification was violated by a mandate to only use the bathroom labeled as for your sex, is that the court would apply the relevant constitutional standard and decide the question.
That the relevant constitutional standard is something other than the judge responding “That’s bonkers are you nuts??!? GTFO!” seems to have perplexed McKinney is kind of surprising and somewhat amusing. The devolution to sexual predators and pedophilia not so much.
I guess in my world what would happen if someone filed a lawsuit alleging their constitutional right to be free from state sanctioned sex classification was violated by a mandate to only use the bathroom labeled as for your sex, is that the court would apply the relevant constitutional standard and decide the question.
That the relevant constitutional standard is something other than the judge responding “That’s bonkers are you nuts??!? GTFO!” seems to have perplexed McKinney is kind of surprising and somewhat amusing. The devolution to sexual predators and pedophilia not so much.
I guess in my world what would happen if someone filed a lawsuit alleging their constitutional right to be free from state sanctioned sex classification was violated by a mandate to only use the bathroom labeled as for your sex, is that the court would apply the relevant constitutional standard and decide the question.
That the relevant constitutional standard is something other than the judge responding “That’s bonkers are you nuts??!? GTFO!” seems to have perplexed McKinney is kind of surprising and somewhat amusing. The devolution to sexual predators and pedophilia not so much.
russell: At the risk of pointing out the glaringly obvious, unless there are armed guards at the doors of the public bathrooms in your town, sexual predators can do that now. They don’t have to pretend to “identify as” women, they can just walk into the ladies room and assault whoever they like.
Not to put words in McKinney’s mouth while also arguing with him but I think the theory is that a man who enters a ladies room can be challenged merely for that act by members of the general public, but if there was no such legal restriction then that wouldn’t happen.
russell: At the risk of pointing out the glaringly obvious, unless there are armed guards at the doors of the public bathrooms in your town, sexual predators can do that now. They don’t have to pretend to “identify as” women, they can just walk into the ladies room and assault whoever they like.
Not to put words in McKinney’s mouth while also arguing with him but I think the theory is that a man who enters a ladies room can be challenged merely for that act by members of the general public, but if there was no such legal restriction then that wouldn’t happen.
russell: At the risk of pointing out the glaringly obvious, unless there are armed guards at the doors of the public bathrooms in your town, sexual predators can do that now. They don’t have to pretend to “identify as” women, they can just walk into the ladies room and assault whoever they like.
Not to put words in McKinney’s mouth while also arguing with him but I think the theory is that a man who enters a ladies room can be challenged merely for that act by members of the general public, but if there was no such legal restriction then that wouldn’t happen.
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding exactly what case is a matter of concern.
McK seems to be arguing that the ‘identifies as’ language is vague enough to allow sexual predators to use it as a pretext to gain access to bathrooms of the opposite gender, in other to assault and abuse people.
I’m trying to get my head around exactly that would work, in real life. I don’t get it. it seems implausible.
maybe somebody can clarify it for me.
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding exactly what case is a matter of concern.
McK seems to be arguing that the ‘identifies as’ language is vague enough to allow sexual predators to use it as a pretext to gain access to bathrooms of the opposite gender, in other to assault and abuse people.
I’m trying to get my head around exactly that would work, in real life. I don’t get it. it seems implausible.
maybe somebody can clarify it for me.
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding exactly what case is a matter of concern.
McK seems to be arguing that the ‘identifies as’ language is vague enough to allow sexual predators to use it as a pretext to gain access to bathrooms of the opposite gender, in other to assault and abuse people.
I’m trying to get my head around exactly that would work, in real life. I don’t get it. it seems implausible.
maybe somebody can clarify it for me.
It should be noted that the failed law in Houston was about preventing discrimination while North Carolina’s law was more about limiting local governments from enacting a variety of actions including anti-discrimination but also local minimum wages, etc.
In both cases, the whole “bathroom access” argument was a canard.
It should be noted that the failed law in Houston was about preventing discrimination while North Carolina’s law was more about limiting local governments from enacting a variety of actions including anti-discrimination but also local minimum wages, etc.
In both cases, the whole “bathroom access” argument was a canard.
It should be noted that the failed law in Houston was about preventing discrimination while North Carolina’s law was more about limiting local governments from enacting a variety of actions including anti-discrimination but also local minimum wages, etc.
In both cases, the whole “bathroom access” argument was a canard.
I mean hell, Craig v. Boren itself involved an Oklahoma statute that permitted women who were 18 to drink 3.2% beer but required males to reach age 21 to do the same.*
The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional sex discrimination against 18-20 year old males. This, it seems, should be recast as a “constitutional right of 18-20 males to drink 3.2% beer!” Activist judges!
*The law was justified (in part at least) based on evidence that only 0.18% (i.e., 2 in 1000) of females aged 18-20 but 2% of males (i.e., 20 in 1000, or ten times as many) were arrested for drunk driving.
I mean hell, Craig v. Boren itself involved an Oklahoma statute that permitted women who were 18 to drink 3.2% beer but required males to reach age 21 to do the same.*
The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional sex discrimination against 18-20 year old males. This, it seems, should be recast as a “constitutional right of 18-20 males to drink 3.2% beer!” Activist judges!
*The law was justified (in part at least) based on evidence that only 0.18% (i.e., 2 in 1000) of females aged 18-20 but 2% of males (i.e., 20 in 1000, or ten times as many) were arrested for drunk driving.
I mean hell, Craig v. Boren itself involved an Oklahoma statute that permitted women who were 18 to drink 3.2% beer but required males to reach age 21 to do the same.*
The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional sex discrimination against 18-20 year old males. This, it seems, should be recast as a “constitutional right of 18-20 males to drink 3.2% beer!” Activist judges!
*The law was justified (in part at least) based on evidence that only 0.18% (i.e., 2 in 1000) of females aged 18-20 but 2% of males (i.e., 20 in 1000, or ten times as many) were arrested for drunk driving.
Yes Russell, way way upthresd the point was that identifies as has no means of enforcement. McK substituted presents as and I agreed. It never was that hard.
Yes Russell, way way upthresd the point was that identifies as has no means of enforcement. McK substituted presents as and I agreed. It never was that hard.
Yes Russell, way way upthresd the point was that identifies as has no means of enforcement. McK substituted presents as and I agreed. It never was that hard.
IANAL, but it seems to me that you’re posing a particularly technical legal question here, Ugh. The resulting exchange is a little weird.
IANAL, but it seems to me that you’re posing a particularly technical legal question here, Ugh. The resulting exchange is a little weird.
IANAL, but it seems to me that you’re posing a particularly technical legal question here, Ugh. The resulting exchange is a little weird.
“I guess I’m having a hard time understanding exactly what case is a matter of concern.”
You must not be familiar with the Republican yen for solving problems no example of which exists in our dimension–usually at the cost of women or racial, sexual, or religious minorities. See also “selling the family farm to pay estate tax”; laws banning the imposition of sharia law in the U.S.; voter fraud; abortion laws mandating admitting privileges for clinics when every mainstream medical organization thinks such privileges have no medical benefit.
The menace of sexual predators claiming to be trans to enter our nation’s public bathrooms remains one without a single illustrating example in the real physical world. Had the Republicans been able to locate one, we’d have heard about it. So we can be pretty confident it doesn’t exist. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Is that by itself enough to mandate discrimination against trans people? No.
“I guess I’m having a hard time understanding exactly what case is a matter of concern.”
You must not be familiar with the Republican yen for solving problems no example of which exists in our dimension–usually at the cost of women or racial, sexual, or religious minorities. See also “selling the family farm to pay estate tax”; laws banning the imposition of sharia law in the U.S.; voter fraud; abortion laws mandating admitting privileges for clinics when every mainstream medical organization thinks such privileges have no medical benefit.
The menace of sexual predators claiming to be trans to enter our nation’s public bathrooms remains one without a single illustrating example in the real physical world. Had the Republicans been able to locate one, we’d have heard about it. So we can be pretty confident it doesn’t exist. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Is that by itself enough to mandate discrimination against trans people? No.
“I guess I’m having a hard time understanding exactly what case is a matter of concern.”
You must not be familiar with the Republican yen for solving problems no example of which exists in our dimension–usually at the cost of women or racial, sexual, or religious minorities. See also “selling the family farm to pay estate tax”; laws banning the imposition of sharia law in the U.S.; voter fraud; abortion laws mandating admitting privileges for clinics when every mainstream medical organization thinks such privileges have no medical benefit.
The menace of sexual predators claiming to be trans to enter our nation’s public bathrooms remains one without a single illustrating example in the real physical world. Had the Republicans been able to locate one, we’d have heard about it. So we can be pretty confident it doesn’t exist. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Is that by itself enough to mandate discrimination against trans people? No.
Well maybe. It’s a question of what “equal protection of the laws” means under the 14th and 5th amendments. SCOTUS has ruled that that means (among other things) that the government can’t enforce race or sex based classifications without a justification for the classification that rises above what is called “rational basis” – which essentially means any non-crazy justification (and maybe even some crazy ones) for a law will allow it to pass an equal protection test.
So it’s a fairly broad and extremely important constitutional principle. Perhaps I’m just applying it to a lawsuit (hypothetical, AFAIK at least right now) based on a particularly narrow set of facts, a suit arguing that a state law that requires someone to use a particular bathroom based on their sex is unconstitutional under SCOTUS’s current equal protection jurisprudence as it applies to sex based classifications.
That McKinney, who was in law school after Craig v. Boren was decided (IIRC), thinks this approach is somehow astonishingly unprecedented, rather than how equal protection challenges work, is as I noted kind of surprising.
Well maybe. It’s a question of what “equal protection of the laws” means under the 14th and 5th amendments. SCOTUS has ruled that that means (among other things) that the government can’t enforce race or sex based classifications without a justification for the classification that rises above what is called “rational basis” – which essentially means any non-crazy justification (and maybe even some crazy ones) for a law will allow it to pass an equal protection test.
So it’s a fairly broad and extremely important constitutional principle. Perhaps I’m just applying it to a lawsuit (hypothetical, AFAIK at least right now) based on a particularly narrow set of facts, a suit arguing that a state law that requires someone to use a particular bathroom based on their sex is unconstitutional under SCOTUS’s current equal protection jurisprudence as it applies to sex based classifications.
That McKinney, who was in law school after Craig v. Boren was decided (IIRC), thinks this approach is somehow astonishingly unprecedented, rather than how equal protection challenges work, is as I noted kind of surprising.
Well maybe. It’s a question of what “equal protection of the laws” means under the 14th and 5th amendments. SCOTUS has ruled that that means (among other things) that the government can’t enforce race or sex based classifications without a justification for the classification that rises above what is called “rational basis” – which essentially means any non-crazy justification (and maybe even some crazy ones) for a law will allow it to pass an equal protection test.
So it’s a fairly broad and extremely important constitutional principle. Perhaps I’m just applying it to a lawsuit (hypothetical, AFAIK at least right now) based on a particularly narrow set of facts, a suit arguing that a state law that requires someone to use a particular bathroom based on their sex is unconstitutional under SCOTUS’s current equal protection jurisprudence as it applies to sex based classifications.
That McKinney, who was in law school after Craig v. Boren was decided (IIRC), thinks this approach is somehow astonishingly unprecedented, rather than how equal protection challenges work, is as I noted kind of surprising.
Maybe we can all agree that I had too much time on my hands today….
Maybe we can all agree that I had too much time on my hands today….
Maybe we can all agree that I had too much time on my hands today….
I just think it’s funny that everything after “Well, maybe” had my eyes glazing over and all I coutd see was “lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff.”
But, you know, maybe it was a technical legal question.
I just think it’s funny that everything after “Well, maybe” had my eyes glazing over and all I coutd see was “lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff.”
But, you know, maybe it was a technical legal question.
I just think it’s funny that everything after “Well, maybe” had my eyes glazing over and all I coutd see was “lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff lawyery stuff.”
But, you know, maybe it was a technical legal question.
Could be worse, as I could start in on tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff.
Just thinks of what would happen to your eyes then, harrumph! 🙂
Could be worse, as I could start in on tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff.
Just thinks of what would happen to your eyes then, harrumph! 🙂
Could be worse, as I could start in on tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff tax lawyerly stuff.
Just thinks of what would happen to your eyes then, harrumph! 🙂
I wanna party with you, cowboy!
I wanna party with you, cowboy!
I wanna party with you, cowboy!
I’m not as fun as Bill Murray. Or whoever it was he was talking to.
I’m not as fun as Bill Murray. Or whoever it was he was talking to.
I’m not as fun as Bill Murray. Or whoever it was he was talking to.
An example where anti-discrimination laws can harm or, at least, prevent a benefit for the class for which it was intended.
Why Isn’t There a Ladies-Only UberXX Car Service?: The same laws that are supposed to protect female workers and customers also prevent companies from catering to women.
An example where anti-discrimination laws can harm or, at least, prevent a benefit for the class for which it was intended.
Why Isn’t There a Ladies-Only UberXX Car Service?: The same laws that are supposed to protect female workers and customers also prevent companies from catering to women.
An example where anti-discrimination laws can harm or, at least, prevent a benefit for the class for which it was intended.
Why Isn’t There a Ladies-Only UberXX Car Service?: The same laws that are supposed to protect female workers and customers also prevent companies from catering to women.
McK seems to be arguing that the ‘identifies as’ language is vague enough to allow sexual predators to use it as a pretext to gain access to bathrooms of the opposite gender, in other to assault and abuse people.
I’m trying to get my head around exactly that would work, in real life. I don’t get it. it seems implausible.
maybe somebody can clarify it for me.
Ok, to repeat: “gender” is whatever someone says they are. I specifically cited to a gender called “bi-gender”, meaning sometimes you’re male, sometimes you’re female. It’s subjective and incapable of verification. I also cited statistics on one of several sexually predatory classifications, pedophilia: one in 20. That’s a high number. Way higher than the very generous estimate of one in 170 transgenders.
Public restrooms are common venues for sexual activities, including sexual assault. There are other forms of sexual predation, voyeurism and exhibitionism being two. Pedophiles are particularly insidious and the impact they have on their victims’ lives is often beyond devastating.
Some pedophiles seduce, others use threats, others use force. I’ve handled cases involving the full range of pedophilic activity. I’ve also handled cases involving voyeurs preying on women in restrooms and in public changing areas. It is very traumatizing for women to have their privacy violated in that fashion.
Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom. If “gender” alone is the determinant of who can enter what bathroom, any outwardly appearing male can declare himself to be a woman or bi-gender or invent a gender and enter the women’s bathroom.
As assault doesn’t have to occur. It can be anything from ogling to “inadvertent” self exposing or contact. The effect on the victim is still traumatizing.
I am gobsmacked that this concept seems so elusive to the Left, which readily buys into a campus rape crisis and rape culture generally.
This isn’t a made up or highly speculative concern. Nor is it a concern about transgenders, which I’ve made abundantly clear from the get-go as any semi literate human being could tell. Men claiming to be women but looking and acting like men are not transgender. They are men faking a gender to get an advantage.
If the fact that a sexual predator would use a giant loophole in the law to his advantage seems implausible to you in view of the above, then I have nothing further to say.
The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional sex discrimination against 18-20 year old males. This, it seems, should be recast as a “constitutional right of 18-20 males to drink 3.2% beer!” Activist judges!
Please reread your example: one sex gets something, another does not. That’s discrimination, favoring one over the other.
Ugh, you still haven’t explained why separate sex bathrooms are discriminatory. How do separate bathrooms favor one over the other? Please explain. And no need to keep saying the sexually distinct categorizations are suspect–that is only when one is favored or disfavored. So, please answer the question I’ve asked now several times.
McK seems to be arguing that the ‘identifies as’ language is vague enough to allow sexual predators to use it as a pretext to gain access to bathrooms of the opposite gender, in other to assault and abuse people.
I’m trying to get my head around exactly that would work, in real life. I don’t get it. it seems implausible.
maybe somebody can clarify it for me.
Ok, to repeat: “gender” is whatever someone says they are. I specifically cited to a gender called “bi-gender”, meaning sometimes you’re male, sometimes you’re female. It’s subjective and incapable of verification. I also cited statistics on one of several sexually predatory classifications, pedophilia: one in 20. That’s a high number. Way higher than the very generous estimate of one in 170 transgenders.
Public restrooms are common venues for sexual activities, including sexual assault. There are other forms of sexual predation, voyeurism and exhibitionism being two. Pedophiles are particularly insidious and the impact they have on their victims’ lives is often beyond devastating.
Some pedophiles seduce, others use threats, others use force. I’ve handled cases involving the full range of pedophilic activity. I’ve also handled cases involving voyeurs preying on women in restrooms and in public changing areas. It is very traumatizing for women to have their privacy violated in that fashion.
Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom. If “gender” alone is the determinant of who can enter what bathroom, any outwardly appearing male can declare himself to be a woman or bi-gender or invent a gender and enter the women’s bathroom.
As assault doesn’t have to occur. It can be anything from ogling to “inadvertent” self exposing or contact. The effect on the victim is still traumatizing.
I am gobsmacked that this concept seems so elusive to the Left, which readily buys into a campus rape crisis and rape culture generally.
This isn’t a made up or highly speculative concern. Nor is it a concern about transgenders, which I’ve made abundantly clear from the get-go as any semi literate human being could tell. Men claiming to be women but looking and acting like men are not transgender. They are men faking a gender to get an advantage.
If the fact that a sexual predator would use a giant loophole in the law to his advantage seems implausible to you in view of the above, then I have nothing further to say.
The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional sex discrimination against 18-20 year old males. This, it seems, should be recast as a “constitutional right of 18-20 males to drink 3.2% beer!” Activist judges!
Please reread your example: one sex gets something, another does not. That’s discrimination, favoring one over the other.
Ugh, you still haven’t explained why separate sex bathrooms are discriminatory. How do separate bathrooms favor one over the other? Please explain. And no need to keep saying the sexually distinct categorizations are suspect–that is only when one is favored or disfavored. So, please answer the question I’ve asked now several times.
McK seems to be arguing that the ‘identifies as’ language is vague enough to allow sexual predators to use it as a pretext to gain access to bathrooms of the opposite gender, in other to assault and abuse people.
I’m trying to get my head around exactly that would work, in real life. I don’t get it. it seems implausible.
maybe somebody can clarify it for me.
Ok, to repeat: “gender” is whatever someone says they are. I specifically cited to a gender called “bi-gender”, meaning sometimes you’re male, sometimes you’re female. It’s subjective and incapable of verification. I also cited statistics on one of several sexually predatory classifications, pedophilia: one in 20. That’s a high number. Way higher than the very generous estimate of one in 170 transgenders.
Public restrooms are common venues for sexual activities, including sexual assault. There are other forms of sexual predation, voyeurism and exhibitionism being two. Pedophiles are particularly insidious and the impact they have on their victims’ lives is often beyond devastating.
Some pedophiles seduce, others use threats, others use force. I’ve handled cases involving the full range of pedophilic activity. I’ve also handled cases involving voyeurs preying on women in restrooms and in public changing areas. It is very traumatizing for women to have their privacy violated in that fashion.
Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom. If “gender” alone is the determinant of who can enter what bathroom, any outwardly appearing male can declare himself to be a woman or bi-gender or invent a gender and enter the women’s bathroom.
As assault doesn’t have to occur. It can be anything from ogling to “inadvertent” self exposing or contact. The effect on the victim is still traumatizing.
I am gobsmacked that this concept seems so elusive to the Left, which readily buys into a campus rape crisis and rape culture generally.
This isn’t a made up or highly speculative concern. Nor is it a concern about transgenders, which I’ve made abundantly clear from the get-go as any semi literate human being could tell. Men claiming to be women but looking and acting like men are not transgender. They are men faking a gender to get an advantage.
If the fact that a sexual predator would use a giant loophole in the law to his advantage seems implausible to you in view of the above, then I have nothing further to say.
The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional sex discrimination against 18-20 year old males. This, it seems, should be recast as a “constitutional right of 18-20 males to drink 3.2% beer!” Activist judges!
Please reread your example: one sex gets something, another does not. That’s discrimination, favoring one over the other.
Ugh, you still haven’t explained why separate sex bathrooms are discriminatory. How do separate bathrooms favor one over the other? Please explain. And no need to keep saying the sexually distinct categorizations are suspect–that is only when one is favored or disfavored. So, please answer the question I’ve asked now several times.
McK, there seems to be a disconnect here. You’re arguing “‘gender’ is whatever someone says they are”. This is a very problematic stance if there is to be any legal distinction among genders, which is rather inherent in the notion of public facilities allowing access according to gender. You have this strange notion that gender is to be distinguished as binary while existing as manifold – where on earth are you getting that? If you identify as “bi-gender” then you do not identify as female. This is not a difficult concept, though I understand why it would be convenient if it were.
Ah, but the SJW loony left declares gender to be whatever someone says, whenever they say, right? If I identify as an attack helicopter on the second Tuesday of every month, rock on with my bad self? Seriously? Aren’t you the one advocating for common sense and restraint? Look, there’s a pretty damned good precedent to follow here. The law does not generally admit the existence of biological sexes outside of male and female. Is intersex a real thing? Of course. Does the law care? Rarely. So. The solution is to be reasonable, and define gender as something finite and fixed, but alterable. You can be male, or you can be female, but you only enjoy legal recognition of one or the other if you register your status as such. Is it “perfect”? No. Is it better than the status quo? Yes. Do long red-herring rants about sexual assault and pedophilia avoid actually addressing the real issue, i.e., the legal scope and definition of “gender”? Yes. Are you going to launch into yet another one in response to this? Probably. But if you do, you’ll be – again – conflating two separate issues. Gender doesn’t mean “whatever you say it means” in the eyes of the law unless the law defines it as such. Oh and by the way, the Houston law you’re so determined to denounce as a Leftist affront to all that’s good and decent? It absolutely does not recognize gender identity as an infinitely mutable thing as you’ve held it out to:
(Emphasis added.)
So what exactly are you going on about here, since you can’t possibly be going on about a solution addressing a hypothetical situation that doesn’t actually exist in the law as it stands – that’s a Leftist pastime, as you love to remind us. So… I suppose now is when you berate me for my blatant support of pedophilia and sexual assault, right? Well, let’s have it then.
McK, there seems to be a disconnect here. You’re arguing “‘gender’ is whatever someone says they are”. This is a very problematic stance if there is to be any legal distinction among genders, which is rather inherent in the notion of public facilities allowing access according to gender. You have this strange notion that gender is to be distinguished as binary while existing as manifold – where on earth are you getting that? If you identify as “bi-gender” then you do not identify as female. This is not a difficult concept, though I understand why it would be convenient if it were.
Ah, but the SJW loony left declares gender to be whatever someone says, whenever they say, right? If I identify as an attack helicopter on the second Tuesday of every month, rock on with my bad self? Seriously? Aren’t you the one advocating for common sense and restraint? Look, there’s a pretty damned good precedent to follow here. The law does not generally admit the existence of biological sexes outside of male and female. Is intersex a real thing? Of course. Does the law care? Rarely. So. The solution is to be reasonable, and define gender as something finite and fixed, but alterable. You can be male, or you can be female, but you only enjoy legal recognition of one or the other if you register your status as such. Is it “perfect”? No. Is it better than the status quo? Yes. Do long red-herring rants about sexual assault and pedophilia avoid actually addressing the real issue, i.e., the legal scope and definition of “gender”? Yes. Are you going to launch into yet another one in response to this? Probably. But if you do, you’ll be – again – conflating two separate issues. Gender doesn’t mean “whatever you say it means” in the eyes of the law unless the law defines it as such. Oh and by the way, the Houston law you’re so determined to denounce as a Leftist affront to all that’s good and decent? It absolutely does not recognize gender identity as an infinitely mutable thing as you’ve held it out to:
(Emphasis added.)
So what exactly are you going on about here, since you can’t possibly be going on about a solution addressing a hypothetical situation that doesn’t actually exist in the law as it stands – that’s a Leftist pastime, as you love to remind us. So… I suppose now is when you berate me for my blatant support of pedophilia and sexual assault, right? Well, let’s have it then.
McK, there seems to be a disconnect here. You’re arguing “‘gender’ is whatever someone says they are”. This is a very problematic stance if there is to be any legal distinction among genders, which is rather inherent in the notion of public facilities allowing access according to gender. You have this strange notion that gender is to be distinguished as binary while existing as manifold – where on earth are you getting that? If you identify as “bi-gender” then you do not identify as female. This is not a difficult concept, though I understand why it would be convenient if it were.
Ah, but the SJW loony left declares gender to be whatever someone says, whenever they say, right? If I identify as an attack helicopter on the second Tuesday of every month, rock on with my bad self? Seriously? Aren’t you the one advocating for common sense and restraint? Look, there’s a pretty damned good precedent to follow here. The law does not generally admit the existence of biological sexes outside of male and female. Is intersex a real thing? Of course. Does the law care? Rarely. So. The solution is to be reasonable, and define gender as something finite and fixed, but alterable. You can be male, or you can be female, but you only enjoy legal recognition of one or the other if you register your status as such. Is it “perfect”? No. Is it better than the status quo? Yes. Do long red-herring rants about sexual assault and pedophilia avoid actually addressing the real issue, i.e., the legal scope and definition of “gender”? Yes. Are you going to launch into yet another one in response to this? Probably. But if you do, you’ll be – again – conflating two separate issues. Gender doesn’t mean “whatever you say it means” in the eyes of the law unless the law defines it as such. Oh and by the way, the Houston law you’re so determined to denounce as a Leftist affront to all that’s good and decent? It absolutely does not recognize gender identity as an infinitely mutable thing as you’ve held it out to:
(Emphasis added.)
So what exactly are you going on about here, since you can’t possibly be going on about a solution addressing a hypothetical situation that doesn’t actually exist in the law as it stands – that’s a Leftist pastime, as you love to remind us. So… I suppose now is when you berate me for my blatant support of pedophilia and sexual assault, right? Well, let’s have it then.
NV, here is the link for roughly 60 different genders including bi-gender:http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/
The definition you quote was the heart of the problem. Under that definition A male can identify as female and that becomes that male’s “gender”–*that* is exactly what the definition says. If you haven’t read the rules of statutory construction, you should. The definition in no way prevents a person from morphing, or claiming to morph, from one gender to another, and in fact, gender studies recognize that some people do precisely that.
Thus, the definition specifically allows precisely what I said it allows and even the ordinance’s proponents conceded as much when cornered. Their basic come back was to dismiss the fear of sexual predation as just more right wing paranoia–this from the same people who are convinced one in five college women have been raped.
And yes, it was a Leftist cram down of its views over everyone else’s, which is why it got slaughtered at the polls.
NV, here is the link for roughly 60 different genders including bi-gender:http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/
The definition you quote was the heart of the problem. Under that definition A male can identify as female and that becomes that male’s “gender”–*that* is exactly what the definition says. If you haven’t read the rules of statutory construction, you should. The definition in no way prevents a person from morphing, or claiming to morph, from one gender to another, and in fact, gender studies recognize that some people do precisely that.
Thus, the definition specifically allows precisely what I said it allows and even the ordinance’s proponents conceded as much when cornered. Their basic come back was to dismiss the fear of sexual predation as just more right wing paranoia–this from the same people who are convinced one in five college women have been raped.
And yes, it was a Leftist cram down of its views over everyone else’s, which is why it got slaughtered at the polls.
NV, here is the link for roughly 60 different genders including bi-gender:http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/
The definition you quote was the heart of the problem. Under that definition A male can identify as female and that becomes that male’s “gender”–*that* is exactly what the definition says. If you haven’t read the rules of statutory construction, you should. The definition in no way prevents a person from morphing, or claiming to morph, from one gender to another, and in fact, gender studies recognize that some people do precisely that.
Thus, the definition specifically allows precisely what I said it allows and even the ordinance’s proponents conceded as much when cornered. Their basic come back was to dismiss the fear of sexual predation as just more right wing paranoia–this from the same people who are convinced one in five college women have been raped.
And yes, it was a Leftist cram down of its views over everyone else’s, which is why it got slaughtered at the polls.
McK, you’ve been saying that gender is fluid, and people can change from moment to moment.
At what point this morning did you decide your gender for today? Do you think you’re going to change your mind tomorrow?
Also, you seem to be VERY well informed about sexual assault cases. How many have involved transgender people as the one perpetrating the assault? How many as victims?
McK, you’ve been saying that gender is fluid, and people can change from moment to moment.
At what point this morning did you decide your gender for today? Do you think you’re going to change your mind tomorrow?
Also, you seem to be VERY well informed about sexual assault cases. How many have involved transgender people as the one perpetrating the assault? How many as victims?
McK, you’ve been saying that gender is fluid, and people can change from moment to moment.
At what point this morning did you decide your gender for today? Do you think you’re going to change your mind tomorrow?
Also, you seem to be VERY well informed about sexual assault cases. How many have involved transgender people as the one perpetrating the assault? How many as victims?
McK, you’ve been saying that gender is fluid, and people can change from moment to moment.
I don’t know if this is a case of poor communication on my part or if you are mis-reading me–I suspect it’s the latter. I’m saying that the people who study and write about gender maintain that it can be fluid–it isn’t McKinney as an authority, it is what others claiming to be authoritative say. I’ve cited to one “gender, bi-gender, that by definition is fluid.
I’m also saying that gender is self-imposed, self-described, subjective and virtually impossible to verify objectively, given that it is, definitionally, a very loose concept.
Finally, I am saying that, for the foregoing reasons, sexual predators can use a law intended for a good purpose to do bad things. As a secondary but still significant concern, there are real privacy issues with allowing men to declare themselves women and use women’s facilities.
I hope this isn’t too confusing.
At what point this morning did you decide your gender for today? Do you think you’re going to change your mind tomorrow?
No comment here. This is a smart ass question of the kind I associate with the standard ideologue’s dismissal of any concerns that run counter to the narrative, left or right.
Also, you seem to be VERY well informed about sexual assault cases.
“Very well” is somewhat nonspecific, but generally, yes, I am.
How many have involved transgender people as the one perpetrating the assault?
None, and if you would take the time to read and try to understand something you reflexively disagree with, you would see how misguided this question is, since I have made it crystal clear that transgendered people are NOT THE F’ING ISSUE. Clear?
How many as victims?
None that I can remember, but my experience has been with cases that give rise to litigation, so it’s either assaultive type behavior or privacy invasion, invariably children and women as victims. I imagine transgendered people are more susceptible to assault, physical and verbal, as well as rudeness and all around asshole-ary, but I haven’t encountered that yet.
My only legal experience with a transgendered person is in the employer/employee context. It’s a pending matter and therefore, I can’t comment on it.
McK, you’ve been saying that gender is fluid, and people can change from moment to moment.
I don’t know if this is a case of poor communication on my part or if you are mis-reading me–I suspect it’s the latter. I’m saying that the people who study and write about gender maintain that it can be fluid–it isn’t McKinney as an authority, it is what others claiming to be authoritative say. I’ve cited to one “gender, bi-gender, that by definition is fluid.
I’m also saying that gender is self-imposed, self-described, subjective and virtually impossible to verify objectively, given that it is, definitionally, a very loose concept.
Finally, I am saying that, for the foregoing reasons, sexual predators can use a law intended for a good purpose to do bad things. As a secondary but still significant concern, there are real privacy issues with allowing men to declare themselves women and use women’s facilities.
I hope this isn’t too confusing.
At what point this morning did you decide your gender for today? Do you think you’re going to change your mind tomorrow?
No comment here. This is a smart ass question of the kind I associate with the standard ideologue’s dismissal of any concerns that run counter to the narrative, left or right.
Also, you seem to be VERY well informed about sexual assault cases.
“Very well” is somewhat nonspecific, but generally, yes, I am.
How many have involved transgender people as the one perpetrating the assault?
None, and if you would take the time to read and try to understand something you reflexively disagree with, you would see how misguided this question is, since I have made it crystal clear that transgendered people are NOT THE F’ING ISSUE. Clear?
How many as victims?
None that I can remember, but my experience has been with cases that give rise to litigation, so it’s either assaultive type behavior or privacy invasion, invariably children and women as victims. I imagine transgendered people are more susceptible to assault, physical and verbal, as well as rudeness and all around asshole-ary, but I haven’t encountered that yet.
My only legal experience with a transgendered person is in the employer/employee context. It’s a pending matter and therefore, I can’t comment on it.
McK, you’ve been saying that gender is fluid, and people can change from moment to moment.
I don’t know if this is a case of poor communication on my part or if you are mis-reading me–I suspect it’s the latter. I’m saying that the people who study and write about gender maintain that it can be fluid–it isn’t McKinney as an authority, it is what others claiming to be authoritative say. I’ve cited to one “gender, bi-gender, that by definition is fluid.
I’m also saying that gender is self-imposed, self-described, subjective and virtually impossible to verify objectively, given that it is, definitionally, a very loose concept.
Finally, I am saying that, for the foregoing reasons, sexual predators can use a law intended for a good purpose to do bad things. As a secondary but still significant concern, there are real privacy issues with allowing men to declare themselves women and use women’s facilities.
I hope this isn’t too confusing.
At what point this morning did you decide your gender for today? Do you think you’re going to change your mind tomorrow?
No comment here. This is a smart ass question of the kind I associate with the standard ideologue’s dismissal of any concerns that run counter to the narrative, left or right.
Also, you seem to be VERY well informed about sexual assault cases.
“Very well” is somewhat nonspecific, but generally, yes, I am.
How many have involved transgender people as the one perpetrating the assault?
None, and if you would take the time to read and try to understand something you reflexively disagree with, you would see how misguided this question is, since I have made it crystal clear that transgendered people are NOT THE F’ING ISSUE. Clear?
How many as victims?
None that I can remember, but my experience has been with cases that give rise to litigation, so it’s either assaultive type behavior or privacy invasion, invariably children and women as victims. I imagine transgendered people are more susceptible to assault, physical and verbal, as well as rudeness and all around asshole-ary, but I haven’t encountered that yet.
My only legal experience with a transgendered person is in the employer/employee context. It’s a pending matter and therefore, I can’t comment on it.
McK, that again comes down to how gender identity is recognized by law. If laws on the books require that you register a gender with the state to have its status legally recognized, that’s the only way you’re getting it recognized. The problem with the Houston law is, yes, that it fails to define how gender identity is to be recognized, and thus relies on exceedingly ambiguous common usage. Although, my (limited) understanding of statutory construction includes an assumption that statutes suffering from ambiguity should not be interpreted so as to have an absurd and unintended result, which is precisely what one could certainly argue your interpretation of the common usage of gender amounts to. I am not sure why you feel that your List Of Sixty Genders is a standard of any sort, let alone one that is in any way relevant to common usage, nor do you so much as offer a suggestion as to why you might be justified in holding it forth as such. Indeed, very much to the contrary.
You’re doing some nice slight-of-hand here, I must admit – you have not once defined gender. You’ve danced around it, and made statements using it as though there is a commonly held understanding of it – and if we pick those statements apart, you know what we find? A baked-in assumption that what gender “is” is “physical sex”, whether naturally or surgically acquired. This is not a conclusion easily avoided. You appear to be treating “gender identity” as “how one approaches the question of gender” rather than “the gender identification assigned/assumed by an individual”. That’s like me saying my “national identity” is “borderless”, “trans-national”, or “jus sanguinis” – it is not, it’s “American”. Which is to say, you’re playing word games.
Again, though, you’re dodging the question by trying to drag us off into the weeds where you can denounce our immoral disagreement with your preferred ordering of society. Your discussion of predation in bathrooms are a distraction; all your posturing here does nothing to meaningfully defend against it. Your strident accusations of enabling predation are an argument that dress codes will protect people from harm. This may or may not be true, but it certainly lacks the moral force with which you’ve denounced viewpoints that do not align with yours.
McK, that again comes down to how gender identity is recognized by law. If laws on the books require that you register a gender with the state to have its status legally recognized, that’s the only way you’re getting it recognized. The problem with the Houston law is, yes, that it fails to define how gender identity is to be recognized, and thus relies on exceedingly ambiguous common usage. Although, my (limited) understanding of statutory construction includes an assumption that statutes suffering from ambiguity should not be interpreted so as to have an absurd and unintended result, which is precisely what one could certainly argue your interpretation of the common usage of gender amounts to. I am not sure why you feel that your List Of Sixty Genders is a standard of any sort, let alone one that is in any way relevant to common usage, nor do you so much as offer a suggestion as to why you might be justified in holding it forth as such. Indeed, very much to the contrary.
You’re doing some nice slight-of-hand here, I must admit – you have not once defined gender. You’ve danced around it, and made statements using it as though there is a commonly held understanding of it – and if we pick those statements apart, you know what we find? A baked-in assumption that what gender “is” is “physical sex”, whether naturally or surgically acquired. This is not a conclusion easily avoided. You appear to be treating “gender identity” as “how one approaches the question of gender” rather than “the gender identification assigned/assumed by an individual”. That’s like me saying my “national identity” is “borderless”, “trans-national”, or “jus sanguinis” – it is not, it’s “American”. Which is to say, you’re playing word games.
Again, though, you’re dodging the question by trying to drag us off into the weeds where you can denounce our immoral disagreement with your preferred ordering of society. Your discussion of predation in bathrooms are a distraction; all your posturing here does nothing to meaningfully defend against it. Your strident accusations of enabling predation are an argument that dress codes will protect people from harm. This may or may not be true, but it certainly lacks the moral force with which you’ve denounced viewpoints that do not align with yours.
McK, that again comes down to how gender identity is recognized by law. If laws on the books require that you register a gender with the state to have its status legally recognized, that’s the only way you’re getting it recognized. The problem with the Houston law is, yes, that it fails to define how gender identity is to be recognized, and thus relies on exceedingly ambiguous common usage. Although, my (limited) understanding of statutory construction includes an assumption that statutes suffering from ambiguity should not be interpreted so as to have an absurd and unintended result, which is precisely what one could certainly argue your interpretation of the common usage of gender amounts to. I am not sure why you feel that your List Of Sixty Genders is a standard of any sort, let alone one that is in any way relevant to common usage, nor do you so much as offer a suggestion as to why you might be justified in holding it forth as such. Indeed, very much to the contrary.
You’re doing some nice slight-of-hand here, I must admit – you have not once defined gender. You’ve danced around it, and made statements using it as though there is a commonly held understanding of it – and if we pick those statements apart, you know what we find? A baked-in assumption that what gender “is” is “physical sex”, whether naturally or surgically acquired. This is not a conclusion easily avoided. You appear to be treating “gender identity” as “how one approaches the question of gender” rather than “the gender identification assigned/assumed by an individual”. That’s like me saying my “national identity” is “borderless”, “trans-national”, or “jus sanguinis” – it is not, it’s “American”. Which is to say, you’re playing word games.
Again, though, you’re dodging the question by trying to drag us off into the weeds where you can denounce our immoral disagreement with your preferred ordering of society. Your discussion of predation in bathrooms are a distraction; all your posturing here does nothing to meaningfully defend against it. Your strident accusations of enabling predation are an argument that dress codes will protect people from harm. This may or may not be true, but it certainly lacks the moral force with which you’ve denounced viewpoints that do not align with yours.
All right, you did finally make a clear statement of what gender “is”. Said statement is frankly as useless as your prior avoidance of definitions. Gender is not an indescribably thing, or else we’d have no way whatsoever of having the discussion we’re currently having.
All right, you did finally make a clear statement of what gender “is”. Said statement is frankly as useless as your prior avoidance of definitions. Gender is not an indescribably thing, or else we’d have no way whatsoever of having the discussion we’re currently having.
All right, you did finally make a clear statement of what gender “is”. Said statement is frankly as useless as your prior avoidance of definitions. Gender is not an indescribably thing, or else we’d have no way whatsoever of having the discussion we’re currently having.
IANAL, but I was a little surprised to find a lawyer saying “Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom.” Is that true everywhere in the USA? Federal law or each of the states? No variance, no allowance for exigent whatever? No county or municipal definitions or deviations?
I’m not disputing this, just wondering. Given the extraordinary variety of “legalities” in this country, I would have expected that some (many, most?) jurisdictions would have laws like this, but not all, which this statement implies.
IANAL, but I was a little surprised to find a lawyer saying “Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom.” Is that true everywhere in the USA? Federal law or each of the states? No variance, no allowance for exigent whatever? No county or municipal definitions or deviations?
I’m not disputing this, just wondering. Given the extraordinary variety of “legalities” in this country, I would have expected that some (many, most?) jurisdictions would have laws like this, but not all, which this statement implies.
IANAL, but I was a little surprised to find a lawyer saying “Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom.” Is that true everywhere in the USA? Federal law or each of the states? No variance, no allowance for exigent whatever? No county or municipal definitions or deviations?
I’m not disputing this, just wondering. Given the extraordinary variety of “legalities” in this country, I would have expected that some (many, most?) jurisdictions would have laws like this, but not all, which this statement implies.
baked-in assumption that what gender “is” is “physical sex”, whether naturally or surgically acquired. This is not a conclusion easily avoided.
The person playing word games you NV. This assumption is not reflected anywhere in anything written, really by anyone in the whole thread.
My point, similar if not the same as McK’s, is that there is nothing in the law Houston or Charlotte law that defines gender identity adequately to protect the safety of people from non transgender miscreants willing to abuse the law.
Someone talks about registering gender, really? Do I then carry a card? Is someone going to check my drivers license for gender? I mean, I don’t care but I am sure the ACLU would.
So, McK writes a nice paragraph, the onlyone that defines any mechanism for addressing both the accommodation of transgender safety and everyone elses. Because “presentation” is what counts in the vast majority of cases in making everyone comfortable. Since there is no reason to believe that transgender or cross dressers are any statistical threat to others it makes the best sense for a law. In fact, it is much better for cross dressers, who could be as much at risk as transgenders. And yes, then they could switch back and forth. Which transgender people do also as a matter of course in the earlier stages of the transition process.
But a sexual predator in his/her daily attire is less likely to follow a target into a bathroom if it is specifically unacceptable, and likely to gain notice.
baked-in assumption that what gender “is” is “physical sex”, whether naturally or surgically acquired. This is not a conclusion easily avoided.
The person playing word games you NV. This assumption is not reflected anywhere in anything written, really by anyone in the whole thread.
My point, similar if not the same as McK’s, is that there is nothing in the law Houston or Charlotte law that defines gender identity adequately to protect the safety of people from non transgender miscreants willing to abuse the law.
Someone talks about registering gender, really? Do I then carry a card? Is someone going to check my drivers license for gender? I mean, I don’t care but I am sure the ACLU would.
So, McK writes a nice paragraph, the onlyone that defines any mechanism for addressing both the accommodation of transgender safety and everyone elses. Because “presentation” is what counts in the vast majority of cases in making everyone comfortable. Since there is no reason to believe that transgender or cross dressers are any statistical threat to others it makes the best sense for a law. In fact, it is much better for cross dressers, who could be as much at risk as transgenders. And yes, then they could switch back and forth. Which transgender people do also as a matter of course in the earlier stages of the transition process.
But a sexual predator in his/her daily attire is less likely to follow a target into a bathroom if it is specifically unacceptable, and likely to gain notice.
baked-in assumption that what gender “is” is “physical sex”, whether naturally or surgically acquired. This is not a conclusion easily avoided.
The person playing word games you NV. This assumption is not reflected anywhere in anything written, really by anyone in the whole thread.
My point, similar if not the same as McK’s, is that there is nothing in the law Houston or Charlotte law that defines gender identity adequately to protect the safety of people from non transgender miscreants willing to abuse the law.
Someone talks about registering gender, really? Do I then carry a card? Is someone going to check my drivers license for gender? I mean, I don’t care but I am sure the ACLU would.
So, McK writes a nice paragraph, the onlyone that defines any mechanism for addressing both the accommodation of transgender safety and everyone elses. Because “presentation” is what counts in the vast majority of cases in making everyone comfortable. Since there is no reason to believe that transgender or cross dressers are any statistical threat to others it makes the best sense for a law. In fact, it is much better for cross dressers, who could be as much at risk as transgenders. And yes, then they could switch back and forth. Which transgender people do also as a matter of course in the earlier stages of the transition process.
But a sexual predator in his/her daily attire is less likely to follow a target into a bathroom if it is specifically unacceptable, and likely to gain notice.
“..if you would take the time to read and try to understand something you reflexively disagree with, you would see how misguided this question is”
Please do me the kindness of not presuming to know what I do or do not “reflexively disagree with”.
May I remind you, McK, that YOU were the one who complained (a couple pages back in the comments) about others who you claimed “had not read the prior comments”, and then soon after stated that you “hadn’t read the NC statute”.
The irony, it’s ironic.
And as for “when did you decide your gender?” That is my standard question to anyone who (seems to be) claiming that gender or sexual orientation is a “choice”. Because I sure as Hel never felt like I had a “choice” in the matter, and if someone claims that gender or sexuality is a “choice” probably feels differently. Your gender/sexuality might *change*, but not necessarily a result of a *choice*.
“..if you would take the time to read and try to understand something you reflexively disagree with, you would see how misguided this question is”
Please do me the kindness of not presuming to know what I do or do not “reflexively disagree with”.
May I remind you, McK, that YOU were the one who complained (a couple pages back in the comments) about others who you claimed “had not read the prior comments”, and then soon after stated that you “hadn’t read the NC statute”.
The irony, it’s ironic.
And as for “when did you decide your gender?” That is my standard question to anyone who (seems to be) claiming that gender or sexual orientation is a “choice”. Because I sure as Hel never felt like I had a “choice” in the matter, and if someone claims that gender or sexuality is a “choice” probably feels differently. Your gender/sexuality might *change*, but not necessarily a result of a *choice*.
“..if you would take the time to read and try to understand something you reflexively disagree with, you would see how misguided this question is”
Please do me the kindness of not presuming to know what I do or do not “reflexively disagree with”.
May I remind you, McK, that YOU were the one who complained (a couple pages back in the comments) about others who you claimed “had not read the prior comments”, and then soon after stated that you “hadn’t read the NC statute”.
The irony, it’s ironic.
And as for “when did you decide your gender?” That is my standard question to anyone who (seems to be) claiming that gender or sexual orientation is a “choice”. Because I sure as Hel never felt like I had a “choice” in the matter, and if someone claims that gender or sexuality is a “choice” probably feels differently. Your gender/sexuality might *change*, but not necessarily a result of a *choice*.
You’re doing some nice slight-of-hand here, I must admit – you have not once defined gender.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part. I have no idea how gender is defined, nor did I ever purport to know a definition. The lack of definition is part of the problem I describe. I tried to make a definition, whether you’ve read it or not.
So, generally, to quote someone I do like conversing with, kiss my ass and spend more time reading about statutory construction.
And as for “when did you decide your gender?” That is my standard question to anyone who (seems to be) claiming that gender or sexual orientation is a “choice”. Because I sure as Hel never felt like I had a “choice” in the matter, and if someone claims that gender or sexuality is a “choice” probably feels differently. Your gender/sexuality might *change*, but not necessarily a result of a *choice*.
Well, then, say what you mean. I agree that gender isn’t a choice, at least not in any sense of how I understand it. You are what you are. However, I never implied otherwise, so maybe you need to read more carefully and be less of a prick before you tee off on someone. Seriously, you and NV and a couple of others here go into asshole mode at the drop of a hat. I’m tired of it, if that isn’t already painfully obvious.
I’m not disputing this, just wondering. Given the extraordinary variety of “legalities” in this country, I would have expected that some (many, most?) jurisdictions would have laws like this, but not all, which this statement implies.
Ok, a fair point, up to a point: I have not reviewed every city ordinance in America. I’m sure there is an exception somewhere, but probably not many, since jurisdictions that don’t limit access probably don’t have sexually segregated bathrooms to begin with. In the interest of further clarity, I’m confident there are exceptions to the general prohibition (since that is the law in Houston, i.e. one sex cannot enter another sex’s facility for an improper purpose). But, as a widely applicable and general statement of the law, what I said is correct.
You’re doing some nice slight-of-hand here, I must admit – you have not once defined gender.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part. I have no idea how gender is defined, nor did I ever purport to know a definition. The lack of definition is part of the problem I describe. I tried to make a definition, whether you’ve read it or not.
So, generally, to quote someone I do like conversing with, kiss my ass and spend more time reading about statutory construction.
And as for “when did you decide your gender?” That is my standard question to anyone who (seems to be) claiming that gender or sexual orientation is a “choice”. Because I sure as Hel never felt like I had a “choice” in the matter, and if someone claims that gender or sexuality is a “choice” probably feels differently. Your gender/sexuality might *change*, but not necessarily a result of a *choice*.
Well, then, say what you mean. I agree that gender isn’t a choice, at least not in any sense of how I understand it. You are what you are. However, I never implied otherwise, so maybe you need to read more carefully and be less of a prick before you tee off on someone. Seriously, you and NV and a couple of others here go into asshole mode at the drop of a hat. I’m tired of it, if that isn’t already painfully obvious.
I’m not disputing this, just wondering. Given the extraordinary variety of “legalities” in this country, I would have expected that some (many, most?) jurisdictions would have laws like this, but not all, which this statement implies.
Ok, a fair point, up to a point: I have not reviewed every city ordinance in America. I’m sure there is an exception somewhere, but probably not many, since jurisdictions that don’t limit access probably don’t have sexually segregated bathrooms to begin with. In the interest of further clarity, I’m confident there are exceptions to the general prohibition (since that is the law in Houston, i.e. one sex cannot enter another sex’s facility for an improper purpose). But, as a widely applicable and general statement of the law, what I said is correct.
You’re doing some nice slight-of-hand here, I must admit – you have not once defined gender.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part. I have no idea how gender is defined, nor did I ever purport to know a definition. The lack of definition is part of the problem I describe. I tried to make a definition, whether you’ve read it or not.
So, generally, to quote someone I do like conversing with, kiss my ass and spend more time reading about statutory construction.
And as for “when did you decide your gender?” That is my standard question to anyone who (seems to be) claiming that gender or sexual orientation is a “choice”. Because I sure as Hel never felt like I had a “choice” in the matter, and if someone claims that gender or sexuality is a “choice” probably feels differently. Your gender/sexuality might *change*, but not necessarily a result of a *choice*.
Well, then, say what you mean. I agree that gender isn’t a choice, at least not in any sense of how I understand it. You are what you are. However, I never implied otherwise, so maybe you need to read more carefully and be less of a prick before you tee off on someone. Seriously, you and NV and a couple of others here go into asshole mode at the drop of a hat. I’m tired of it, if that isn’t already painfully obvious.
I’m not disputing this, just wondering. Given the extraordinary variety of “legalities” in this country, I would have expected that some (many, most?) jurisdictions would have laws like this, but not all, which this statement implies.
Ok, a fair point, up to a point: I have not reviewed every city ordinance in America. I’m sure there is an exception somewhere, but probably not many, since jurisdictions that don’t limit access probably don’t have sexually segregated bathrooms to begin with. In the interest of further clarity, I’m confident there are exceptions to the general prohibition (since that is the law in Houston, i.e. one sex cannot enter another sex’s facility for an improper purpose). But, as a widely applicable and general statement of the law, what I said is correct.
Ugh, you still haven’t explained why separate sex bathrooms are discriminatory. How do separate bathrooms favor one over the other? Please explain. And no need to keep saying the sexually distinct categorizations are suspect–that is only when one is favored or disfavored. So, please answer the question I’ve asked now several times.
But it is discriminatory, just because there is an equal amount of discrimination going the other way doesn’t make it automatically okay. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board. Would segregation be okay if it was, e.g., whites on the left side of the bus and blacks on the right?
The law says – “you may not go into space X because you are a man.” That the law also says – “you may not go into space Y because you are a woman” does not necessarily make the space X restriction okay (or vice versa).
Perhaps a better way to put it without using “discrimination” is that government-required race and gender (among other things) based classifications are a potential equal protection violation.
Don’t get me wrong, it could be that under the relevant case law separate sex bathrooms as required by law is just fine, I don’t know. I do think a court would entertain the question.
Ugh, you still haven’t explained why separate sex bathrooms are discriminatory. How do separate bathrooms favor one over the other? Please explain. And no need to keep saying the sexually distinct categorizations are suspect–that is only when one is favored or disfavored. So, please answer the question I’ve asked now several times.
But it is discriminatory, just because there is an equal amount of discrimination going the other way doesn’t make it automatically okay. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board. Would segregation be okay if it was, e.g., whites on the left side of the bus and blacks on the right?
The law says – “you may not go into space X because you are a man.” That the law also says – “you may not go into space Y because you are a woman” does not necessarily make the space X restriction okay (or vice versa).
Perhaps a better way to put it without using “discrimination” is that government-required race and gender (among other things) based classifications are a potential equal protection violation.
Don’t get me wrong, it could be that under the relevant case law separate sex bathrooms as required by law is just fine, I don’t know. I do think a court would entertain the question.
Ugh, you still haven’t explained why separate sex bathrooms are discriminatory. How do separate bathrooms favor one over the other? Please explain. And no need to keep saying the sexually distinct categorizations are suspect–that is only when one is favored or disfavored. So, please answer the question I’ve asked now several times.
But it is discriminatory, just because there is an equal amount of discrimination going the other way doesn’t make it automatically okay. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board. Would segregation be okay if it was, e.g., whites on the left side of the bus and blacks on the right?
The law says – “you may not go into space X because you are a man.” That the law also says – “you may not go into space Y because you are a woman” does not necessarily make the space X restriction okay (or vice versa).
Perhaps a better way to put it without using “discrimination” is that government-required race and gender (among other things) based classifications are a potential equal protection violation.
Don’t get me wrong, it could be that under the relevant case law separate sex bathrooms as required by law is just fine, I don’t know. I do think a court would entertain the question.
McK, Where the law does specify that, for example, men may not use women’s restrooms and vis versa, how does that law define “men” and “women”? Does it look at birth certificates? Or at what plumbing is currently installed? Or what (“presentation” perhaps)?
I’m really not trying to be snarky (no relation) here. Just curious how the law on the subject currently works.
McK, Where the law does specify that, for example, men may not use women’s restrooms and vis versa, how does that law define “men” and “women”? Does it look at birth certificates? Or at what plumbing is currently installed? Or what (“presentation” perhaps)?
I’m really not trying to be snarky (no relation) here. Just curious how the law on the subject currently works.
McK, Where the law does specify that, for example, men may not use women’s restrooms and vis versa, how does that law define “men” and “women”? Does it look at birth certificates? Or at what plumbing is currently installed? Or what (“presentation” perhaps)?
I’m really not trying to be snarky (no relation) here. Just curious how the law on the subject currently works.
since that is the law in Houston, i.e. one sex cannot enter another sex’s facility for an improper purpose
Whoa whoa whoa. “Improper purpose”? Is that defined? Couldn’t I just claim to be entering a women’s restroom for a “proper” purpose in the way I could claim that I identified as a woman despite my rather mannish appearance in your example?
since that is the law in Houston, i.e. one sex cannot enter another sex’s facility for an improper purpose
Whoa whoa whoa. “Improper purpose”? Is that defined? Couldn’t I just claim to be entering a women’s restroom for a “proper” purpose in the way I could claim that I identified as a woman despite my rather mannish appearance in your example?
since that is the law in Houston, i.e. one sex cannot enter another sex’s facility for an improper purpose
Whoa whoa whoa. “Improper purpose”? Is that defined? Couldn’t I just claim to be entering a women’s restroom for a “proper” purpose in the way I could claim that I identified as a woman despite my rather mannish appearance in your example?
Don’t get me wrong, it could be that under the relevant case law separate sex bathrooms as required by law is just fine, I don’t know. I do think a court would entertain the question.
Where we part ways–lawyers don’t always agree, apparently–is whether a law that distinguishes between sex/gender–as opposed to race, for example–is *discriminatory* simply by virtue of the distinction or whether the distinction itself has to be discriminatory in that one sex is being deprived of a right or privilege that it ought otherwise to have or is being required to forego a right/privilege, etc, etc. I’m sure HSH is eating this up.
So, we are at loggerheads on that point. Fair enough. I agree a court would hear the case. I think it’s a very simple case, though. I would not want to be on the “it’s not fair that I can’t join the ladies in their changing area” side of the argument.
Don’t get me wrong, it could be that under the relevant case law separate sex bathrooms as required by law is just fine, I don’t know. I do think a court would entertain the question.
Where we part ways–lawyers don’t always agree, apparently–is whether a law that distinguishes between sex/gender–as opposed to race, for example–is *discriminatory* simply by virtue of the distinction or whether the distinction itself has to be discriminatory in that one sex is being deprived of a right or privilege that it ought otherwise to have or is being required to forego a right/privilege, etc, etc. I’m sure HSH is eating this up.
So, we are at loggerheads on that point. Fair enough. I agree a court would hear the case. I think it’s a very simple case, though. I would not want to be on the “it’s not fair that I can’t join the ladies in their changing area” side of the argument.
Don’t get me wrong, it could be that under the relevant case law separate sex bathrooms as required by law is just fine, I don’t know. I do think a court would entertain the question.
Where we part ways–lawyers don’t always agree, apparently–is whether a law that distinguishes between sex/gender–as opposed to race, for example–is *discriminatory* simply by virtue of the distinction or whether the distinction itself has to be discriminatory in that one sex is being deprived of a right or privilege that it ought otherwise to have or is being required to forego a right/privilege, etc, etc. I’m sure HSH is eating this up.
So, we are at loggerheads on that point. Fair enough. I agree a court would hear the case. I think it’s a very simple case, though. I would not want to be on the “it’s not fair that I can’t join the ladies in their changing area” side of the argument.
The person playing word games you NV. This assumption is not reflected anywhere in anything written, really by anyone in the whole thread.
Not really, no. McK is making a distinction between gender and gender identity. This really isn’t debatable. If not, someone cannot simultaneously have a “gender identity” of “bi-gender” and “decide” (also, what Snarki said @12:27) that their gender “currently is” “female”. This statement is only coherent if gender and gender identity refer to two separate concepts, to which two discrete and distinct labels can be applied. McK has been treating “gender identity” as a fuzzy list of 60+ made-up terms which may or may not have any referent in the physical world, and we can’t know, so we can’t use this as an unambiguous referent for anything. I don’t think this is an unfair or inaccurate description of their presented position; you and they may disagree, but it’s a very straightforward reading. McK has also been treating “gender” as a discrete binary label: male or female. They have made statements to the effect that this corresponds to one’s physical sex as commonly understood (naturally or surgically), or a perception that this is what one’s physical sex is “supposed” to be; there is also an assumption that one will conduct one’s self in the entirely-undefined and apparently-totally-unambiguous socially accepted “manner and appearance” of the gender traditionally paired with said sex. This assumption is very, very hard to avoid because McK has come very close to outright stating it. However, again, it requires that we understand “gender identity” to be distinct from “gender”. Otherwise, any number of statements they have made become entirely incoherent and in fact internally contradictory.
Someone talks about registering gender, really? Do I then carry a card? Is someone going to check my drivers license for gender? I mean, I don’t care but I am sure the ACLU would.
We already do this with sex, which is not, in point of fact, a discrete binary. We normally register it at birth according to the subjective judgement of the attending physician, etc. As a rule, our criteria are fairly unambiguous, and there are not a lot of edge cases. However, our legal sex is (as in the lovely NC law) determined by that registration.
If you wanted to compare this to e.g. race, there would be some reasonable comparison to be had. There is ambiguity, and there are not bright lines. We generally accept self-assessment, though we generally do not allow access restrictions based upon it. Would it be an undue burden to require registration to enjoy official recognition as one gender or another? Very possibly.
However, if you’re actually serious about restroom and changing facilities providing “protection” as you and McK appear to argue, and this does not amount to an assertion that dress codes alone offer sufficient protection, then you are going to have to require something more verifiable than how someone presents at a given moment in time. Your stated position appears to be that there is something fundamentally different about allowing someone to arbitrarily “decide” they’re “female” and be entitled to go into that WC and allowing someone to arbitrarily “decide” they’ll present as “female” and be entitled to go into that WC. The difference is superficial, not fundamental. If the former offers no protection, the latter offers none as well, certainly in the cases McK has described. You can of course offer counterexamples based on spur-of-the-moment opportunism, as in fact you do, but if we follow the logic offered here of predators abusing permissiveness, why should we not assume would-be predators will not dress ambiguously or carry a change of clothes? Per assertions here about how any wavering in our resolve to clearly delineate bathroom access will be seized upon by rapists and pedophiles, you cannot credibly make that assertion without repudiating such zero-tolerance claims.
The person playing word games you NV. This assumption is not reflected anywhere in anything written, really by anyone in the whole thread.
Not really, no. McK is making a distinction between gender and gender identity. This really isn’t debatable. If not, someone cannot simultaneously have a “gender identity” of “bi-gender” and “decide” (also, what Snarki said @12:27) that their gender “currently is” “female”. This statement is only coherent if gender and gender identity refer to two separate concepts, to which two discrete and distinct labels can be applied. McK has been treating “gender identity” as a fuzzy list of 60+ made-up terms which may or may not have any referent in the physical world, and we can’t know, so we can’t use this as an unambiguous referent for anything. I don’t think this is an unfair or inaccurate description of their presented position; you and they may disagree, but it’s a very straightforward reading. McK has also been treating “gender” as a discrete binary label: male or female. They have made statements to the effect that this corresponds to one’s physical sex as commonly understood (naturally or surgically), or a perception that this is what one’s physical sex is “supposed” to be; there is also an assumption that one will conduct one’s self in the entirely-undefined and apparently-totally-unambiguous socially accepted “manner and appearance” of the gender traditionally paired with said sex. This assumption is very, very hard to avoid because McK has come very close to outright stating it. However, again, it requires that we understand “gender identity” to be distinct from “gender”. Otherwise, any number of statements they have made become entirely incoherent and in fact internally contradictory.
Someone talks about registering gender, really? Do I then carry a card? Is someone going to check my drivers license for gender? I mean, I don’t care but I am sure the ACLU would.
We already do this with sex, which is not, in point of fact, a discrete binary. We normally register it at birth according to the subjective judgement of the attending physician, etc. As a rule, our criteria are fairly unambiguous, and there are not a lot of edge cases. However, our legal sex is (as in the lovely NC law) determined by that registration.
If you wanted to compare this to e.g. race, there would be some reasonable comparison to be had. There is ambiguity, and there are not bright lines. We generally accept self-assessment, though we generally do not allow access restrictions based upon it. Would it be an undue burden to require registration to enjoy official recognition as one gender or another? Very possibly.
However, if you’re actually serious about restroom and changing facilities providing “protection” as you and McK appear to argue, and this does not amount to an assertion that dress codes alone offer sufficient protection, then you are going to have to require something more verifiable than how someone presents at a given moment in time. Your stated position appears to be that there is something fundamentally different about allowing someone to arbitrarily “decide” they’re “female” and be entitled to go into that WC and allowing someone to arbitrarily “decide” they’ll present as “female” and be entitled to go into that WC. The difference is superficial, not fundamental. If the former offers no protection, the latter offers none as well, certainly in the cases McK has described. You can of course offer counterexamples based on spur-of-the-moment opportunism, as in fact you do, but if we follow the logic offered here of predators abusing permissiveness, why should we not assume would-be predators will not dress ambiguously or carry a change of clothes? Per assertions here about how any wavering in our resolve to clearly delineate bathroom access will be seized upon by rapists and pedophiles, you cannot credibly make that assertion without repudiating such zero-tolerance claims.
The person playing word games you NV. This assumption is not reflected anywhere in anything written, really by anyone in the whole thread.
Not really, no. McK is making a distinction between gender and gender identity. This really isn’t debatable. If not, someone cannot simultaneously have a “gender identity” of “bi-gender” and “decide” (also, what Snarki said @12:27) that their gender “currently is” “female”. This statement is only coherent if gender and gender identity refer to two separate concepts, to which two discrete and distinct labels can be applied. McK has been treating “gender identity” as a fuzzy list of 60+ made-up terms which may or may not have any referent in the physical world, and we can’t know, so we can’t use this as an unambiguous referent for anything. I don’t think this is an unfair or inaccurate description of their presented position; you and they may disagree, but it’s a very straightforward reading. McK has also been treating “gender” as a discrete binary label: male or female. They have made statements to the effect that this corresponds to one’s physical sex as commonly understood (naturally or surgically), or a perception that this is what one’s physical sex is “supposed” to be; there is also an assumption that one will conduct one’s self in the entirely-undefined and apparently-totally-unambiguous socially accepted “manner and appearance” of the gender traditionally paired with said sex. This assumption is very, very hard to avoid because McK has come very close to outright stating it. However, again, it requires that we understand “gender identity” to be distinct from “gender”. Otherwise, any number of statements they have made become entirely incoherent and in fact internally contradictory.
Someone talks about registering gender, really? Do I then carry a card? Is someone going to check my drivers license for gender? I mean, I don’t care but I am sure the ACLU would.
We already do this with sex, which is not, in point of fact, a discrete binary. We normally register it at birth according to the subjective judgement of the attending physician, etc. As a rule, our criteria are fairly unambiguous, and there are not a lot of edge cases. However, our legal sex is (as in the lovely NC law) determined by that registration.
If you wanted to compare this to e.g. race, there would be some reasonable comparison to be had. There is ambiguity, and there are not bright lines. We generally accept self-assessment, though we generally do not allow access restrictions based upon it. Would it be an undue burden to require registration to enjoy official recognition as one gender or another? Very possibly.
However, if you’re actually serious about restroom and changing facilities providing “protection” as you and McK appear to argue, and this does not amount to an assertion that dress codes alone offer sufficient protection, then you are going to have to require something more verifiable than how someone presents at a given moment in time. Your stated position appears to be that there is something fundamentally different about allowing someone to arbitrarily “decide” they’re “female” and be entitled to go into that WC and allowing someone to arbitrarily “decide” they’ll present as “female” and be entitled to go into that WC. The difference is superficial, not fundamental. If the former offers no protection, the latter offers none as well, certainly in the cases McK has described. You can of course offer counterexamples based on spur-of-the-moment opportunism, as in fact you do, but if we follow the logic offered here of predators abusing permissiveness, why should we not assume would-be predators will not dress ambiguously or carry a change of clothes? Per assertions here about how any wavering in our resolve to clearly delineate bathroom access will be seized upon by rapists and pedophiles, you cannot credibly make that assertion without repudiating such zero-tolerance claims.
McK, Where the law does specify that, for example, men may not use women’s restrooms and vis versa, how does that law define “men” and “women”? Does it look at birth certificates? Or at what plumbing is currently installed? Or what (“presentation” perhaps)?
I’m really not trying to be snarky (no relation) here. Just curious how the law on the subject currently works.
I can’t speak categorically, but in every instance in which I am familiar, when the law speaks of male vs female, it does so with respect to plumbing/birth certificate (which I realize has its own set of problems).
Perhaps a better way to put it without using “discrimination” is that government-required race and gender (among other things) based classifications are a potential equal protection violation.
The issue, to me (as a lawyer), is invidious discrimination. There are any number of legitimate age restrictions through age 18, for example. Few are invidious although many seem silly if not truly stupid. Tinkling and changing clothes are not constitutionally protected activities, rather they are activities of normal, but private, living. Separate facilities are not discriminatory any more than urinals are discriminatory. Or athletic supporters.
Whoa whoa whoa. “Improper purpose”? Is that defined? Couldn’t I just claim to be entering a women’s restroom for a “proper” purpose in the way I could claim that I identified as a woman despite my rather mannish appearance in your example?
Yes and yes. IIRC, the Houston test is “for the purpose of causing a disturbance”. Void for vagueness? Maybe.
And, sure, any man can enter the women’s restroom on a pretext. The key difference is, under current law, he is immediately subject to law enforcement intervention, challenge, examination and eviction. If the Houston ordinance had passed, a man could enter with near impunity. His conduct once inside might be cause for calling the police, but by then the harm’s been done and to no good end.
McK, Where the law does specify that, for example, men may not use women’s restrooms and vis versa, how does that law define “men” and “women”? Does it look at birth certificates? Or at what plumbing is currently installed? Or what (“presentation” perhaps)?
I’m really not trying to be snarky (no relation) here. Just curious how the law on the subject currently works.
I can’t speak categorically, but in every instance in which I am familiar, when the law speaks of male vs female, it does so with respect to plumbing/birth certificate (which I realize has its own set of problems).
Perhaps a better way to put it without using “discrimination” is that government-required race and gender (among other things) based classifications are a potential equal protection violation.
The issue, to me (as a lawyer), is invidious discrimination. There are any number of legitimate age restrictions through age 18, for example. Few are invidious although many seem silly if not truly stupid. Tinkling and changing clothes are not constitutionally protected activities, rather they are activities of normal, but private, living. Separate facilities are not discriminatory any more than urinals are discriminatory. Or athletic supporters.
Whoa whoa whoa. “Improper purpose”? Is that defined? Couldn’t I just claim to be entering a women’s restroom for a “proper” purpose in the way I could claim that I identified as a woman despite my rather mannish appearance in your example?
Yes and yes. IIRC, the Houston test is “for the purpose of causing a disturbance”. Void for vagueness? Maybe.
And, sure, any man can enter the women’s restroom on a pretext. The key difference is, under current law, he is immediately subject to law enforcement intervention, challenge, examination and eviction. If the Houston ordinance had passed, a man could enter with near impunity. His conduct once inside might be cause for calling the police, but by then the harm’s been done and to no good end.
McK, Where the law does specify that, for example, men may not use women’s restrooms and vis versa, how does that law define “men” and “women”? Does it look at birth certificates? Or at what plumbing is currently installed? Or what (“presentation” perhaps)?
I’m really not trying to be snarky (no relation) here. Just curious how the law on the subject currently works.
I can’t speak categorically, but in every instance in which I am familiar, when the law speaks of male vs female, it does so with respect to plumbing/birth certificate (which I realize has its own set of problems).
Perhaps a better way to put it without using “discrimination” is that government-required race and gender (among other things) based classifications are a potential equal protection violation.
The issue, to me (as a lawyer), is invidious discrimination. There are any number of legitimate age restrictions through age 18, for example. Few are invidious although many seem silly if not truly stupid. Tinkling and changing clothes are not constitutionally protected activities, rather they are activities of normal, but private, living. Separate facilities are not discriminatory any more than urinals are discriminatory. Or athletic supporters.
Whoa whoa whoa. “Improper purpose”? Is that defined? Couldn’t I just claim to be entering a women’s restroom for a “proper” purpose in the way I could claim that I identified as a woman despite my rather mannish appearance in your example?
Yes and yes. IIRC, the Houston test is “for the purpose of causing a disturbance”. Void for vagueness? Maybe.
And, sure, any man can enter the women’s restroom on a pretext. The key difference is, under current law, he is immediately subject to law enforcement intervention, challenge, examination and eviction. If the Houston ordinance had passed, a man could enter with near impunity. His conduct once inside might be cause for calling the police, but by then the harm’s been done and to no good end.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part.
Oh hey, we have something in common, right down to the reason we have it in common!
Seriously, you and NV and a couple of others here go into asshole mode at the drop of a hat. I’m tired of it, if that isn’t already painfully obvious.
Again, pot, kettle. You mince words a bit finer, but you very quickly resort to holier-than-thou accusations of bad faith and ignorance with your interlocutors. Also, I might add that “at the drop of a hat” ignores both how long the conversation has been going, and your current rhetorical stance. This was not at the drop of a hat. Context is not only what we’ve previously said; what you’ve said sets tone as well.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part.
Oh hey, we have something in common, right down to the reason we have it in common!
Seriously, you and NV and a couple of others here go into asshole mode at the drop of a hat. I’m tired of it, if that isn’t already painfully obvious.
Again, pot, kettle. You mince words a bit finer, but you very quickly resort to holier-than-thou accusations of bad faith and ignorance with your interlocutors. Also, I might add that “at the drop of a hat” ignores both how long the conversation has been going, and your current rhetorical stance. This was not at the drop of a hat. Context is not only what we’ve previously said; what you’ve said sets tone as well.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part.
Oh hey, we have something in common, right down to the reason we have it in common!
Seriously, you and NV and a couple of others here go into asshole mode at the drop of a hat. I’m tired of it, if that isn’t already painfully obvious.
Again, pot, kettle. You mince words a bit finer, but you very quickly resort to holier-than-thou accusations of bad faith and ignorance with your interlocutors. Also, I might add that “at the drop of a hat” ignores both how long the conversation has been going, and your current rhetorical stance. This was not at the drop of a hat. Context is not only what we’ve previously said; what you’ve said sets tone as well.
If the Houston ordinance had passed, a man could enter with near impunity.
By your stated preference, a man should be able to present as a woman and enter a woman’s restroom with near impunity. Your concern, as you have hammered over and over, is protecting the public from individuals determined to commit criminal acts by gaining illicit access to facilities intended for use by members of a sex to which they are not considered to belong. These two stances are at odds. To put it mildly.
If the Houston ordinance had passed, a man could enter with near impunity.
By your stated preference, a man should be able to present as a woman and enter a woman’s restroom with near impunity. Your concern, as you have hammered over and over, is protecting the public from individuals determined to commit criminal acts by gaining illicit access to facilities intended for use by members of a sex to which they are not considered to belong. These two stances are at odds. To put it mildly.
If the Houston ordinance had passed, a man could enter with near impunity.
By your stated preference, a man should be able to present as a woman and enter a woman’s restroom with near impunity. Your concern, as you have hammered over and over, is protecting the public from individuals determined to commit criminal acts by gaining illicit access to facilities intended for use by members of a sex to which they are not considered to belong. These two stances are at odds. To put it mildly.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part.
As a side note, I’d say you’re fairly observing a correlation here. I find you to be reasonable and levelheaded an awful lot of the time, and don’t generally cross words with you except when I perceive you deploying particularly egregious rhetoric.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part.
As a side note, I’d say you’re fairly observing a correlation here. I find you to be reasonable and levelheaded an awful lot of the time, and don’t generally cross words with you except when I perceive you deploying particularly egregious rhetoric.
This is why you are one of my least favorite people to converse with. It’s always chickenshit activity on my part.
As a side note, I’d say you’re fairly observing a correlation here. I find you to be reasonable and levelheaded an awful lot of the time, and don’t generally cross words with you except when I perceive you deploying particularly egregious rhetoric.
“The same laws that are supposed to protect female workers and customers also prevent companies from catering to women.”
Yeah, not so much. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any gyms around where I live with only female members, and exactly zero with only male members.
“The same laws that are supposed to protect female workers and customers also prevent companies from catering to women.”
Yeah, not so much. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any gyms around where I live with only female members, and exactly zero with only male members.
“The same laws that are supposed to protect female workers and customers also prevent companies from catering to women.”
Yeah, not so much. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any gyms around where I live with only female members, and exactly zero with only male members.
But a sexual predator in his/her daily attire is less likely to follow a target into a bathroom if it is specifically unacceptable, and likely to gain notice.
I ask the same question Russell asked above.
If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry”….and that furthermore, said assaults are already illegal. Furthermore, just dressing up to “pass” or “gain entry” (exhibitionists, etc.) does not strike me as likely as this would undoubtedly bring unwanted attention, and again, it’s most likely a criminal offense.
I am reminded of the gun law arguments where conservatives argue that the laws in place are “sufficient” to prevent further mayhem, despite the body count. So, as an immoral left person determined to impose my views (especially on McKinney, who richly deserves it, heh), I am switching genders on this topic to argue exactly opposite as I argue when it comes to guns. Naturally, I may switch back at any time of my choosing.
🙂
But a sexual predator in his/her daily attire is less likely to follow a target into a bathroom if it is specifically unacceptable, and likely to gain notice.
I ask the same question Russell asked above.
If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry”….and that furthermore, said assaults are already illegal. Furthermore, just dressing up to “pass” or “gain entry” (exhibitionists, etc.) does not strike me as likely as this would undoubtedly bring unwanted attention, and again, it’s most likely a criminal offense.
I am reminded of the gun law arguments where conservatives argue that the laws in place are “sufficient” to prevent further mayhem, despite the body count. So, as an immoral left person determined to impose my views (especially on McKinney, who richly deserves it, heh), I am switching genders on this topic to argue exactly opposite as I argue when it comes to guns. Naturally, I may switch back at any time of my choosing.
🙂
But a sexual predator in his/her daily attire is less likely to follow a target into a bathroom if it is specifically unacceptable, and likely to gain notice.
I ask the same question Russell asked above.
If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry”….and that furthermore, said assaults are already illegal. Furthermore, just dressing up to “pass” or “gain entry” (exhibitionists, etc.) does not strike me as likely as this would undoubtedly bring unwanted attention, and again, it’s most likely a criminal offense.
I am reminded of the gun law arguments where conservatives argue that the laws in place are “sufficient” to prevent further mayhem, despite the body count. So, as an immoral left person determined to impose my views (especially on McKinney, who richly deserves it, heh), I am switching genders on this topic to argue exactly opposite as I argue when it comes to guns. Naturally, I may switch back at any time of my choosing.
🙂
“why should we not assume would-be predators will not dress ambiguously or carry a change of clothes?”
We, of course can’t, and in fact there are presentation differences beyond clothes that we can’t control for. Which is an excellent argument for, nothing.
We could, as expressed in the Houston and Charlotte laws, just create unisex facilities by law.
Or we can take my one off exaamples, as likely as your one off examples, and try to create a statute that has some definition that is feasibly successful at reducing the danger to transgender people while controlling as much as possible for the safety of everyone else.
Or you can write ten more paragraphs reading things into what McK has written that simply aren’t there. Or should we be specifying “transgender identity” people as opposed to transgender people? I certainly hope a distinction without a meaning.
“why should we not assume would-be predators will not dress ambiguously or carry a change of clothes?”
We, of course can’t, and in fact there are presentation differences beyond clothes that we can’t control for. Which is an excellent argument for, nothing.
We could, as expressed in the Houston and Charlotte laws, just create unisex facilities by law.
Or we can take my one off exaamples, as likely as your one off examples, and try to create a statute that has some definition that is feasibly successful at reducing the danger to transgender people while controlling as much as possible for the safety of everyone else.
Or you can write ten more paragraphs reading things into what McK has written that simply aren’t there. Or should we be specifying “transgender identity” people as opposed to transgender people? I certainly hope a distinction without a meaning.
“why should we not assume would-be predators will not dress ambiguously or carry a change of clothes?”
We, of course can’t, and in fact there are presentation differences beyond clothes that we can’t control for. Which is an excellent argument for, nothing.
We could, as expressed in the Houston and Charlotte laws, just create unisex facilities by law.
Or we can take my one off exaamples, as likely as your one off examples, and try to create a statute that has some definition that is feasibly successful at reducing the danger to transgender people while controlling as much as possible for the safety of everyone else.
Or you can write ten more paragraphs reading things into what McK has written that simply aren’t there. Or should we be specifying “transgender identity” people as opposed to transgender people? I certainly hope a distinction without a meaning.
If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry”
This really is the crux of what’s so frustrating about these “common sense” accusations of callousness about predatory behavior. They’re being presented as an answer to someone refusing to consider the actual situation at hand, as it unfolds in reality, in its context. And yet they’re presented in a vacuum, where only one countervailing factor has any impact, and that the minimal protection offered rejecting that objectionable hypothetical is both a necessary and sufficient response to the issue, to the point where these same objections don’t arise in fundamentally similar situations where some minimal additional effort is required (i.e., the passing situation, which I agree is (also) unlikely to result in intrusions beyond what currently occur).
If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry”
This really is the crux of what’s so frustrating about these “common sense” accusations of callousness about predatory behavior. They’re being presented as an answer to someone refusing to consider the actual situation at hand, as it unfolds in reality, in its context. And yet they’re presented in a vacuum, where only one countervailing factor has any impact, and that the minimal protection offered rejecting that objectionable hypothetical is both a necessary and sufficient response to the issue, to the point where these same objections don’t arise in fundamentally similar situations where some minimal additional effort is required (i.e., the passing situation, which I agree is (also) unlikely to result in intrusions beyond what currently occur).
If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry”
This really is the crux of what’s so frustrating about these “common sense” accusations of callousness about predatory behavior. They’re being presented as an answer to someone refusing to consider the actual situation at hand, as it unfolds in reality, in its context. And yet they’re presented in a vacuum, where only one countervailing factor has any impact, and that the minimal protection offered rejecting that objectionable hypothetical is both a necessary and sufficient response to the issue, to the point where these same objections don’t arise in fundamentally similar situations where some minimal additional effort is required (i.e., the passing situation, which I agree is (also) unlikely to result in intrusions beyond what currently occur).
McKinney: “His conduct once inside might be cause for calling the police, but by then the harm’s been done and to no good end.”
You also argue that stuff like indecent exposure and peeping would be more easily accomplished and would “result” in a great deal of harm, anguish, and/or psychological damage to females.
It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.
McKinney: “His conduct once inside might be cause for calling the police, but by then the harm’s been done and to no good end.”
You also argue that stuff like indecent exposure and peeping would be more easily accomplished and would “result” in a great deal of harm, anguish, and/or psychological damage to females.
It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.
McKinney: “His conduct once inside might be cause for calling the police, but by then the harm’s been done and to no good end.”
You also argue that stuff like indecent exposure and peeping would be more easily accomplished and would “result” in a great deal of harm, anguish, and/or psychological damage to females.
It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.
“If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry””
Of course, however, specifically allowing anyone to use the bathroom of their choice takes a large deterrent out of the mix. Instead of just entering being unacceptable, as it is today almost everywhere, it wont be any longer. So the person wont shy away based on the fact that they would immediately standout as being out of place.
“If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry””
Of course, however, specifically allowing anyone to use the bathroom of their choice takes a large deterrent out of the mix. Instead of just entering being unacceptable, as it is today almost everywhere, it wont be any longer. So the person wont shy away based on the fact that they would immediately standout as being out of place.
“If I may interject some conservative common sense here, it strikes me that the likelihood of a predator following a target into a bathroom is dictated by the circumstances at hand (sight lighting, no police about, apparently only the planned victim in the facility, etc.), not “ease of entry””
Of course, however, specifically allowing anyone to use the bathroom of their choice takes a large deterrent out of the mix. Instead of just entering being unacceptable, as it is today almost everywhere, it wont be any longer. So the person wont shy away based on the fact that they would immediately standout as being out of place.
“It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.”
I love this one. It’s really ok for them to have to put up with it.
“It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.”
I love this one. It’s really ok for them to have to put up with it.
“It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.”
I love this one. It’s really ok for them to have to put up with it.
Of course, however, specifically allowing anyone to use the bathroom of their choice takes a large deterrent out of the mix
The argument seems to be that facilitating access will increase incidence of improper/illegal behavior. Absent actual evidence backing this up, I remain skeptical.
Similarly, specifically allowing anybody to buy a gun “takes a large deterrent (to use it inappropriately) out of the mix”, too, would it not?
As a true Leftist (capital L today only), I must have it both ways, Marty!
🙂
Of course, however, specifically allowing anyone to use the bathroom of their choice takes a large deterrent out of the mix
The argument seems to be that facilitating access will increase incidence of improper/illegal behavior. Absent actual evidence backing this up, I remain skeptical.
Similarly, specifically allowing anybody to buy a gun “takes a large deterrent (to use it inappropriately) out of the mix”, too, would it not?
As a true Leftist (capital L today only), I must have it both ways, Marty!
🙂
Of course, however, specifically allowing anyone to use the bathroom of their choice takes a large deterrent out of the mix
The argument seems to be that facilitating access will increase incidence of improper/illegal behavior. Absent actual evidence backing this up, I remain skeptical.
Similarly, specifically allowing anybody to buy a gun “takes a large deterrent (to use it inappropriately) out of the mix”, too, would it not?
As a true Leftist (capital L today only), I must have it both ways, Marty!
🙂
You also argue that stuff like indecent exposure and peeping would be more easily accomplished and would “result” in a great deal of harm, anguish, and/or psychological damage to females.
It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.
Do you have any daughters? Would you be fine with an adult male “inadvertently” exposing himself to an 11 year old girl?
Because this kind of thing does happen. If we make it easier for it to happen, it will happen more often.
Let me again note the irony of so many leftish types being skeptical about male sexual predation when it is pretty widely held on the left that there is a rape crisis on college campuses and we live in rape culture. I mean, really.
You also argue that stuff like indecent exposure and peeping would be more easily accomplished and would “result” in a great deal of harm, anguish, and/or psychological damage to females.
It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.
Do you have any daughters? Would you be fine with an adult male “inadvertently” exposing himself to an 11 year old girl?
Because this kind of thing does happen. If we make it easier for it to happen, it will happen more often.
Let me again note the irony of so many leftish types being skeptical about male sexual predation when it is pretty widely held on the left that there is a rape crisis on college campuses and we live in rape culture. I mean, really.
You also argue that stuff like indecent exposure and peeping would be more easily accomplished and would “result” in a great deal of harm, anguish, and/or psychological damage to females.
It is my experience that females are tougher than you seem to imply. They’ve been putting up with such assholery forever.
Do you have any daughters? Would you be fine with an adult male “inadvertently” exposing himself to an 11 year old girl?
Because this kind of thing does happen. If we make it easier for it to happen, it will happen more often.
Let me again note the irony of so many leftish types being skeptical about male sexual predation when it is pretty widely held on the left that there is a rape crisis on college campuses and we live in rape culture. I mean, really.
bobbyp, for the cost of the deterrent, I would rather have it and never find out if it was necessary.
bobbyp, for the cost of the deterrent, I would rather have it and never find out if it was necessary.
bobbyp, for the cost of the deterrent, I would rather have it and never find out if it was necessary.
Let me again note the irony of so many leftish types being skeptical about male sexual predation…
I see no irony here. You assert there will be an “increase”, an assertion made absent any evidence. Furthermore, I find the assertion that more “perverts” will just waltz into the women’s room and flop their organ out for all to see to be ludicrous. I would expect these days such behavior is more likely to be met with gales of laughter than fear and loathing. Again, you seem to be not giving women the ability to deal with such situations any meaningful respect.
On the other hand, the statistics on campus sexual assault are readily available.
And, speaking of irony, why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
With all due respect.
Let me again note the irony of so many leftish types being skeptical about male sexual predation…
I see no irony here. You assert there will be an “increase”, an assertion made absent any evidence. Furthermore, I find the assertion that more “perverts” will just waltz into the women’s room and flop their organ out for all to see to be ludicrous. I would expect these days such behavior is more likely to be met with gales of laughter than fear and loathing. Again, you seem to be not giving women the ability to deal with such situations any meaningful respect.
On the other hand, the statistics on campus sexual assault are readily available.
And, speaking of irony, why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
With all due respect.
Let me again note the irony of so many leftish types being skeptical about male sexual predation…
I see no irony here. You assert there will be an “increase”, an assertion made absent any evidence. Furthermore, I find the assertion that more “perverts” will just waltz into the women’s room and flop their organ out for all to see to be ludicrous. I would expect these days such behavior is more likely to be met with gales of laughter than fear and loathing. Again, you seem to be not giving women the ability to deal with such situations any meaningful respect.
On the other hand, the statistics on campus sexual assault are readily available.
And, speaking of irony, why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
With all due respect.
bobbyp, for the cost of the deterrent, I would rather have it and never find out if it was necessary.
I sense an aggregation problem coming.
bobbyp, for the cost of the deterrent, I would rather have it and never find out if it was necessary.
I sense an aggregation problem coming.
bobbyp, for the cost of the deterrent, I would rather have it and never find out if it was necessary.
I sense an aggregation problem coming.
I love this one. It’s really ok for them to have to put up with it.
They already do. You paternalism is showing.
I love this one. It’s really ok for them to have to put up with it.
They already do. You paternalism is showing.
I love this one. It’s really ok for them to have to put up with it.
They already do. You paternalism is showing.
why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
You noticed that? Not just in this discussion. See, for example, any of the discussions about trans kids in high school gym classes. Every one of them goes on about “boys” in the girls locker room. Never any mention of “girls” in the boys locker room.
But perhaps “nympho” is no longer in the right’s working vocabulary….
why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
You noticed that? Not just in this discussion. See, for example, any of the discussions about trans kids in high school gym classes. Every one of them goes on about “boys” in the girls locker room. Never any mention of “girls” in the boys locker room.
But perhaps “nympho” is no longer in the right’s working vocabulary….
why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
You noticed that? Not just in this discussion. See, for example, any of the discussions about trans kids in high school gym classes. Every one of them goes on about “boys” in the girls locker room. Never any mention of “girls” in the boys locker room.
But perhaps “nympho” is no longer in the right’s working vocabulary….
And, speaking of irony, why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
Because, unfortunately, young men and boys are already exposed. *That* can’t be fixed.
And, because if we are going to expose young women to sexual predators more so than we already to, we ought to be clear in what we’re about.
So, point blank: is it your position that men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms?
Does that extend to college and high school aged males, at school? Do the females and their parents get a vote?
I would appreciate the courtesy of a clear and direct answer.
I would expect these days such behavior is more likely to be met with gales of laughter than fear and loathing. Again, you seem to be not giving women the ability to deal with such situations any meaningful respect.
And, with all due respect, you may be shifting much more of a burden to women than they care to bear. Do they get a vote? I’ve invited the ObWi women’s contingent to wade in. GFNC did and my take is, if she’s in the restroom by herself, she prefers men not be there. I’m guessing that’s pretty universal in the US. But, there are many we haven’t heard from–maybe I’m wrong.
And, speaking of irony, why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
Because, unfortunately, young men and boys are already exposed. *That* can’t be fixed.
And, because if we are going to expose young women to sexual predators more so than we already to, we ought to be clear in what we’re about.
So, point blank: is it your position that men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms?
Does that extend to college and high school aged males, at school? Do the females and their parents get a vote?
I would appreciate the courtesy of a clear and direct answer.
I would expect these days such behavior is more likely to be met with gales of laughter than fear and loathing. Again, you seem to be not giving women the ability to deal with such situations any meaningful respect.
And, with all due respect, you may be shifting much more of a burden to women than they care to bear. Do they get a vote? I’ve invited the ObWi women’s contingent to wade in. GFNC did and my take is, if she’s in the restroom by herself, she prefers men not be there. I’m guessing that’s pretty universal in the US. But, there are many we haven’t heard from–maybe I’m wrong.
And, speaking of irony, why is it always referencing “my daughter”, but not my son?
Because, unfortunately, young men and boys are already exposed. *That* can’t be fixed.
And, because if we are going to expose young women to sexual predators more so than we already to, we ought to be clear in what we’re about.
So, point blank: is it your position that men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms?
Does that extend to college and high school aged males, at school? Do the females and their parents get a vote?
I would appreciate the courtesy of a clear and direct answer.
I would expect these days such behavior is more likely to be met with gales of laughter than fear and loathing. Again, you seem to be not giving women the ability to deal with such situations any meaningful respect.
And, with all due respect, you may be shifting much more of a burden to women than they care to bear. Do they get a vote? I’ve invited the ObWi women’s contingent to wade in. GFNC did and my take is, if she’s in the restroom by herself, she prefers men not be there. I’m guessing that’s pretty universal in the US. But, there are many we haven’t heard from–maybe I’m wrong.
“They already do. You paternalism is showing.”
I really can’t have an opinion as a woman so a mans view is all I can express, so I can’t have a maternal view.. I am not a fan of public bathrooms in general. However, the practical side of this is you cant keep men out of both bathrooms, the vast majority of sex offenders are men, so we can confine them to one! Yay.
“They already do. You paternalism is showing.”
I really can’t have an opinion as a woman so a mans view is all I can express, so I can’t have a maternal view.. I am not a fan of public bathrooms in general. However, the practical side of this is you cant keep men out of both bathrooms, the vast majority of sex offenders are men, so we can confine them to one! Yay.
“They already do. You paternalism is showing.”
I really can’t have an opinion as a woman so a mans view is all I can express, so I can’t have a maternal view.. I am not a fan of public bathrooms in general. However, the practical side of this is you cant keep men out of both bathrooms, the vast majority of sex offenders are men, so we can confine them to one! Yay.
the vast majority of sex offenders are men
I’m not sure this fact should be the basis for any kind of public policy impacting all men. Legally enforced single sex bath/locker rooms potentially excepted.
the vast majority of sex offenders are men
I’m not sure this fact should be the basis for any kind of public policy impacting all men. Legally enforced single sex bath/locker rooms potentially excepted.
the vast majority of sex offenders are men
I’m not sure this fact should be the basis for any kind of public policy impacting all men. Legally enforced single sex bath/locker rooms potentially excepted.
So, point blank: is it your position that men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms?
For the sake of argument, let’s say yes.
Now: Point blank. Show me what you got. What public policies should flow from your response?
Also: Point blank. Should sexual deviants (however defined) be denied the use of any public restroom facilities? Yes or no.
So, point blank: is it your position that men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms?
For the sake of argument, let’s say yes.
Now: Point blank. Show me what you got. What public policies should flow from your response?
Also: Point blank. Should sexual deviants (however defined) be denied the use of any public restroom facilities? Yes or no.
So, point blank: is it your position that men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and changing rooms?
For the sake of argument, let’s say yes.
Now: Point blank. Show me what you got. What public policies should flow from your response?
Also: Point blank. Should sexual deviants (however defined) be denied the use of any public restroom facilities? Yes or no.
oops….change that “yes” to a “no”. Sorry about that.
oops….change that “yes” to a “no”. Sorry about that.
oops….change that “yes” to a “no”. Sorry about that.
How did McTex ever become a moderator here? He’s frequently demeaning half the readership (“the left”) and seems to take some pleasure in this . He seems to deliberately provoke responses from this group and subsequently engages in extensive mud slinging.
How did McTex ever become a moderator here? He’s frequently demeaning half the readership (“the left”) and seems to take some pleasure in this . He seems to deliberately provoke responses from this group and subsequently engages in extensive mud slinging.
How did McTex ever become a moderator here? He’s frequently demeaning half the readership (“the left”) and seems to take some pleasure in this . He seems to deliberately provoke responses from this group and subsequently engages in extensive mud slinging.
He’s not a moderator.
He’s not a moderator.
He’s not a moderator.
I’m not sure this fact should be the basis for any kind of public policy impacting all men. Legally enforced single sex bath/locker rooms potentially excepted.
Agreed, but it’s still a fact and one that, when constitutionally permissible, needs to be folded into how we regulate public accommodations, including use of an access to same and whatnot.
For example, I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case. My experience in security lines at sporting events and whatnot is that women pat down other women and inspect women’s purses. There are probably other examples of pretty benign sex specific practices that may appear in a polices and procedures manual even if they aren’t codified anywhere. The principle of de minimis seems applicable.
How did McTex ever become a moderator here? He’s frequently demeaning half the readership (“the left”) and seems to take some pleasure in this .
Good question. Ban the bastard. Or, understand that taking potshots at “the Left”, which I absolutely do, is not in anyway a personal attack even on far left bomb throwers like BobbyP (who, if I ever get to Seattle, will be given an opportunity hammer my ass on the golf course). Anymore than the very frequent slams against Republicans, conservatives, gun owners etc are in no way taken by me as a personal attack.
Ugh–among many–and I have had plenty of debates including spirited debates. I even get along with that Count guy. Sort of. But, you know, it’s not my blog.
Oh, and the readership here is well over half lefty. Commenter-wise, it’s X-2 (maybe 4) = lefty commenters at ObWi. Which is why I come here, in case you’ve missed my earlier screeds on this topic: this is where the action is. I’ve been here since, I think, 2002 or thereabouts. I have a personal email from Hilzoy from back then. I have no need of an echo chamber and find most right wingers to be even more tendentious than NV or Snarky.
I agree I can be acerbic. I try not to make it personal, but I am a lawyer and I sometimes reflexively skewer when not completely necessary. Sometimes, though, I’m that way because I get tired of repeating myself, sometimes because I feel as I’m being quibbled to death and sometimes because I’m having a bad hair day.
I’m not sure this fact should be the basis for any kind of public policy impacting all men. Legally enforced single sex bath/locker rooms potentially excepted.
Agreed, but it’s still a fact and one that, when constitutionally permissible, needs to be folded into how we regulate public accommodations, including use of an access to same and whatnot.
For example, I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case. My experience in security lines at sporting events and whatnot is that women pat down other women and inspect women’s purses. There are probably other examples of pretty benign sex specific practices that may appear in a polices and procedures manual even if they aren’t codified anywhere. The principle of de minimis seems applicable.
How did McTex ever become a moderator here? He’s frequently demeaning half the readership (“the left”) and seems to take some pleasure in this .
Good question. Ban the bastard. Or, understand that taking potshots at “the Left”, which I absolutely do, is not in anyway a personal attack even on far left bomb throwers like BobbyP (who, if I ever get to Seattle, will be given an opportunity hammer my ass on the golf course). Anymore than the very frequent slams against Republicans, conservatives, gun owners etc are in no way taken by me as a personal attack.
Ugh–among many–and I have had plenty of debates including spirited debates. I even get along with that Count guy. Sort of. But, you know, it’s not my blog.
Oh, and the readership here is well over half lefty. Commenter-wise, it’s X-2 (maybe 4) = lefty commenters at ObWi. Which is why I come here, in case you’ve missed my earlier screeds on this topic: this is where the action is. I’ve been here since, I think, 2002 or thereabouts. I have a personal email from Hilzoy from back then. I have no need of an echo chamber and find most right wingers to be even more tendentious than NV or Snarky.
I agree I can be acerbic. I try not to make it personal, but I am a lawyer and I sometimes reflexively skewer when not completely necessary. Sometimes, though, I’m that way because I get tired of repeating myself, sometimes because I feel as I’m being quibbled to death and sometimes because I’m having a bad hair day.
I’m not sure this fact should be the basis for any kind of public policy impacting all men. Legally enforced single sex bath/locker rooms potentially excepted.
Agreed, but it’s still a fact and one that, when constitutionally permissible, needs to be folded into how we regulate public accommodations, including use of an access to same and whatnot.
For example, I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case. My experience in security lines at sporting events and whatnot is that women pat down other women and inspect women’s purses. There are probably other examples of pretty benign sex specific practices that may appear in a polices and procedures manual even if they aren’t codified anywhere. The principle of de minimis seems applicable.
How did McTex ever become a moderator here? He’s frequently demeaning half the readership (“the left”) and seems to take some pleasure in this .
Good question. Ban the bastard. Or, understand that taking potshots at “the Left”, which I absolutely do, is not in anyway a personal attack even on far left bomb throwers like BobbyP (who, if I ever get to Seattle, will be given an opportunity hammer my ass on the golf course). Anymore than the very frequent slams against Republicans, conservatives, gun owners etc are in no way taken by me as a personal attack.
Ugh–among many–and I have had plenty of debates including spirited debates. I even get along with that Count guy. Sort of. But, you know, it’s not my blog.
Oh, and the readership here is well over half lefty. Commenter-wise, it’s X-2 (maybe 4) = lefty commenters at ObWi. Which is why I come here, in case you’ve missed my earlier screeds on this topic: this is where the action is. I’ve been here since, I think, 2002 or thereabouts. I have a personal email from Hilzoy from back then. I have no need of an echo chamber and find most right wingers to be even more tendentious than NV or Snarky.
I agree I can be acerbic. I try not to make it personal, but I am a lawyer and I sometimes reflexively skewer when not completely necessary. Sometimes, though, I’m that way because I get tired of repeating myself, sometimes because I feel as I’m being quibbled to death and sometimes because I’m having a bad hair day.
For the sake of argument, let’s say yes.
I wasn’t asking “for the sake of argument”. I was asking for your true, personal position. I’d still like to have it. Mudslinging to follow.
Now: Point blank. Show me what you got.
What? Other than the reams I’ve written above?
What public policies should flow from your response?
Well, for the record, I’m still waiting for your actual response, so you go first.
Also: Point blank. Should sexual deviants (however defined) be denied the use of any public restroom facilities? Yes or no.
No, and I don’t think in terms of deviancy anyway. My line drawing is a fairly bright “non-consensual contact, threatened contact, sexual intimation with an adult or any sexual interaction with a child” and those people would not have access to public facilities in my world because they’d be behind bars. Anyone who is not a fugitive and is therefore lawfully enjoying the freedom of being in the US is free to use whatever public facilities there may be subject to everything I’ve said above, mainly men in the men’s room and women in the women’s room. I’m confident we could spend a full day picking the foregoing apart, but I doubt, substantively, there’s much disagreement here in principle.
Now, I’ve answered your question in good faith. You owe me direct, actual answers to my questions. Don’t make me sue you.
For the sake of argument, let’s say yes.
I wasn’t asking “for the sake of argument”. I was asking for your true, personal position. I’d still like to have it. Mudslinging to follow.
Now: Point blank. Show me what you got.
What? Other than the reams I’ve written above?
What public policies should flow from your response?
Well, for the record, I’m still waiting for your actual response, so you go first.
Also: Point blank. Should sexual deviants (however defined) be denied the use of any public restroom facilities? Yes or no.
No, and I don’t think in terms of deviancy anyway. My line drawing is a fairly bright “non-consensual contact, threatened contact, sexual intimation with an adult or any sexual interaction with a child” and those people would not have access to public facilities in my world because they’d be behind bars. Anyone who is not a fugitive and is therefore lawfully enjoying the freedom of being in the US is free to use whatever public facilities there may be subject to everything I’ve said above, mainly men in the men’s room and women in the women’s room. I’m confident we could spend a full day picking the foregoing apart, but I doubt, substantively, there’s much disagreement here in principle.
Now, I’ve answered your question in good faith. You owe me direct, actual answers to my questions. Don’t make me sue you.
For the sake of argument, let’s say yes.
I wasn’t asking “for the sake of argument”. I was asking for your true, personal position. I’d still like to have it. Mudslinging to follow.
Now: Point blank. Show me what you got.
What? Other than the reams I’ve written above?
What public policies should flow from your response?
Well, for the record, I’m still waiting for your actual response, so you go first.
Also: Point blank. Should sexual deviants (however defined) be denied the use of any public restroom facilities? Yes or no.
No, and I don’t think in terms of deviancy anyway. My line drawing is a fairly bright “non-consensual contact, threatened contact, sexual intimation with an adult or any sexual interaction with a child” and those people would not have access to public facilities in my world because they’d be behind bars. Anyone who is not a fugitive and is therefore lawfully enjoying the freedom of being in the US is free to use whatever public facilities there may be subject to everything I’ve said above, mainly men in the men’s room and women in the women’s room. I’m confident we could spend a full day picking the foregoing apart, but I doubt, substantively, there’s much disagreement here in principle.
Now, I’ve answered your question in good faith. You owe me direct, actual answers to my questions. Don’t make me sue you.
He’s not a moderator.
I’m not? Don’t make me sue you.
He’s not a moderator.
I’m not? Don’t make me sue you.
He’s not a moderator.
I’m not? Don’t make me sue you.
oops….change that “yes” to a “no”. Sorry about that.
Hell, I missed this. I thought you were yanking my chain. Now I get it. Never mind further answers.
On the public policy thing, we’d be talking a whole new line and, unfortunately, I’ve let a shitload of work pile up, but I’ve enjoyed this a lot. Maybe someday, I’ll do a Bill of Particulars on where I think the left, while having the better part of most equality arguments, over-steps and should consider dialing it back. You know, just in case y’all feel like you need my awesome insight on your very limited, if any, deficiencies, which are really small items of form and not at all substantive. Mild enough? Novakant, consider yourself electronically hugged.
oops….change that “yes” to a “no”. Sorry about that.
Hell, I missed this. I thought you were yanking my chain. Now I get it. Never mind further answers.
On the public policy thing, we’d be talking a whole new line and, unfortunately, I’ve let a shitload of work pile up, but I’ve enjoyed this a lot. Maybe someday, I’ll do a Bill of Particulars on where I think the left, while having the better part of most equality arguments, over-steps and should consider dialing it back. You know, just in case y’all feel like you need my awesome insight on your very limited, if any, deficiencies, which are really small items of form and not at all substantive. Mild enough? Novakant, consider yourself electronically hugged.
oops….change that “yes” to a “no”. Sorry about that.
Hell, I missed this. I thought you were yanking my chain. Now I get it. Never mind further answers.
On the public policy thing, we’d be talking a whole new line and, unfortunately, I’ve let a shitload of work pile up, but I’ve enjoyed this a lot. Maybe someday, I’ll do a Bill of Particulars on where I think the left, while having the better part of most equality arguments, over-steps and should consider dialing it back. You know, just in case y’all feel like you need my awesome insight on your very limited, if any, deficiencies, which are really small items of form and not at all substantive. Mild enough? Novakant, consider yourself electronically hugged.
I’ve invited the ObWi women’s contingent to wade in. GFNC did and my take is, if she’s in the restroom by herself, she prefers men not be there.
Correct. But for the sake of completeness, regarding the experience of being subject to any kind of predation, I was flashed by a man when I was 12, walking along the road in the small town where I was at boarding school, and I was absolutely unfreaked. I have a vague memory that I may also have been flashed before that too. It’s true that I grew up in a family who were relaxed about nudity in the family, so I saw nothing new to me, and I had had the concept of flashing, child molestation etc explained to me long before, so I reported it on public- spiritedness grounds, but I was definitely not upset.
A friend of my father’s put his hand down my dress at a party when I was 14, a tennis pro tried rather half-heartedly to rape me when I was 17, and like all other women I have been hit on fairly regularly and with varying degrees of revoltingness for many years. None of this has scarred me, or made me particularly wary, I don’t think. I don’t even feel that strongly about men in women’s restrooms.
The only thing I can add is that I have no children, but very beloved twin god-daughters, and when they were toddlers or even older we always made sure we could see them when they were playing in the park etc, and we always accompanied them when they wanted to go into a little copse of trees growing together, perfect for climbing, but also perfect for paedophiles (we called it PH for Paedophile Heaven). We accompanied them to the Ladies Room too (even though it was very definitely for Ladies only).
I’ve invited the ObWi women’s contingent to wade in. GFNC did and my take is, if she’s in the restroom by herself, she prefers men not be there.
Correct. But for the sake of completeness, regarding the experience of being subject to any kind of predation, I was flashed by a man when I was 12, walking along the road in the small town where I was at boarding school, and I was absolutely unfreaked. I have a vague memory that I may also have been flashed before that too. It’s true that I grew up in a family who were relaxed about nudity in the family, so I saw nothing new to me, and I had had the concept of flashing, child molestation etc explained to me long before, so I reported it on public- spiritedness grounds, but I was definitely not upset.
A friend of my father’s put his hand down my dress at a party when I was 14, a tennis pro tried rather half-heartedly to rape me when I was 17, and like all other women I have been hit on fairly regularly and with varying degrees of revoltingness for many years. None of this has scarred me, or made me particularly wary, I don’t think. I don’t even feel that strongly about men in women’s restrooms.
The only thing I can add is that I have no children, but very beloved twin god-daughters, and when they were toddlers or even older we always made sure we could see them when they were playing in the park etc, and we always accompanied them when they wanted to go into a little copse of trees growing together, perfect for climbing, but also perfect for paedophiles (we called it PH for Paedophile Heaven). We accompanied them to the Ladies Room too (even though it was very definitely for Ladies only).
I’ve invited the ObWi women’s contingent to wade in. GFNC did and my take is, if she’s in the restroom by herself, she prefers men not be there.
Correct. But for the sake of completeness, regarding the experience of being subject to any kind of predation, I was flashed by a man when I was 12, walking along the road in the small town where I was at boarding school, and I was absolutely unfreaked. I have a vague memory that I may also have been flashed before that too. It’s true that I grew up in a family who were relaxed about nudity in the family, so I saw nothing new to me, and I had had the concept of flashing, child molestation etc explained to me long before, so I reported it on public- spiritedness grounds, but I was definitely not upset.
A friend of my father’s put his hand down my dress at a party when I was 14, a tennis pro tried rather half-heartedly to rape me when I was 17, and like all other women I have been hit on fairly regularly and with varying degrees of revoltingness for many years. None of this has scarred me, or made me particularly wary, I don’t think. I don’t even feel that strongly about men in women’s restrooms.
The only thing I can add is that I have no children, but very beloved twin god-daughters, and when they were toddlers or even older we always made sure we could see them when they were playing in the park etc, and we always accompanied them when they wanted to go into a little copse of trees growing together, perfect for climbing, but also perfect for paedophiles (we called it PH for Paedophile Heaven). We accompanied them to the Ladies Room too (even though it was very definitely for Ladies only).
I thought you were yanking my chain.
Not at all. My mistake. Just trying to get the discussion back on what I thought would be a more productive track. Next time.
But as a general rule, I don’t think men should be allowed in public restrooms designated for women.
How’s that?
I thought you were yanking my chain.
Not at all. My mistake. Just trying to get the discussion back on what I thought would be a more productive track. Next time.
But as a general rule, I don’t think men should be allowed in public restrooms designated for women.
How’s that?
I thought you were yanking my chain.
Not at all. My mistake. Just trying to get the discussion back on what I thought would be a more productive track. Next time.
But as a general rule, I don’t think men should be allowed in public restrooms designated for women.
How’s that?
For example, I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case. My experience in security lines at sporting events and whatnot is that women pat down other women and inspect women’s purses. There are probably other examples of pretty benign sex specific practices that may appear in a polices and procedures manual even if they aren’t codified anywhere.
I am reminded of something I heard long, long ago. (I think it was in high school; but it could have been college.) But which still appears to be relevant. One of the school officials (male) was explaining why he always left the door open when meeting with a woman student: “Suppose that little girl gets mad, rips her dress, and screams. If the door is closed, I have no defense. None whatsoever.” (“that little girl” being his words. It was a different time.)
The world has changed in a lot of respects. But on that point, very little if any. It’s absolutely a matter of “guilty until proven innocent.” See the number of cases we keep seeing of men convicted of rape, who are later exonerated on DNA evidence (which, in the best cases, simply wasn’t available at the time of trial). And TSA (or any other organization involved in doing physical searches) is going to be extremely aware of it.
For example, I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case. My experience in security lines at sporting events and whatnot is that women pat down other women and inspect women’s purses. There are probably other examples of pretty benign sex specific practices that may appear in a polices and procedures manual even if they aren’t codified anywhere.
I am reminded of something I heard long, long ago. (I think it was in high school; but it could have been college.) But which still appears to be relevant. One of the school officials (male) was explaining why he always left the door open when meeting with a woman student: “Suppose that little girl gets mad, rips her dress, and screams. If the door is closed, I have no defense. None whatsoever.” (“that little girl” being his words. It was a different time.)
The world has changed in a lot of respects. But on that point, very little if any. It’s absolutely a matter of “guilty until proven innocent.” See the number of cases we keep seeing of men convicted of rape, who are later exonerated on DNA evidence (which, in the best cases, simply wasn’t available at the time of trial). And TSA (or any other organization involved in doing physical searches) is going to be extremely aware of it.
For example, I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case. My experience in security lines at sporting events and whatnot is that women pat down other women and inspect women’s purses. There are probably other examples of pretty benign sex specific practices that may appear in a polices and procedures manual even if they aren’t codified anywhere.
I am reminded of something I heard long, long ago. (I think it was in high school; but it could have been college.) But which still appears to be relevant. One of the school officials (male) was explaining why he always left the door open when meeting with a woman student: “Suppose that little girl gets mad, rips her dress, and screams. If the door is closed, I have no defense. None whatsoever.” (“that little girl” being his words. It was a different time.)
The world has changed in a lot of respects. But on that point, very little if any. It’s absolutely a matter of “guilty until proven innocent.” See the number of cases we keep seeing of men convicted of rape, who are later exonerated on DNA evidence (which, in the best cases, simply wasn’t available at the time of trial). And TSA (or any other organization involved in doing physical searches) is going to be extremely aware of it.
Make sure the bathroom floor is not wet when that McKT guy gives you electronic hugs because there is a risk of electrocution.
Make sure the bathroom floor is not wet when that McKT guy gives you electronic hugs because there is a risk of electrocution.
Make sure the bathroom floor is not wet when that McKT guy gives you electronic hugs because there is a risk of electrocution.
I think the TSA rule is that you can request a screener of the same sex if you want. Or at least it was originally. Now it seems they always find one of the same sex (based on your appearance, natch) without bothering to ask even if I takes five minutes to find one.
Thinking back to a con law exam hypothetical, it did seem relevant to the analysis that subjecting everyone to the same intrusive measures or restrictions helped allay concerns that the law was discriminatory. Thus barring women from men’s bathrooms in addition to vice versa when what you’re really concerned about is men in women’s bathrooms helps.
I think the TSA rule is that you can request a screener of the same sex if you want. Or at least it was originally. Now it seems they always find one of the same sex (based on your appearance, natch) without bothering to ask even if I takes five minutes to find one.
Thinking back to a con law exam hypothetical, it did seem relevant to the analysis that subjecting everyone to the same intrusive measures or restrictions helped allay concerns that the law was discriminatory. Thus barring women from men’s bathrooms in addition to vice versa when what you’re really concerned about is men in women’s bathrooms helps.
I think the TSA rule is that you can request a screener of the same sex if you want. Or at least it was originally. Now it seems they always find one of the same sex (based on your appearance, natch) without bothering to ask even if I takes five minutes to find one.
Thinking back to a con law exam hypothetical, it did seem relevant to the analysis that subjecting everyone to the same intrusive measures or restrictions helped allay concerns that the law was discriminatory. Thus barring women from men’s bathrooms in addition to vice versa when what you’re really concerned about is men in women’s bathrooms helps.
I think the question of who should be “allowed” in a given bathroom is theoretical, since being allowed and being able are two different things. If I truly had my druthers, people wouldn’t do anything untoward to each other, and the men in the restroom with my daughters (I’m sticking the McK’s paradigm here) would be utterly trustworthy, in which case I would have no reason to mind completely unisex bathrooms and wouldn’t give it a second thought.
I do understand that, in reality, not all men are trustworthy. But, as a practical matter, I don’t think untrustworthy men care if they aren’t supposed to go into a given bathroom if the opportunity to something untoward presents itself. So, as a general matter, I don’t like the idea of cisgendered men following my daughters into the restroom, because the only ones likely to do so probably don’t have good intentions.
Whether or not there was a trans accomodation on the books, were I to see an apparent man follow my daughters into the bathroom, I would be following him into the bathroom. If I weren’t around, I don’t think the existence or lack of a trans accommodation would change anything. I don’t think, as a practical matter, people will ignore apparent men walking into the women’s room simply because of trans accommodation, because I don’t think anyone is going to let clinical notions of complete fluidity of gender dictate how they respond to what they would otherwise preceive to be a threatening situation.
And strict laws about bathroom use based on birth-assignment don’t magically prevent opportunists from heading into whichever bathroom they think they can get away with something in. Whether a lone woman wants to be in the bathroom with a strange man or not, it’s a possiblity regardless of who is “allowed” in that bathroom. Even if there’s a trans accommodation in place, she can still scream her head off in an attempt not to be alone with said strange man for very much longer. Even if there’s a trans accommodation in place, no one is any less likely to come running in upon hearing her scream.
McKinney keep comparing the reported rate of sexual molestation as 1 in 20 and the rate of transgender at 1 in 170. But what is the statistic for sexual molestation occurring specifically in public bathrooms? How much would one realistically expect that specific number to change because of trans-accommodation laws for public bathrooms? Boys are subject to men no matter what, even under ideal compliance with bathroom-use laws based on birth-assigned gender. Girls are subject to men under actual compliance with bathroom-use laws based on birth-assigned gender.
So how do we actually accommodate transgendered people under the law? As a practical matter, the vast majority of people, transgendered or not, will use the bathroom they’re most comfortable using, which will almost always be the bathroom everyone else is most comfortable sharing with them. And maybe it won’t be any gender-specific public bathroom at all for transgendered people, if it can be avoided, even with transgender accommodations on the books.
I think the question of who should be “allowed” in a given bathroom is theoretical, since being allowed and being able are two different things. If I truly had my druthers, people wouldn’t do anything untoward to each other, and the men in the restroom with my daughters (I’m sticking the McK’s paradigm here) would be utterly trustworthy, in which case I would have no reason to mind completely unisex bathrooms and wouldn’t give it a second thought.
I do understand that, in reality, not all men are trustworthy. But, as a practical matter, I don’t think untrustworthy men care if they aren’t supposed to go into a given bathroom if the opportunity to something untoward presents itself. So, as a general matter, I don’t like the idea of cisgendered men following my daughters into the restroom, because the only ones likely to do so probably don’t have good intentions.
Whether or not there was a trans accomodation on the books, were I to see an apparent man follow my daughters into the bathroom, I would be following him into the bathroom. If I weren’t around, I don’t think the existence or lack of a trans accommodation would change anything. I don’t think, as a practical matter, people will ignore apparent men walking into the women’s room simply because of trans accommodation, because I don’t think anyone is going to let clinical notions of complete fluidity of gender dictate how they respond to what they would otherwise preceive to be a threatening situation.
And strict laws about bathroom use based on birth-assignment don’t magically prevent opportunists from heading into whichever bathroom they think they can get away with something in. Whether a lone woman wants to be in the bathroom with a strange man or not, it’s a possiblity regardless of who is “allowed” in that bathroom. Even if there’s a trans accommodation in place, she can still scream her head off in an attempt not to be alone with said strange man for very much longer. Even if there’s a trans accommodation in place, no one is any less likely to come running in upon hearing her scream.
McKinney keep comparing the reported rate of sexual molestation as 1 in 20 and the rate of transgender at 1 in 170. But what is the statistic for sexual molestation occurring specifically in public bathrooms? How much would one realistically expect that specific number to change because of trans-accommodation laws for public bathrooms? Boys are subject to men no matter what, even under ideal compliance with bathroom-use laws based on birth-assigned gender. Girls are subject to men under actual compliance with bathroom-use laws based on birth-assigned gender.
So how do we actually accommodate transgendered people under the law? As a practical matter, the vast majority of people, transgendered or not, will use the bathroom they’re most comfortable using, which will almost always be the bathroom everyone else is most comfortable sharing with them. And maybe it won’t be any gender-specific public bathroom at all for transgendered people, if it can be avoided, even with transgender accommodations on the books.
I think the question of who should be “allowed” in a given bathroom is theoretical, since being allowed and being able are two different things. If I truly had my druthers, people wouldn’t do anything untoward to each other, and the men in the restroom with my daughters (I’m sticking the McK’s paradigm here) would be utterly trustworthy, in which case I would have no reason to mind completely unisex bathrooms and wouldn’t give it a second thought.
I do understand that, in reality, not all men are trustworthy. But, as a practical matter, I don’t think untrustworthy men care if they aren’t supposed to go into a given bathroom if the opportunity to something untoward presents itself. So, as a general matter, I don’t like the idea of cisgendered men following my daughters into the restroom, because the only ones likely to do so probably don’t have good intentions.
Whether or not there was a trans accomodation on the books, were I to see an apparent man follow my daughters into the bathroom, I would be following him into the bathroom. If I weren’t around, I don’t think the existence or lack of a trans accommodation would change anything. I don’t think, as a practical matter, people will ignore apparent men walking into the women’s room simply because of trans accommodation, because I don’t think anyone is going to let clinical notions of complete fluidity of gender dictate how they respond to what they would otherwise preceive to be a threatening situation.
And strict laws about bathroom use based on birth-assignment don’t magically prevent opportunists from heading into whichever bathroom they think they can get away with something in. Whether a lone woman wants to be in the bathroom with a strange man or not, it’s a possiblity regardless of who is “allowed” in that bathroom. Even if there’s a trans accommodation in place, she can still scream her head off in an attempt not to be alone with said strange man for very much longer. Even if there’s a trans accommodation in place, no one is any less likely to come running in upon hearing her scream.
McKinney keep comparing the reported rate of sexual molestation as 1 in 20 and the rate of transgender at 1 in 170. But what is the statistic for sexual molestation occurring specifically in public bathrooms? How much would one realistically expect that specific number to change because of trans-accommodation laws for public bathrooms? Boys are subject to men no matter what, even under ideal compliance with bathroom-use laws based on birth-assigned gender. Girls are subject to men under actual compliance with bathroom-use laws based on birth-assigned gender.
So how do we actually accommodate transgendered people under the law? As a practical matter, the vast majority of people, transgendered or not, will use the bathroom they’re most comfortable using, which will almost always be the bathroom everyone else is most comfortable sharing with them. And maybe it won’t be any gender-specific public bathroom at all for transgendered people, if it can be avoided, even with transgender accommodations on the books.
This:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/13/1514818/-Call-of-the-Dildos-The-Ted-Cruz-Story
This:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/13/1514818/-Call-of-the-Dildos-The-Ted-Cruz-Story
This:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/13/1514818/-Call-of-the-Dildos-The-Ted-Cruz-Story
Well, HSH, you are making entirely too much sense. Something must be done.
Well, HSH, you are making entirely too much sense. Something must be done.
Well, HSH, you are making entirely too much sense. Something must be done.
Craig Mazin
✔
@clmazin
Ted Cruz thinks people don’t have a right to “stimulate their genitals.” I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.
Craig Mazin
✔
@clmazin
Ted Cruz thinks people don’t have a right to “stimulate their genitals.” I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.
Craig Mazin
✔
@clmazin
Ted Cruz thinks people don’t have a right to “stimulate their genitals.” I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.
If America was a bathroom, I’d advise my 11-year-olds of every denomination to pee in the shrubbery if Trump/Cruz were lurking nearby with their hairy backs.
If America was a bathroom, I’d advise my 11-year-olds of every denomination to pee in the shrubbery if Trump/Cruz were lurking nearby with their hairy backs.
If America was a bathroom, I’d advise my 11-year-olds of every denomination to pee in the shrubbery if Trump/Cruz were lurking nearby with their hairy backs.
The Private Lives of Public Bathrooms: How psychology, gender roles, and design explain the distinctive way we behave in the world’s stalls
The Private Lives of Public Bathrooms: How psychology, gender roles, and design explain the distinctive way we behave in the world’s stalls
The Private Lives of Public Bathrooms: How psychology, gender roles, and design explain the distinctive way we behave in the world’s stalls
Charles, you are a treasure trove of linking.
Now, personally, say you are at the airport and you spot Donald Trump (not likely; he has private conveyance) wheeling his little girl into the men’s room for what one hopes is an innocent diaper change.
Given what we know now in the area of too much information, what do you do?
http://gawker.com/donald-trump-has-been-sexualizing-his-daughter-since-sh-1769504633
See, forget ISIL, forget taxes, forget rogering immigrants, here is the clear choice we have in the Republican primary — a guy who touches everyone, anytime, anyplace, and a guy who wants to make it illegal to touch your own genitals in the privacy of your own Supreme Court.
Charles, you are a treasure trove of linking.
Now, personally, say you are at the airport and you spot Donald Trump (not likely; he has private conveyance) wheeling his little girl into the men’s room for what one hopes is an innocent diaper change.
Given what we know now in the area of too much information, what do you do?
http://gawker.com/donald-trump-has-been-sexualizing-his-daughter-since-sh-1769504633
See, forget ISIL, forget taxes, forget rogering immigrants, here is the clear choice we have in the Republican primary — a guy who touches everyone, anytime, anyplace, and a guy who wants to make it illegal to touch your own genitals in the privacy of your own Supreme Court.
Charles, you are a treasure trove of linking.
Now, personally, say you are at the airport and you spot Donald Trump (not likely; he has private conveyance) wheeling his little girl into the men’s room for what one hopes is an innocent diaper change.
Given what we know now in the area of too much information, what do you do?
http://gawker.com/donald-trump-has-been-sexualizing-his-daughter-since-sh-1769504633
See, forget ISIL, forget taxes, forget rogering immigrants, here is the clear choice we have in the Republican primary — a guy who touches everyone, anytime, anyplace, and a guy who wants to make it illegal to touch your own genitals in the privacy of your own Supreme Court.
I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case.
Yeah, ’cause every time I request a pat-down by a particularly cute member of the opposite sex, they rather huffily tell me to f-off.
It’s all “security theater”, but I was led to believe that “theater people” were more open-minded sexually.
I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case.
Yeah, ’cause every time I request a pat-down by a particularly cute member of the opposite sex, they rather huffily tell me to f-off.
It’s all “security theater”, but I was led to believe that “theater people” were more open-minded sexually.
I’m pretty sure TSA permits only women to search other women. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case.
Yeah, ’cause every time I request a pat-down by a particularly cute member of the opposite sex, they rather huffily tell me to f-off.
It’s all “security theater”, but I was led to believe that “theater people” were more open-minded sexually.
Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom. If “gender” alone is the determinant of who can enter what bathroom, any outwardly appearing male can declare himself to be a woman or bi-gender or invent a gender and enter the women’s bathroom.
It seems to me that the goal of exploiting a professed gender in order to assault or abuse people in a bathroom is at odds with calling attention to the fact that you’re doing that.
Realistically, if someone who appears to be a man goes into the ladies room, anyone either in or near the ladies room will object.
If the said appears-to-be male then says, I identify as a woman, he may in fact be allowed access to the ladies room due to his self-professed gender “identity”, but he’s not going to be able to get away with much of anything beyond using the bathroom, because he will be the focus of attention.
To make a long story short, as a practical matter, I find the specific case you seem to be focusing on to be unrealistic. Like, completely unrealistic.
I am gobsmacked that this concept seems so elusive to the Left, which readily buys into a campus rape crisis and rape culture generally.
Nobody is saying that sexual assault is a matter of no concern.
What people are saying is that they don’t see anything in the laws we are discussing that seems to make sexual assaults more likely.
— rant —
Without meaning to disparage anyone, attorneys seem to make a habit of responding to the points they want to argue against, for whatever reason, rather than the points that people actually make.
It’s just something I’ve noticed, fairly consistently, in a dozen years or so of talking about this stuff online.
I guess that’s cool for the courtroom, but I wish you guys would leave it at the office.
— end of rant —
Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom. If “gender” alone is the determinant of who can enter what bathroom, any outwardly appearing male can declare himself to be a woman or bi-gender or invent a gender and enter the women’s bathroom.
It seems to me that the goal of exploiting a professed gender in order to assault or abuse people in a bathroom is at odds with calling attention to the fact that you’re doing that.
Realistically, if someone who appears to be a man goes into the ladies room, anyone either in or near the ladies room will object.
If the said appears-to-be male then says, I identify as a woman, he may in fact be allowed access to the ladies room due to his self-professed gender “identity”, but he’s not going to be able to get away with much of anything beyond using the bathroom, because he will be the focus of attention.
To make a long story short, as a practical matter, I find the specific case you seem to be focusing on to be unrealistic. Like, completely unrealistic.
I am gobsmacked that this concept seems so elusive to the Left, which readily buys into a campus rape crisis and rape culture generally.
Nobody is saying that sexual assault is a matter of no concern.
What people are saying is that they don’t see anything in the laws we are discussing that seems to make sexual assaults more likely.
— rant —
Without meaning to disparage anyone, attorneys seem to make a habit of responding to the points they want to argue against, for whatever reason, rather than the points that people actually make.
It’s just something I’ve noticed, fairly consistently, in a dozen years or so of talking about this stuff online.
I guess that’s cool for the courtroom, but I wish you guys would leave it at the office.
— end of rant —
Under current law, a man cannot legally enter a women’s restroom. If “gender” alone is the determinant of who can enter what bathroom, any outwardly appearing male can declare himself to be a woman or bi-gender or invent a gender and enter the women’s bathroom.
It seems to me that the goal of exploiting a professed gender in order to assault or abuse people in a bathroom is at odds with calling attention to the fact that you’re doing that.
Realistically, if someone who appears to be a man goes into the ladies room, anyone either in or near the ladies room will object.
If the said appears-to-be male then says, I identify as a woman, he may in fact be allowed access to the ladies room due to his self-professed gender “identity”, but he’s not going to be able to get away with much of anything beyond using the bathroom, because he will be the focus of attention.
To make a long story short, as a practical matter, I find the specific case you seem to be focusing on to be unrealistic. Like, completely unrealistic.
I am gobsmacked that this concept seems so elusive to the Left, which readily buys into a campus rape crisis and rape culture generally.
Nobody is saying that sexual assault is a matter of no concern.
What people are saying is that they don’t see anything in the laws we are discussing that seems to make sexual assaults more likely.
— rant —
Without meaning to disparage anyone, attorneys seem to make a habit of responding to the points they want to argue against, for whatever reason, rather than the points that people actually make.
It’s just something I’ve noticed, fairly consistently, in a dozen years or so of talking about this stuff online.
I guess that’s cool for the courtroom, but I wish you guys would leave it at the office.
— end of rant —
There was, and is, no law in Houston preventing a man from entering a woman’s restroom (or vice versa for that matter).
Perhaps such laws exist in other jurisdictions but no such law exists in Houston, a point that was made during the debate many times.
That McKinneyTX doesn’t know this while being so adamant on this subject is rather curious especially considering his obvious experience.
There was, and is, no law in Houston preventing a man from entering a woman’s restroom (or vice versa for that matter).
Perhaps such laws exist in other jurisdictions but no such law exists in Houston, a point that was made during the debate many times.
That McKinneyTX doesn’t know this while being so adamant on this subject is rather curious especially considering his obvious experience.
There was, and is, no law in Houston preventing a man from entering a woman’s restroom (or vice versa for that matter).
Perhaps such laws exist in other jurisdictions but no such law exists in Houston, a point that was made during the debate many times.
That McKinneyTX doesn’t know this while being so adamant on this subject is rather curious especially considering his obvious experience.
Davebo: Thanks for answering the question that I raised many hours ago (12:12 pm, to be precise) and that McKT never answered. (To be fair, he may have thought he had more challenging interlocutors to respond to.)
His is a florid defense of legislation that does not actually exist, at least in the universal form that is implied. Perhaps he is defending the Platonic Ideal of “Law,” which is what it ought to be, rather than what it is. In any event, it makes his reasoning even more specious.
Davebo: Thanks for answering the question that I raised many hours ago (12:12 pm, to be precise) and that McKT never answered. (To be fair, he may have thought he had more challenging interlocutors to respond to.)
His is a florid defense of legislation that does not actually exist, at least in the universal form that is implied. Perhaps he is defending the Platonic Ideal of “Law,” which is what it ought to be, rather than what it is. In any event, it makes his reasoning even more specious.
Davebo: Thanks for answering the question that I raised many hours ago (12:12 pm, to be precise) and that McKT never answered. (To be fair, he may have thought he had more challenging interlocutors to respond to.)
His is a florid defense of legislation that does not actually exist, at least in the universal form that is implied. Perhaps he is defending the Platonic Ideal of “Law,” which is what it ought to be, rather than what it is. In any event, it makes his reasoning even more specious.
Snarki: It’s all “security theater” but I was led to believe that “theater people” were more open-minded sexualy.
But the thing is, it’s badly done theater. Due, in part, to the fact that the “actors” have neither training nor experience (nor, as far as I can see, acting talent). So their lack of the blase attitude is not unexpected.
Snarki: It’s all “security theater” but I was led to believe that “theater people” were more open-minded sexualy.
But the thing is, it’s badly done theater. Due, in part, to the fact that the “actors” have neither training nor experience (nor, as far as I can see, acting talent). So their lack of the blase attitude is not unexpected.
Snarki: It’s all “security theater” but I was led to believe that “theater people” were more open-minded sexualy.
But the thing is, it’s badly done theater. Due, in part, to the fact that the “actors” have neither training nor experience (nor, as far as I can see, acting talent). So their lack of the blase attitude is not unexpected.
Why the TSA Doesn’t Stop Terrorist Attacks(YouTube)
Why the TSA Doesn’t Stop Terrorist Attacks(YouTube)
Why the TSA Doesn’t Stop Terrorist Attacks(YouTube)
Security Theater – A TSA Opera(YouTube)
Security Theater – A TSA Opera(YouTube)
Security Theater – A TSA Opera(YouTube)
Security Theater – 1984 Version(YouTube)
Security Theater – 1984 Version(YouTube)
Security Theater – 1984 Version(YouTube)
As input from women was specifically requested, and I am a female reader of ObWi (though almost never comment–I think I’ve done it twice before, and I don’t even know what name I used), I suppose I’ll give my input about bathroom use, though it’s basically just what GftNC said.
If I were in a bathroom with a number of people, it would not bother me if some of that number were men. If I were in a bathroom with only one other person, I might well be uncomfortable if that other person is an unknown-to-me man. (Note: By “man” here I mean someone who presents as a man, not necessarily correlated to chromosomes, plumbing, or birth certificate).
However, with regard to actual laws about bathroom use, I have the same question that others have raised: if a man would enter a woman’s room for the specific purpose of sexual assault, voyeurism, or exhibitionism, then is it likely that he would avoid that room just because he’s not legally allowed to do so? It seems to me that more than anything, it’s the fact that entering the room would automatically be looked on askance–and therefore there’s social pressure not to do so–that’s more effective than the law here. And if new laws are written to state that people may use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, with the understanding that it’s being done to accommodate transgender/gender fluid/what-have-you people and not just to allow a free-for-all, people would still look askance at a man (presenting as a man) entering a woman’s room and so the social pressure to refrain from doing so remains.
At any rate, since I believe I’d only be really concerned about sharing a public bathroom with a man if we were the only two people around, it strikes me that there’s pretty much nothing preventing a man from slipping into a woman’s bathroom with me at any time if there’s nobody else around to raise alarm anyway.
Having said all this, I’m doing a lot of guessing about how I’d feel since I can’t recall a time I’ve used a public bathroom and there’s been a man in there. It may have happened, but I don’t have any specific memory. Outside of my time in college, that is, when I almost always used the coed bathrooms in my dorms simply due to the convenience of them being closer to my room than the single sex bathrooms. But–whether rational or not–being in a college dorm where I live I think does present a feeling of security that wouldn’t necessarily exist in a more public setting.
As input from women was specifically requested, and I am a female reader of ObWi (though almost never comment–I think I’ve done it twice before, and I don’t even know what name I used), I suppose I’ll give my input about bathroom use, though it’s basically just what GftNC said.
If I were in a bathroom with a number of people, it would not bother me if some of that number were men. If I were in a bathroom with only one other person, I might well be uncomfortable if that other person is an unknown-to-me man. (Note: By “man” here I mean someone who presents as a man, not necessarily correlated to chromosomes, plumbing, or birth certificate).
However, with regard to actual laws about bathroom use, I have the same question that others have raised: if a man would enter a woman’s room for the specific purpose of sexual assault, voyeurism, or exhibitionism, then is it likely that he would avoid that room just because he’s not legally allowed to do so? It seems to me that more than anything, it’s the fact that entering the room would automatically be looked on askance–and therefore there’s social pressure not to do so–that’s more effective than the law here. And if new laws are written to state that people may use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, with the understanding that it’s being done to accommodate transgender/gender fluid/what-have-you people and not just to allow a free-for-all, people would still look askance at a man (presenting as a man) entering a woman’s room and so the social pressure to refrain from doing so remains.
At any rate, since I believe I’d only be really concerned about sharing a public bathroom with a man if we were the only two people around, it strikes me that there’s pretty much nothing preventing a man from slipping into a woman’s bathroom with me at any time if there’s nobody else around to raise alarm anyway.
Having said all this, I’m doing a lot of guessing about how I’d feel since I can’t recall a time I’ve used a public bathroom and there’s been a man in there. It may have happened, but I don’t have any specific memory. Outside of my time in college, that is, when I almost always used the coed bathrooms in my dorms simply due to the convenience of them being closer to my room than the single sex bathrooms. But–whether rational or not–being in a college dorm where I live I think does present a feeling of security that wouldn’t necessarily exist in a more public setting.
As input from women was specifically requested, and I am a female reader of ObWi (though almost never comment–I think I’ve done it twice before, and I don’t even know what name I used), I suppose I’ll give my input about bathroom use, though it’s basically just what GftNC said.
If I were in a bathroom with a number of people, it would not bother me if some of that number were men. If I were in a bathroom with only one other person, I might well be uncomfortable if that other person is an unknown-to-me man. (Note: By “man” here I mean someone who presents as a man, not necessarily correlated to chromosomes, plumbing, or birth certificate).
However, with regard to actual laws about bathroom use, I have the same question that others have raised: if a man would enter a woman’s room for the specific purpose of sexual assault, voyeurism, or exhibitionism, then is it likely that he would avoid that room just because he’s not legally allowed to do so? It seems to me that more than anything, it’s the fact that entering the room would automatically be looked on askance–and therefore there’s social pressure not to do so–that’s more effective than the law here. And if new laws are written to state that people may use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, with the understanding that it’s being done to accommodate transgender/gender fluid/what-have-you people and not just to allow a free-for-all, people would still look askance at a man (presenting as a man) entering a woman’s room and so the social pressure to refrain from doing so remains.
At any rate, since I believe I’d only be really concerned about sharing a public bathroom with a man if we were the only two people around, it strikes me that there’s pretty much nothing preventing a man from slipping into a woman’s bathroom with me at any time if there’s nobody else around to raise alarm anyway.
Having said all this, I’m doing a lot of guessing about how I’d feel since I can’t recall a time I’ve used a public bathroom and there’s been a man in there. It may have happened, but I don’t have any specific memory. Outside of my time in college, that is, when I almost always used the coed bathrooms in my dorms simply due to the convenience of them being closer to my room than the single sex bathrooms. But–whether rational or not–being in a college dorm where I live I think does present a feeling of security that wouldn’t necessarily exist in a more public setting.
There is one basic disagreement in the thread as a whole, is a deviant more likely to enter a different sex, mostly focused on women’s, bathroom because the law changes. My answer is yes and no. In the short term, the day after the law has passed, a few people might do it for shock value, not much else would change. Over the course of time, a year?, however much, a man entering the women’s restroom will become less and less remarkable. As this occurs predators will become more bold, while the rest of us just wont pay as much attention. My opinion is that anything that can be anticipated to deter emboldening these people should be. The presumption that bad people will go in anyway because they are criminals misses the point. The changing of the law is likely, over time, to make everyone else less aware of their presence, thus creating more risk.
IMO.
There is one basic disagreement in the thread as a whole, is a deviant more likely to enter a different sex, mostly focused on women’s, bathroom because the law changes. My answer is yes and no. In the short term, the day after the law has passed, a few people might do it for shock value, not much else would change. Over the course of time, a year?, however much, a man entering the women’s restroom will become less and less remarkable. As this occurs predators will become more bold, while the rest of us just wont pay as much attention. My opinion is that anything that can be anticipated to deter emboldening these people should be. The presumption that bad people will go in anyway because they are criminals misses the point. The changing of the law is likely, over time, to make everyone else less aware of their presence, thus creating more risk.
IMO.
There is one basic disagreement in the thread as a whole, is a deviant more likely to enter a different sex, mostly focused on women’s, bathroom because the law changes. My answer is yes and no. In the short term, the day after the law has passed, a few people might do it for shock value, not much else would change. Over the course of time, a year?, however much, a man entering the women’s restroom will become less and less remarkable. As this occurs predators will become more bold, while the rest of us just wont pay as much attention. My opinion is that anything that can be anticipated to deter emboldening these people should be. The presumption that bad people will go in anyway because they are criminals misses the point. The changing of the law is likely, over time, to make everyone else less aware of their presence, thus creating more risk.
IMO.
“The changing of the law is likely, over time, to make everyone else less aware of their presence, thus creating more risk.”
Marty, please explain how this logic does not also apply to the past decade+ loosening of restrictions against CCW?
“The changing of the law is likely, over time, to make everyone else less aware of their presence, thus creating more risk.”
Marty, please explain how this logic does not also apply to the past decade+ loosening of restrictions against CCW?
“The changing of the law is likely, over time, to make everyone else less aware of their presence, thus creating more risk.”
Marty, please explain how this logic does not also apply to the past decade+ loosening of restrictions against CCW?
CCW?
CCW?
CCW?
Marty’s 7:29am makes a certain sort of sense. Although I might ask, how many men here, upon seeing a man enter a women’s restroom, would follow that man in to investigate what he’s doing? Or even if you are a woman seeing the same thing, are you then following the guy into the restroom?
I get that if you were a police officer and saw such a thing you would/might take it up on yourself to spontaneously investigate the matter. But how many men intent on committing some sort sexual assault are going to do it when there’s a police officer outside the bathroom?
Marty’s 7:29am makes a certain sort of sense. Although I might ask, how many men here, upon seeing a man enter a women’s restroom, would follow that man in to investigate what he’s doing? Or even if you are a woman seeing the same thing, are you then following the guy into the restroom?
I get that if you were a police officer and saw such a thing you would/might take it up on yourself to spontaneously investigate the matter. But how many men intent on committing some sort sexual assault are going to do it when there’s a police officer outside the bathroom?
Marty’s 7:29am makes a certain sort of sense. Although I might ask, how many men here, upon seeing a man enter a women’s restroom, would follow that man in to investigate what he’s doing? Or even if you are a woman seeing the same thing, are you then following the guy into the restroom?
I get that if you were a police officer and saw such a thing you would/might take it up on yourself to spontaneously investigate the matter. But how many men intent on committing some sort sexual assault are going to do it when there’s a police officer outside the bathroom?
CCW is I think concealed carry (not sure what the W is).
CCW is I think concealed carry (not sure what the W is).
CCW is I think concealed carry (not sure what the W is).
That Cruz dildo story reminds me of an old (1972) statement of a German official:
“Die Geschlechtsreife allein berechtigt noch nicht zur Inbetriebnahme der Geschlechtsorgane.”
(‘sexual maturity alone is not a licence for a start of operation of sexual organs’.)
Sorry, the absurd flavor of the german wording is almost completely lost in translation.
That statement was made in connection with a lawsuit by the state against the most popular German youth magazine for their regular sex ed feature. Said magazine is considered by some countries as kiddie pörn because it uses photos instead of drawings for that and there is no strict ‘above 18’ (let alone 21) policy (given the target group that would be counterproductive to begin with).
That Cruz dildo story reminds me of an old (1972) statement of a German official:
“Die Geschlechtsreife allein berechtigt noch nicht zur Inbetriebnahme der Geschlechtsorgane.”
(‘sexual maturity alone is not a licence for a start of operation of sexual organs’.)
Sorry, the absurd flavor of the german wording is almost completely lost in translation.
That statement was made in connection with a lawsuit by the state against the most popular German youth magazine for their regular sex ed feature. Said magazine is considered by some countries as kiddie pörn because it uses photos instead of drawings for that and there is no strict ‘above 18’ (let alone 21) policy (given the target group that would be counterproductive to begin with).
That Cruz dildo story reminds me of an old (1972) statement of a German official:
“Die Geschlechtsreife allein berechtigt noch nicht zur Inbetriebnahme der Geschlechtsorgane.”
(‘sexual maturity alone is not a licence for a start of operation of sexual organs’.)
Sorry, the absurd flavor of the german wording is almost completely lost in translation.
That statement was made in connection with a lawsuit by the state against the most popular German youth magazine for their regular sex ed feature. Said magazine is considered by some countries as kiddie pörn because it uses photos instead of drawings for that and there is no strict ‘above 18’ (let alone 21) policy (given the target group that would be counterproductive to begin with).
Oh, I can’t conflate every thread into a second amendment discussion. I don’t like guns, I don’t own a gun anymore, I didn’t let my kids play with toy guns. That said, I grew in a place where everyone had a gun from the age of around 12. Despite the perceived intimidation factor I want anyone that carries a gun to have to open carry. I then know how to treat them. Like they are a lunatic. Talk slow and leave as soon as possible. Guns should be against the law in any congregable place(bars, restaurants, malls) and especially anywhere that sells alcohol. So I want people to have to open carry so I know that they don’t have one in those places. I have no idea how this maps to concealed carry law changes because I haven’t really looked at the changes.
Oh, I can’t conflate every thread into a second amendment discussion. I don’t like guns, I don’t own a gun anymore, I didn’t let my kids play with toy guns. That said, I grew in a place where everyone had a gun from the age of around 12. Despite the perceived intimidation factor I want anyone that carries a gun to have to open carry. I then know how to treat them. Like they are a lunatic. Talk slow and leave as soon as possible. Guns should be against the law in any congregable place(bars, restaurants, malls) and especially anywhere that sells alcohol. So I want people to have to open carry so I know that they don’t have one in those places. I have no idea how this maps to concealed carry law changes because I haven’t really looked at the changes.
Oh, I can’t conflate every thread into a second amendment discussion. I don’t like guns, I don’t own a gun anymore, I didn’t let my kids play with toy guns. That said, I grew in a place where everyone had a gun from the age of around 12. Despite the perceived intimidation factor I want anyone that carries a gun to have to open carry. I then know how to treat them. Like they are a lunatic. Talk slow and leave as soon as possible. Guns should be against the law in any congregable place(bars, restaurants, malls) and especially anywhere that sells alcohol. So I want people to have to open carry so I know that they don’t have one in those places. I have no idea how this maps to concealed carry law changes because I haven’t really looked at the changes.
Oh, I would definitely follow a guy into a womens bathroom to see wtf he is doing, unless maybe he was carrying a baby.
Oh, I would definitely follow a guy into a womens bathroom to see wtf he is doing, unless maybe he was carrying a baby.
Oh, I would definitely follow a guy into a womens bathroom to see wtf he is doing, unless maybe he was carrying a baby.
I think you’re probably right, Marty, that over time the presence of men–or at least of people who are not obviously women–in a women’s bathroom will become less remarkable and that one unfortunate consequence of that could be a (probably slight) increase in men taking advantage of that fact to harass women. But I would think that’s less to do with any potential changes in law than it is to do with shifting notions of gender and increasing recognition and acceptance of people whose gender may not be what an observer initially believes/expects. Which I’m confident will happen (IS happening) regardless of legal restrictions on bathroom use.
So I understand the concern. And coming up with ways to ensure people’s safety and privacy in public restrooms is admirable and important. I certainly don’t see how passing laws that a person must use the bathroom that matches the sex indicated on their birth certificate is remotely helpful in accomplishing that.
I think you’re probably right, Marty, that over time the presence of men–or at least of people who are not obviously women–in a women’s bathroom will become less remarkable and that one unfortunate consequence of that could be a (probably slight) increase in men taking advantage of that fact to harass women. But I would think that’s less to do with any potential changes in law than it is to do with shifting notions of gender and increasing recognition and acceptance of people whose gender may not be what an observer initially believes/expects. Which I’m confident will happen (IS happening) regardless of legal restrictions on bathroom use.
So I understand the concern. And coming up with ways to ensure people’s safety and privacy in public restrooms is admirable and important. I certainly don’t see how passing laws that a person must use the bathroom that matches the sex indicated on their birth certificate is remotely helpful in accomplishing that.
I think you’re probably right, Marty, that over time the presence of men–or at least of people who are not obviously women–in a women’s bathroom will become less remarkable and that one unfortunate consequence of that could be a (probably slight) increase in men taking advantage of that fact to harass women. But I would think that’s less to do with any potential changes in law than it is to do with shifting notions of gender and increasing recognition and acceptance of people whose gender may not be what an observer initially believes/expects. Which I’m confident will happen (IS happening) regardless of legal restrictions on bathroom use.
So I understand the concern. And coming up with ways to ensure people’s safety and privacy in public restrooms is admirable and important. I certainly don’t see how passing laws that a person must use the bathroom that matches the sex indicated on their birth certificate is remotely helpful in accomplishing that.
Also I’m pretty sure that if I saw a man entering a woman’s room–unless he seemed to specifically be following a woman in–I’d think he had simply made a mistake.
Either that or, unless they were very tall, I’d probably just think it was a woman who appeared to me at first glance to be a man.
I’m not saying I’d be right. Just that I’m pretty sure my first instinct would not be suspicion.
Also I’m pretty sure that if I saw a man entering a woman’s room–unless he seemed to specifically be following a woman in–I’d think he had simply made a mistake.
Either that or, unless they were very tall, I’d probably just think it was a woman who appeared to me at first glance to be a man.
I’m not saying I’d be right. Just that I’m pretty sure my first instinct would not be suspicion.
Also I’m pretty sure that if I saw a man entering a woman’s room–unless he seemed to specifically be following a woman in–I’d think he had simply made a mistake.
Either that or, unless they were very tall, I’d probably just think it was a woman who appeared to me at first glance to be a man.
I’m not saying I’d be right. Just that I’m pretty sure my first instinct would not be suspicion.
“I certainly don’t see how passing laws that a person must use the bathroom that matches the sex indicated on their birth certificate is remotely helpful in accomplishing that.”
I agree, as expressed upthread, I think that the finest line to walk is to make it explicit that one should use the bathroom consistent with the gender they present. Individuals can still take advantage, but it addresses a key concern of forced outing of transgender people, reducing their risk. It also reduces the likelihood of deviants using the exception casually, as a man(presenting)(for example) entering a women’s bathroom would not become commonplace.
In fact, I think it codifies what mostly happens today.
“I certainly don’t see how passing laws that a person must use the bathroom that matches the sex indicated on their birth certificate is remotely helpful in accomplishing that.”
I agree, as expressed upthread, I think that the finest line to walk is to make it explicit that one should use the bathroom consistent with the gender they present. Individuals can still take advantage, but it addresses a key concern of forced outing of transgender people, reducing their risk. It also reduces the likelihood of deviants using the exception casually, as a man(presenting)(for example) entering a women’s bathroom would not become commonplace.
In fact, I think it codifies what mostly happens today.
“I certainly don’t see how passing laws that a person must use the bathroom that matches the sex indicated on their birth certificate is remotely helpful in accomplishing that.”
I agree, as expressed upthread, I think that the finest line to walk is to make it explicit that one should use the bathroom consistent with the gender they present. Individuals can still take advantage, but it addresses a key concern of forced outing of transgender people, reducing their risk. It also reduces the likelihood of deviants using the exception casually, as a man(presenting)(for example) entering a women’s bathroom would not become commonplace.
In fact, I think it codifies what mostly happens today.
I’ve had to wait in line behind ladies in the Mens Room at Squaw Valley Ski Resort. That struck me as weird but seeing how long the line was to the Girls Room I had sympathy and nobody made a fuss about it. It did occur to me that those women were outlaws.
From a girls point of view my wife told me she gets uncomfortable when women who do not look very girlie enter a restroom with her.
I’ve had to wait in line behind ladies in the Mens Room at Squaw Valley Ski Resort. That struck me as weird but seeing how long the line was to the Girls Room I had sympathy and nobody made a fuss about it. It did occur to me that those women were outlaws.
From a girls point of view my wife told me she gets uncomfortable when women who do not look very girlie enter a restroom with her.
I’ve had to wait in line behind ladies in the Mens Room at Squaw Valley Ski Resort. That struck me as weird but seeing how long the line was to the Girls Room I had sympathy and nobody made a fuss about it. It did occur to me that those women were outlaws.
From a girls point of view my wife told me she gets uncomfortable when women who do not look very girlie enter a restroom with her.
If possible, maybe a new open thread [I know it’s not yet Friday!] would be open to more interesting topics, while the remnants of the bathroom discussion continue here.
Though, I admit I don’t have a good hook for the proposed thread.
If possible, maybe a new open thread [I know it’s not yet Friday!] would be open to more interesting topics, while the remnants of the bathroom discussion continue here.
Though, I admit I don’t have a good hook for the proposed thread.
If possible, maybe a new open thread [I know it’s not yet Friday!] would be open to more interesting topics, while the remnants of the bathroom discussion continue here.
Though, I admit I don’t have a good hook for the proposed thread.
Working on a “It’s April 15th, so why aren’t taxes due until Monday?” idea.** Just for a hook for the open thread….
** If someone else has a better idea, by all means feel free.
Working on a “It’s April 15th, so why aren’t taxes due until Monday?” idea.** Just for a hook for the open thread….
** If someone else has a better idea, by all means feel free.
Working on a “It’s April 15th, so why aren’t taxes due until Monday?” idea.** Just for a hook for the open thread….
** If someone else has a better idea, by all means feel free.
Kobe scored 60 in his last game. Retiring after 20 years at the age of 38. He scored 60. That’s a lot. Sorry, its almost as impressive as Jack winning the Masters at 45.
Oh, and the Warriors won 73 out of 82 this season, one more than the mythical 72 record set by the Bulls that would “never be broken”. Curry scores 46, He had 400 three pointers this season. No one had ever had 300, he held the record at 284.
Last night was a big NBA night.
Kobe scored 60 in his last game. Retiring after 20 years at the age of 38. He scored 60. That’s a lot. Sorry, its almost as impressive as Jack winning the Masters at 45.
Oh, and the Warriors won 73 out of 82 this season, one more than the mythical 72 record set by the Bulls that would “never be broken”. Curry scores 46, He had 400 three pointers this season. No one had ever had 300, he held the record at 284.
Last night was a big NBA night.
Kobe scored 60 in his last game. Retiring after 20 years at the age of 38. He scored 60. That’s a lot. Sorry, its almost as impressive as Jack winning the Masters at 45.
Oh, and the Warriors won 73 out of 82 this season, one more than the mythical 72 record set by the Bulls that would “never be broken”. Curry scores 46, He had 400 three pointers this season. No one had ever had 300, he held the record at 284.
Last night was a big NBA night.
Two very different views of Kobe:
https://thecauldron.si.com/without-kobe-bryant-there-is-no-derek-fisher-7ec32cfba49a#.mbhpq0pqn
http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/kobe-bryant-goodbye-to-the-nbas-all-time-asshole-20160413
Two very different views of Kobe:
https://thecauldron.si.com/without-kobe-bryant-there-is-no-derek-fisher-7ec32cfba49a#.mbhpq0pqn
http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/kobe-bryant-goodbye-to-the-nbas-all-time-asshole-20160413
Two very different views of Kobe:
https://thecauldron.si.com/without-kobe-bryant-there-is-no-derek-fisher-7ec32cfba49a#.mbhpq0pqn
http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/kobe-bryant-goodbye-to-the-nbas-all-time-asshole-20160413
Kobe scored 60 in his last game. Retiring after 20 years at the age of 38. He scored 60. That’s a lot. Sorry, its almost as impressive as Jack winning the Masters at 45.
Bryant. Nicklaus. bah!!
Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957, when he was 38 years old. That not only led the majors, it was the highest average recorded since guess who hit .406 in 1941, and has been exceeded only once since. George Brett, age 27, managed .390 in 1980.
In 1958, at 39, Williams fell to .328, still good enough to lead the AL. These are seasons, folks, not single games or single tournaments, no matter how prestigious.
Kobe scored 60 in his last game. Retiring after 20 years at the age of 38. He scored 60. That’s a lot. Sorry, its almost as impressive as Jack winning the Masters at 45.
Bryant. Nicklaus. bah!!
Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957, when he was 38 years old. That not only led the majors, it was the highest average recorded since guess who hit .406 in 1941, and has been exceeded only once since. George Brett, age 27, managed .390 in 1980.
In 1958, at 39, Williams fell to .328, still good enough to lead the AL. These are seasons, folks, not single games or single tournaments, no matter how prestigious.
Kobe scored 60 in his last game. Retiring after 20 years at the age of 38. He scored 60. That’s a lot. Sorry, its almost as impressive as Jack winning the Masters at 45.
Bryant. Nicklaus. bah!!
Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957, when he was 38 years old. That not only led the majors, it was the highest average recorded since guess who hit .406 in 1941, and has been exceeded only once since. George Brett, age 27, managed .390 in 1980.
In 1958, at 39, Williams fell to .328, still good enough to lead the AL. These are seasons, folks, not single games or single tournaments, no matter how prestigious.
I heard Williams sat out all the games that the other teams aces pitched that year…
Seriously, Kobe certainly didn’t have a season left in him. I watch a lot of basketball and he just got brought it one more time. I bet he couldn’t walk too well this morning. And, yes, his teammates spent the game feeding him the ball, but 60 is 60, any game.
I heard Williams sat out all the games that the other teams aces pitched that year…
Seriously, Kobe certainly didn’t have a season left in him. I watch a lot of basketball and he just got brought it one more time. I bet he couldn’t walk too well this morning. And, yes, his teammates spent the game feeding him the ball, but 60 is 60, any game.
I heard Williams sat out all the games that the other teams aces pitched that year…
Seriously, Kobe certainly didn’t have a season left in him. I watch a lot of basketball and he just got brought it one more time. I bet he couldn’t walk too well this morning. And, yes, his teammates spent the game feeding him the ball, but 60 is 60, any game.
Then there’s Leroy Robert “Satchel” Paige, winning over 85% of his games (6-1) in 1948 . . . as a 42 year old rookie pitcher. (42 being the age at which Ted Williams retired.)
Satch also made the All Star team in 1952 and 1953 (ages 45 and 46). And in 1965, started and pitched 3 shutout innings (for the Kansas City Athletics) in at age 59. Starting pitcher. Age 59.
“Age is a question of mind over matter,” Paige said. “If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.” http://baseballhall.org/hof/paige-satchel
Then there’s Leroy Robert “Satchel” Paige, winning over 85% of his games (6-1) in 1948 . . . as a 42 year old rookie pitcher. (42 being the age at which Ted Williams retired.)
Satch also made the All Star team in 1952 and 1953 (ages 45 and 46). And in 1965, started and pitched 3 shutout innings (for the Kansas City Athletics) in at age 59. Starting pitcher. Age 59.
“Age is a question of mind over matter,” Paige said. “If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.” http://baseballhall.org/hof/paige-satchel
Then there’s Leroy Robert “Satchel” Paige, winning over 85% of his games (6-1) in 1948 . . . as a 42 year old rookie pitcher. (42 being the age at which Ted Williams retired.)
Satch also made the All Star team in 1952 and 1953 (ages 45 and 46). And in 1965, started and pitched 3 shutout innings (for the Kansas City Athletics) in at age 59. Starting pitcher. Age 59.
“Age is a question of mind over matter,” Paige said. “If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.” http://baseballhall.org/hof/paige-satchel
Just to be clear, those are his Major League numbers. He spent most o fhis career in the Negro Leagues. If baseball had gotten integrated earlier….
Just to be clear, those are his Major League numbers. He spent most o fhis career in the Negro Leagues. If baseball had gotten integrated earlier….
Just to be clear, those are his Major League numbers. He spent most o fhis career in the Negro Leagues. If baseball had gotten integrated earlier….
Nolan Ryan threw seven no-hitters in his career, the last two coming at ages 43 and 44, and duriing which his fastball registered at times in the high 90s mph.
A physical freak – no arm has thrown that many fastballs near 100 mph over 20-plus years.
Someone collect his DNA.
Ichiro Suzuki this Spring – at age 42 — was clocked as the fifth fastest runner getting from home to first in major league baseball.
Only Billy Hamilton, Billy Burns and two other guys were faster. All roughly half his age.
True, Ichiro does a sort of Bugs Bunny thing as a left-handed hitter, wherein he somehow manages two steps towards first while leaving the bat hovering in midair over the plate to hit the call.
Not to be outdone in the feats of magnificence in old guy athletics, that guy Countme-In in his first baseball game of the season this very morning made a diving, fully extended catch of a line drive that was headed for the fence in the right-center gap.
Killed the opposing team’s rally and kept the game tied in the next to last inning and we won it in the ninth.
Also jammed my shoulder and sprained a thumb on the play, which is the first time I’ve hurt two body parts on one play in my life.
Rough landing.
Word has it the Count is 64 years old, but who’s counting. Every time that number comes out of his mouth, he looks around as if wondering who that age could be possible be attached to. Not him.
He can still run, according to the scouts.
Good on ya, Kobe. I love stuff like that.
Nolan Ryan threw seven no-hitters in his career, the last two coming at ages 43 and 44, and duriing which his fastball registered at times in the high 90s mph.
A physical freak – no arm has thrown that many fastballs near 100 mph over 20-plus years.
Someone collect his DNA.
Ichiro Suzuki this Spring – at age 42 — was clocked as the fifth fastest runner getting from home to first in major league baseball.
Only Billy Hamilton, Billy Burns and two other guys were faster. All roughly half his age.
True, Ichiro does a sort of Bugs Bunny thing as a left-handed hitter, wherein he somehow manages two steps towards first while leaving the bat hovering in midair over the plate to hit the call.
Not to be outdone in the feats of magnificence in old guy athletics, that guy Countme-In in his first baseball game of the season this very morning made a diving, fully extended catch of a line drive that was headed for the fence in the right-center gap.
Killed the opposing team’s rally and kept the game tied in the next to last inning and we won it in the ninth.
Also jammed my shoulder and sprained a thumb on the play, which is the first time I’ve hurt two body parts on one play in my life.
Rough landing.
Word has it the Count is 64 years old, but who’s counting. Every time that number comes out of his mouth, he looks around as if wondering who that age could be possible be attached to. Not him.
He can still run, according to the scouts.
Good on ya, Kobe. I love stuff like that.
Nolan Ryan threw seven no-hitters in his career, the last two coming at ages 43 and 44, and duriing which his fastball registered at times in the high 90s mph.
A physical freak – no arm has thrown that many fastballs near 100 mph over 20-plus years.
Someone collect his DNA.
Ichiro Suzuki this Spring – at age 42 — was clocked as the fifth fastest runner getting from home to first in major league baseball.
Only Billy Hamilton, Billy Burns and two other guys were faster. All roughly half his age.
True, Ichiro does a sort of Bugs Bunny thing as a left-handed hitter, wherein he somehow manages two steps towards first while leaving the bat hovering in midair over the plate to hit the call.
Not to be outdone in the feats of magnificence in old guy athletics, that guy Countme-In in his first baseball game of the season this very morning made a diving, fully extended catch of a line drive that was headed for the fence in the right-center gap.
Killed the opposing team’s rally and kept the game tied in the next to last inning and we won it in the ninth.
Also jammed my shoulder and sprained a thumb on the play, which is the first time I’ve hurt two body parts on one play in my life.
Rough landing.
Word has it the Count is 64 years old, but who’s counting. Every time that number comes out of his mouth, he looks around as if wondering who that age could be possible be attached to. Not him.
He can still run, according to the scouts.
Good on ya, Kobe. I love stuff like that.
I heard Williams sat out all the games that the other teams aces pitched that year…
You heard wrong. Williams was fearless. In 1941 he famously played the last two games, a double-header- meaningless in the standings, despite already being (just barely) at .400, and went 6 for 8.
In 1957, the year he hit .388 his record against the five ERA leaders in the AL, leaving out Williams’ teammate Frank Sullivan, was
Pitcher PA’s BA
Bobby Shantz 10 .250
Tom Sturdivant 17 .462
Jim Bunning 19 .400
Bob Turley 13 .556
Dick Donovan 20 .563
Doesn’t look to me like he was intimidated.
I heard Williams sat out all the games that the other teams aces pitched that year…
You heard wrong. Williams was fearless. In 1941 he famously played the last two games, a double-header- meaningless in the standings, despite already being (just barely) at .400, and went 6 for 8.
In 1957, the year he hit .388 his record against the five ERA leaders in the AL, leaving out Williams’ teammate Frank Sullivan, was
Pitcher PA’s BA
Bobby Shantz 10 .250
Tom Sturdivant 17 .462
Jim Bunning 19 .400
Bob Turley 13 .556
Dick Donovan 20 .563
Doesn’t look to me like he was intimidated.
I heard Williams sat out all the games that the other teams aces pitched that year…
You heard wrong. Williams was fearless. In 1941 he famously played the last two games, a double-header- meaningless in the standings, despite already being (just barely) at .400, and went 6 for 8.
In 1957, the year he hit .388 his record against the five ERA leaders in the AL, leaving out Williams’ teammate Frank Sullivan, was
Pitcher PA’s BA
Bobby Shantz 10 .250
Tom Sturdivant 17 .462
Jim Bunning 19 .400
Bob Turley 13 .556
Dick Donovan 20 .563
Doesn’t look to me like he was intimidated.
I can still run, count. Stopping is really hard on my knees. It is almost comical. I can still beat some pretty young guys in the 40, but I have to have at least another 40 to slow down. Anyone who’s body has survived the aging process to play active athletics post 50(my knees had had it at 45) is a god. In one of the links it quotes Barkley the Father Time is undefeated, I love guys that take him extra innings.
I can still run, count. Stopping is really hard on my knees. It is almost comical. I can still beat some pretty young guys in the 40, but I have to have at least another 40 to slow down. Anyone who’s body has survived the aging process to play active athletics post 50(my knees had had it at 45) is a god. In one of the links it quotes Barkley the Father Time is undefeated, I love guys that take him extra innings.
I can still run, count. Stopping is really hard on my knees. It is almost comical. I can still beat some pretty young guys in the 40, but I have to have at least another 40 to slow down. Anyone who’s body has survived the aging process to play active athletics post 50(my knees had had it at 45) is a god. In one of the links it quotes Barkley the Father Time is undefeated, I love guys that take him extra innings.
“Doesn’t look to me like he was intimidated.”
I was, obviously, kidding, he was awesome. And I would have been mugged here in Boston just for the joke.
So, I was wondering the other day what the best rotation of all time was. I decided on the 66 Dodgers, but I’m sure that’s because it was the first great staff I was old enough to remember. I love the Dodgers until this day because of those guys.
“Doesn’t look to me like he was intimidated.”
I was, obviously, kidding, he was awesome. And I would have been mugged here in Boston just for the joke.
So, I was wondering the other day what the best rotation of all time was. I decided on the 66 Dodgers, but I’m sure that’s because it was the first great staff I was old enough to remember. I love the Dodgers until this day because of those guys.
“Doesn’t look to me like he was intimidated.”
I was, obviously, kidding, he was awesome. And I would have been mugged here in Boston just for the joke.
So, I was wondering the other day what the best rotation of all time was. I decided on the 66 Dodgers, but I’m sure that’s because it was the first great staff I was old enough to remember. I love the Dodgers until this day because of those guys.
Hard to beat Koufax, Drysdale, Osteen, and Sutton, have to say.
Maybe the 1971 Orioles. Palmer, Cuellar, McNally, and Dobson each won 20 games.
Also: 1954 Cleveland Indians
Early Wynn (23-11, 2.73), Mike Garcia (19-8, 2.64), Bob Lemon (23-7, 2.72), Art Houtteman (15-7, 3.35), Bob Feller (13-3, 3.09)
Mid-late 1930s Kansas City Monarchs
Satchel Paige, Hilton Smith, Lefty Bryant, Chet “Dooflackem” Brewer
Look that up. Hilton Smith was unhittable.
Gotta like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz as a top three for the Braves whenever that was.
This year’s Mets’ rotation Harvey, Syndergaard, DeGrom, and Matz, if the latter gets it together, could be formidable.
With the 87-year old Bartolo Colon throwing the straightest fastball right down the middle on every pitch and still confounding hitters when he fills in as fifth starter.
Hard to beat Koufax, Drysdale, Osteen, and Sutton, have to say.
Maybe the 1971 Orioles. Palmer, Cuellar, McNally, and Dobson each won 20 games.
Also: 1954 Cleveland Indians
Early Wynn (23-11, 2.73), Mike Garcia (19-8, 2.64), Bob Lemon (23-7, 2.72), Art Houtteman (15-7, 3.35), Bob Feller (13-3, 3.09)
Mid-late 1930s Kansas City Monarchs
Satchel Paige, Hilton Smith, Lefty Bryant, Chet “Dooflackem” Brewer
Look that up. Hilton Smith was unhittable.
Gotta like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz as a top three for the Braves whenever that was.
This year’s Mets’ rotation Harvey, Syndergaard, DeGrom, and Matz, if the latter gets it together, could be formidable.
With the 87-year old Bartolo Colon throwing the straightest fastball right down the middle on every pitch and still confounding hitters when he fills in as fifth starter.
Hard to beat Koufax, Drysdale, Osteen, and Sutton, have to say.
Maybe the 1971 Orioles. Palmer, Cuellar, McNally, and Dobson each won 20 games.
Also: 1954 Cleveland Indians
Early Wynn (23-11, 2.73), Mike Garcia (19-8, 2.64), Bob Lemon (23-7, 2.72), Art Houtteman (15-7, 3.35), Bob Feller (13-3, 3.09)
Mid-late 1930s Kansas City Monarchs
Satchel Paige, Hilton Smith, Lefty Bryant, Chet “Dooflackem” Brewer
Look that up. Hilton Smith was unhittable.
Gotta like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz as a top three for the Braves whenever that was.
This year’s Mets’ rotation Harvey, Syndergaard, DeGrom, and Matz, if the latter gets it together, could be formidable.
With the 87-year old Bartolo Colon throwing the straightest fastball right down the middle on every pitch and still confounding hitters when he fills in as fifth starter.
OK. I should have gotten it. Greatest rotation? Well, maybe. I was going to argue with you, but then I saw that Don Sutton, a rookie, was the number four guy, which is impressive.
OK. I should have gotten it. Greatest rotation? Well, maybe. I was going to argue with you, but then I saw that Don Sutton, a rookie, was the number four guy, which is impressive.
OK. I should have gotten it. Greatest rotation? Well, maybe. I was going to argue with you, but then I saw that Don Sutton, a rookie, was the number four guy, which is impressive.
Yeah count my second was a Braves with Maddux,Glavine, Smoltz and somebody. Orioles 71 were good and the Phillies had a couple of good ones in the 2000’s.
Yeah count my second was a Braves with Maddux,Glavine, Smoltz and somebody. Orioles 71 were good and the Phillies had a couple of good ones in the 2000’s.
Yeah count my second was a Braves with Maddux,Glavine, Smoltz and somebody. Orioles 71 were good and the Phillies had a couple of good ones in the 2000’s.
That was Steve Avery on the Braves.
That was Steve Avery on the Braves.
That was Steve Avery on the Braves.
Avery, yes. But both the Braves and Otioles kept the heart of those rotations in place for what seemed like a lot of years, which I think is impressive.
I found it interesting that in 10 years in the Negro league Hilton Smith only pitched a hundred games. Note to self to look up how many games per season the teams played.
Avery, yes. But both the Braves and Otioles kept the heart of those rotations in place for what seemed like a lot of years, which I think is impressive.
I found it interesting that in 10 years in the Negro league Hilton Smith only pitched a hundred games. Note to self to look up how many games per season the teams played.
Avery, yes. But both the Braves and Otioles kept the heart of those rotations in place for what seemed like a lot of years, which I think is impressive.
I found it interesting that in 10 years in the Negro league Hilton Smith only pitched a hundred games. Note to self to look up how many games per season the teams played.
What about the 1905 Giants?
What about the 1905 Giants?
What about the 1905 Giants?
Not that anyone asked, but:
1) I don’t care about who’s in the restroom with me. I’ve been in places where there were more women in the men’s room than there were men, and they were everywhere including right behind me when I was using a urinal. You learn to adapt.
1.5) Anyone can always use the stall. I’d use a mixed-gender bathroom that was all stalls, and I’d let my daughter do that as well. Everyone’s completely dressed outside the stalls; if they aren’t already, they will be.
1.75) The people who are of ambiguous or deceptive gender are not, in general, predating on your kids. Stop behaving as if they are.
1.9) That’s how I look at it. Others are free to be as upset or not, as they please. But there are other things in NC’s legislation that are actually dangerous; those are not really getting talked about in the same outraged tones.
2) I have no problem at all with boosting up capital gains taxes. Come up with something sensible and equitable, and I just might like it. The current capital gains rate is too low. It incentivizes sitting on your laurels if you got ’em.
3) Wife just had a revision of her partial knee replacement, wherein they did a full knee replacement. Just had as in 3 days ago. All of the preparation, including hasty reassembly of the ground-floor bathroom that we had in a state of just-started-to-tile when we got the surgery appointment, has been exhausting.
4) We now have DSL! Satellite, in case anyone’s curious, blows. It has been a long, painful year and a half living with that.
5) Garden’s going in this weekend, and I have to build some birthing pens for our two female pigs who were bred by the young boar who, it turned out, wasn’t too young to breed them after all. On the upside, though, our bacon is reproducing.
Not that anyone asked, but:
1) I don’t care about who’s in the restroom with me. I’ve been in places where there were more women in the men’s room than there were men, and they were everywhere including right behind me when I was using a urinal. You learn to adapt.
1.5) Anyone can always use the stall. I’d use a mixed-gender bathroom that was all stalls, and I’d let my daughter do that as well. Everyone’s completely dressed outside the stalls; if they aren’t already, they will be.
1.75) The people who are of ambiguous or deceptive gender are not, in general, predating on your kids. Stop behaving as if they are.
1.9) That’s how I look at it. Others are free to be as upset or not, as they please. But there are other things in NC’s legislation that are actually dangerous; those are not really getting talked about in the same outraged tones.
2) I have no problem at all with boosting up capital gains taxes. Come up with something sensible and equitable, and I just might like it. The current capital gains rate is too low. It incentivizes sitting on your laurels if you got ’em.
3) Wife just had a revision of her partial knee replacement, wherein they did a full knee replacement. Just had as in 3 days ago. All of the preparation, including hasty reassembly of the ground-floor bathroom that we had in a state of just-started-to-tile when we got the surgery appointment, has been exhausting.
4) We now have DSL! Satellite, in case anyone’s curious, blows. It has been a long, painful year and a half living with that.
5) Garden’s going in this weekend, and I have to build some birthing pens for our two female pigs who were bred by the young boar who, it turned out, wasn’t too young to breed them after all. On the upside, though, our bacon is reproducing.
Not that anyone asked, but:
1) I don’t care about who’s in the restroom with me. I’ve been in places where there were more women in the men’s room than there were men, and they were everywhere including right behind me when I was using a urinal. You learn to adapt.
1.5) Anyone can always use the stall. I’d use a mixed-gender bathroom that was all stalls, and I’d let my daughter do that as well. Everyone’s completely dressed outside the stalls; if they aren’t already, they will be.
1.75) The people who are of ambiguous or deceptive gender are not, in general, predating on your kids. Stop behaving as if they are.
1.9) That’s how I look at it. Others are free to be as upset or not, as they please. But there are other things in NC’s legislation that are actually dangerous; those are not really getting talked about in the same outraged tones.
2) I have no problem at all with boosting up capital gains taxes. Come up with something sensible and equitable, and I just might like it. The current capital gains rate is too low. It incentivizes sitting on your laurels if you got ’em.
3) Wife just had a revision of her partial knee replacement, wherein they did a full knee replacement. Just had as in 3 days ago. All of the preparation, including hasty reassembly of the ground-floor bathroom that we had in a state of just-started-to-tile when we got the surgery appointment, has been exhausting.
4) We now have DSL! Satellite, in case anyone’s curious, blows. It has been a long, painful year and a half living with that.
5) Garden’s going in this weekend, and I have to build some birthing pens for our two female pigs who were bred by the young boar who, it turned out, wasn’t too young to breed them after all. On the upside, though, our bacon is reproducing.
Other athletes performing well beyond their prime:
George Blanda, who was still an excellent backup QB for the Oakland Raiders at 43, and continued as an NFL kicker to 48
Don Bradman, greatest cricket batsman of all time, who captained Australia to their best ever tour of England just before he turned 40. In his last innings he was out for a duck (= 0), which reduced his lifetime test average to 99.94 runs – no other batsman has ever averaged above 61!
Pancho Gonzales, possibly the greatest tennis player who ever lived, who, having been excluded from all the major tournaments for more than a decade (because he was a professional, and they were still technically “amateur”), came back at 41 to beat Charlie Pasarell, 25, at Wimbledon in the longest match (by games) ever recorded until then: 22–24, 1–6, 16–14, 6–3, 11–9. He went on over the next few years to beat the world’s #1 (Rod Laver) in a challenge match and to win a pro tournament at 43.
Other athletes performing well beyond their prime:
George Blanda, who was still an excellent backup QB for the Oakland Raiders at 43, and continued as an NFL kicker to 48
Don Bradman, greatest cricket batsman of all time, who captained Australia to their best ever tour of England just before he turned 40. In his last innings he was out for a duck (= 0), which reduced his lifetime test average to 99.94 runs – no other batsman has ever averaged above 61!
Pancho Gonzales, possibly the greatest tennis player who ever lived, who, having been excluded from all the major tournaments for more than a decade (because he was a professional, and they were still technically “amateur”), came back at 41 to beat Charlie Pasarell, 25, at Wimbledon in the longest match (by games) ever recorded until then: 22–24, 1–6, 16–14, 6–3, 11–9. He went on over the next few years to beat the world’s #1 (Rod Laver) in a challenge match and to win a pro tournament at 43.
Other athletes performing well beyond their prime:
George Blanda, who was still an excellent backup QB for the Oakland Raiders at 43, and continued as an NFL kicker to 48
Don Bradman, greatest cricket batsman of all time, who captained Australia to their best ever tour of England just before he turned 40. In his last innings he was out for a duck (= 0), which reduced his lifetime test average to 99.94 runs – no other batsman has ever averaged above 61!
Pancho Gonzales, possibly the greatest tennis player who ever lived, who, having been excluded from all the major tournaments for more than a decade (because he was a professional, and they were still technically “amateur”), came back at 41 to beat Charlie Pasarell, 25, at Wimbledon in the longest match (by games) ever recorded until then: 22–24, 1–6, 16–14, 6–3, 11–9. He went on over the next few years to beat the world’s #1 (Rod Laver) in a challenge match and to win a pro tournament at 43.
Ronald Reagan went to Neshoba County, Mississippi to talk about States Rights.
Donald Trump now went to Patchogue, Long Island to talk about the wall on the Mexican border (and who’s going to pay for it).
Now, what’s Cruz to do?
Any proposals?
What about Salem, Massachusetts to talk about religious freedom?
Or Wichita, Kansas to talk about the evil of abortion (although Wichita may be too large to make the connection obvious).
Ronald Reagan went to Neshoba County, Mississippi to talk about States Rights.
Donald Trump now went to Patchogue, Long Island to talk about the wall on the Mexican border (and who’s going to pay for it).
Now, what’s Cruz to do?
Any proposals?
What about Salem, Massachusetts to talk about religious freedom?
Or Wichita, Kansas to talk about the evil of abortion (although Wichita may be too large to make the connection obvious).
Ronald Reagan went to Neshoba County, Mississippi to talk about States Rights.
Donald Trump now went to Patchogue, Long Island to talk about the wall on the Mexican border (and who’s going to pay for it).
Now, what’s Cruz to do?
Any proposals?
What about Salem, Massachusetts to talk about religious freedom?
Or Wichita, Kansas to talk about the evil of abortion (although Wichita may be too large to make the connection obvious).
3 topics, one comment:
“Now, what’s Cruz to do?”
Go to Calgary, Canada, to talk about the evils of “birthright citizenship”. Then get mauled by a moose.
—
I hereby apologize to Marty for implying inconsistency in CCW and WC standards of “privacy vs. threat response”. Marty has a more consistent view than most liberals or conservatives, and that’s good.
—
My prefered capital gains tax plan, NEVER to be enacted, is that capital gains are taxed at a moderately high rate, similar to all other income. But the part I really dislike about capital gains taxes is all the damn paperwork of “bought stock X in 1988 at $…now where’s the damn confirmation?”.
My solution (and this is the ‘NEVER to be enacted’ part), when applied to stocks and bonds: when you buy, the government adds % to your purchase, when you sell, they subtract % from your proceeds, automatically. NET effect is the same as a tax of %*(Sell-Buy), boosts the stock market (*yay!*) minimal paperwork for individuals. Na Ga Na Ha Pen.
3 topics, one comment:
“Now, what’s Cruz to do?”
Go to Calgary, Canada, to talk about the evils of “birthright citizenship”. Then get mauled by a moose.
—
I hereby apologize to Marty for implying inconsistency in CCW and WC standards of “privacy vs. threat response”. Marty has a more consistent view than most liberals or conservatives, and that’s good.
—
My prefered capital gains tax plan, NEVER to be enacted, is that capital gains are taxed at a moderately high rate, similar to all other income. But the part I really dislike about capital gains taxes is all the damn paperwork of “bought stock X in 1988 at $…now where’s the damn confirmation?”.
My solution (and this is the ‘NEVER to be enacted’ part), when applied to stocks and bonds: when you buy, the government adds % to your purchase, when you sell, they subtract % from your proceeds, automatically. NET effect is the same as a tax of %*(Sell-Buy), boosts the stock market (*yay!*) minimal paperwork for individuals. Na Ga Na Ha Pen.
3 topics, one comment:
“Now, what’s Cruz to do?”
Go to Calgary, Canada, to talk about the evils of “birthright citizenship”. Then get mauled by a moose.
—
I hereby apologize to Marty for implying inconsistency in CCW and WC standards of “privacy vs. threat response”. Marty has a more consistent view than most liberals or conservatives, and that’s good.
—
My prefered capital gains tax plan, NEVER to be enacted, is that capital gains are taxed at a moderately high rate, similar to all other income. But the part I really dislike about capital gains taxes is all the damn paperwork of “bought stock X in 1988 at $…now where’s the damn confirmation?”.
My solution (and this is the ‘NEVER to be enacted’ part), when applied to stocks and bonds: when you buy, the government adds % to your purchase, when you sell, they subtract % from your proceeds, automatically. NET effect is the same as a tax of %*(Sell-Buy), boosts the stock market (*yay!*) minimal paperwork for individuals. Na Ga Na Ha Pen.
Thanks Snarki, I am firmly against taxing capital gains at all. Not in a principled way, in a completely selfish way. But I like the no paperwork solution.
Thanks Snarki, I am firmly against taxing capital gains at all. Not in a principled way, in a completely selfish way. But I like the no paperwork solution.
Thanks Snarki, I am firmly against taxing capital gains at all. Not in a principled way, in a completely selfish way. But I like the no paperwork solution.
I think we can find a workable compromise on capital gains:
All capital gains will be taxed as regular income, except Marty’s. He doesn’t pay taxes on capital gains.
See? That was easy.
I think we can find a workable compromise on capital gains:
All capital gains will be taxed as regular income, except Marty’s. He doesn’t pay taxes on capital gains.
See? That was easy.
I think we can find a workable compromise on capital gains:
All capital gains will be taxed as regular income, except Marty’s. He doesn’t pay taxes on capital gains.
See? That was easy.
dr Ngo, all those guys are awesome, so the oldest guy by sport that was great so far
Watson – Golf(my choice, Nicklaus had that Masters Watson was competitive well into his 50’s)
Pancho Gonzales – tennis
George Blanda – American Football
Satchel Paige – baseball
Gordie Howe – hockey
Don Bradman – cricket. I didn’t know anything about him thanks
Nolan Ryan – baseball
Football?
Curling?
dr Ngo, all those guys are awesome, so the oldest guy by sport that was great so far
Watson – Golf(my choice, Nicklaus had that Masters Watson was competitive well into his 50’s)
Pancho Gonzales – tennis
George Blanda – American Football
Satchel Paige – baseball
Gordie Howe – hockey
Don Bradman – cricket. I didn’t know anything about him thanks
Nolan Ryan – baseball
Football?
Curling?
dr Ngo, all those guys are awesome, so the oldest guy by sport that was great so far
Watson – Golf(my choice, Nicklaus had that Masters Watson was competitive well into his 50’s)
Pancho Gonzales – tennis
George Blanda – American Football
Satchel Paige – baseball
Gordie Howe – hockey
Don Bradman – cricket. I didn’t know anything about him thanks
Nolan Ryan – baseball
Football?
Curling?
Capital gains is income. Sure, you already paid taxes on the income. Now you get to pay taxes on the income that you earned from the income. Why tax some income at 39% and other income at 15%?
But no one commenting here is paying 39% on their income, I’d wager. It’s mathematically impossible.
Here’s what I’d lean toward, if I were the leaning sort: figure out how much taxes are currently being collected, as a percentage of all income. Then set the tax rate to that, and box/transition out lower income people. If the new capital gains rate doesn’t provide enough additional income to let that happen, jack the rate up until it does.
But this would put a lot of tax accountants out of a job, so it’s probably evil.
Why not make it simple?
And, hey, you could make it simpler, year by year, until you get to simple. But it’d serve the interests of practically no one, so it’s not going to happen. Congress doesn’t want it, the IRS doesn’t want it, and neither liberals nor conservatives want it, because it doesn’t fit their respective agendas.
Yeah, I know: getting rid of the home mortgage exemption is not going to make anyone happy. It’s the fourth rail of US politics, maybe.
Capital gains is income. Sure, you already paid taxes on the income. Now you get to pay taxes on the income that you earned from the income. Why tax some income at 39% and other income at 15%?
But no one commenting here is paying 39% on their income, I’d wager. It’s mathematically impossible.
Here’s what I’d lean toward, if I were the leaning sort: figure out how much taxes are currently being collected, as a percentage of all income. Then set the tax rate to that, and box/transition out lower income people. If the new capital gains rate doesn’t provide enough additional income to let that happen, jack the rate up until it does.
But this would put a lot of tax accountants out of a job, so it’s probably evil.
Why not make it simple?
And, hey, you could make it simpler, year by year, until you get to simple. But it’d serve the interests of practically no one, so it’s not going to happen. Congress doesn’t want it, the IRS doesn’t want it, and neither liberals nor conservatives want it, because it doesn’t fit their respective agendas.
Yeah, I know: getting rid of the home mortgage exemption is not going to make anyone happy. It’s the fourth rail of US politics, maybe.
Capital gains is income. Sure, you already paid taxes on the income. Now you get to pay taxes on the income that you earned from the income. Why tax some income at 39% and other income at 15%?
But no one commenting here is paying 39% on their income, I’d wager. It’s mathematically impossible.
Here’s what I’d lean toward, if I were the leaning sort: figure out how much taxes are currently being collected, as a percentage of all income. Then set the tax rate to that, and box/transition out lower income people. If the new capital gains rate doesn’t provide enough additional income to let that happen, jack the rate up until it does.
But this would put a lot of tax accountants out of a job, so it’s probably evil.
Why not make it simple?
And, hey, you could make it simpler, year by year, until you get to simple. But it’d serve the interests of practically no one, so it’s not going to happen. Congress doesn’t want it, the IRS doesn’t want it, and neither liberals nor conservatives want it, because it doesn’t fit their respective agendas.
Yeah, I know: getting rid of the home mortgage exemption is not going to make anyone happy. It’s the fourth rail of US politics, maybe.
Speaking of sports: has this been discussed? Because I thought this was something that surely must change how people regard Ty Cobb.
I know it’s not the first time that Ty Cobb has been rehabilitated, historically speaking, but this seems to be rather thorough. It makes me want to read the book.
Speaking of sports: has this been discussed? Because I thought this was something that surely must change how people regard Ty Cobb.
I know it’s not the first time that Ty Cobb has been rehabilitated, historically speaking, but this seems to be rather thorough. It makes me want to read the book.
Speaking of sports: has this been discussed? Because I thought this was something that surely must change how people regard Ty Cobb.
I know it’s not the first time that Ty Cobb has been rehabilitated, historically speaking, but this seems to be rather thorough. It makes me want to read the book.
If by “football” (as opposed to “American football”) Marty means what Americans call soccer, I nominate:
Sir Stanley Matthews, long considered England’s greatest player, who won the Ballon d’Or for best footballer in the world when he was 41, still played for England when he was 43, played for his club squad until he was 50, and injured his cartilage playing for an England Veteran’s XI (vs Brazil) at the age of 70, “a promising career cut tragically short,” according to his autobiography. No, he was not a goalkeeper, a position which – like kicker in American football – conduces to greater longevity.
If by “football” (as opposed to “American football”) Marty means what Americans call soccer, I nominate:
Sir Stanley Matthews, long considered England’s greatest player, who won the Ballon d’Or for best footballer in the world when he was 41, still played for England when he was 43, played for his club squad until he was 50, and injured his cartilage playing for an England Veteran’s XI (vs Brazil) at the age of 70, “a promising career cut tragically short,” according to his autobiography. No, he was not a goalkeeper, a position which – like kicker in American football – conduces to greater longevity.
If by “football” (as opposed to “American football”) Marty means what Americans call soccer, I nominate:
Sir Stanley Matthews, long considered England’s greatest player, who won the Ballon d’Or for best footballer in the world when he was 41, still played for England when he was 43, played for his club squad until he was 50, and injured his cartilage playing for an England Veteran’s XI (vs Brazil) at the age of 70, “a promising career cut tragically short,” according to his autobiography. No, he was not a goalkeeper, a position which – like kicker in American football – conduces to greater longevity.
Slart,
I want to read the book, Ty Cobb, with all I had read over the years, still seems like the greatest baseball player ever to me. A jerk in some ways maybe.
Slart,
I want to read the book, Ty Cobb, with all I had read over the years, still seems like the greatest baseball player ever to me. A jerk in some ways maybe.
Slart,
I want to read the book, Ty Cobb, with all I had read over the years, still seems like the greatest baseball player ever to me. A jerk in some ways maybe.
Read the article, Marty, if you haven’t already. Please.
Read the article, Marty, if you haven’t already. Please.
Read the article, Marty, if you haven’t already. Please.
I did, seems like an ok guy that could be a jerk sometimes. Like lots of people, but not how he has been portrayed.
I did, seems like an ok guy that could be a jerk sometimes. Like lots of people, but not how he has been portrayed.
I did, seems like an ok guy that could be a jerk sometimes. Like lots of people, but not how he has been portrayed.
Slart, that was a wonderful article on Cobb.
I love that he toured in vaudeville and liked even better that other ballplayers did too to make ends meet.
The White Sox gave him a set of books as an award.
I love well-read ballplayers. I’ve been known to keep a book in my ball bag in case of rain delays.
I remember reading that former Mets pitcher Ron Darling was a Classics scholar in college and had read the Iliad and the Odyssey in the original Greek .. nine times.
And the cuttlefish slide. What other sport includes that sort of thing, I ask you?
Also gratified, after buying the evil Cobb deal all these years myself, that his alleged racism was not what “history” had told us.
Nobody knows nuttin. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Cobb swore at the umpires in Latin.
I guess now when people accuse Pete Rose of being the worst excuse of a human being in baseball since Ty Cobb, he can smile and say thank you.
Though the thought of Rose cracking a book seems unlikely.
Slart, that was a wonderful article on Cobb.
I love that he toured in vaudeville and liked even better that other ballplayers did too to make ends meet.
The White Sox gave him a set of books as an award.
I love well-read ballplayers. I’ve been known to keep a book in my ball bag in case of rain delays.
I remember reading that former Mets pitcher Ron Darling was a Classics scholar in college and had read the Iliad and the Odyssey in the original Greek .. nine times.
And the cuttlefish slide. What other sport includes that sort of thing, I ask you?
Also gratified, after buying the evil Cobb deal all these years myself, that his alleged racism was not what “history” had told us.
Nobody knows nuttin. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Cobb swore at the umpires in Latin.
I guess now when people accuse Pete Rose of being the worst excuse of a human being in baseball since Ty Cobb, he can smile and say thank you.
Though the thought of Rose cracking a book seems unlikely.
Slart, that was a wonderful article on Cobb.
I love that he toured in vaudeville and liked even better that other ballplayers did too to make ends meet.
The White Sox gave him a set of books as an award.
I love well-read ballplayers. I’ve been known to keep a book in my ball bag in case of rain delays.
I remember reading that former Mets pitcher Ron Darling was a Classics scholar in college and had read the Iliad and the Odyssey in the original Greek .. nine times.
And the cuttlefish slide. What other sport includes that sort of thing, I ask you?
Also gratified, after buying the evil Cobb deal all these years myself, that his alleged racism was not what “history” had told us.
Nobody knows nuttin. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Cobb swore at the umpires in Latin.
I guess now when people accuse Pete Rose of being the worst excuse of a human being in baseball since Ty Cobb, he can smile and say thank you.
Though the thought of Rose cracking a book seems unlikely.
Why not make it [taxes] simple?
We use the tax system for two very different purposes.
The first is raising money to fund the government. It’s what most of us think about when paying them. And what drives most of the ant-tax crowd — they don’t mind taxes so much as they mind government.
But the second is to incentivize behavior. We tax things that we don’t want people to do. And we give tax credits for things that we do want people to do.
That’s why there are high taxes on, for example, tobacco products. And why (at least in theory) there are low taxes on capital gains. (You can argue both over whether a particular behavior ought to be encouraged or discouraged, and over whether the tax-based approach actually works.)
For the first purpose, there is no reason not to have an extremely simple system. But once you get into the second, you have complexity rising rapidly. That’s what most of the tax laws (by page count) are: details of incentives, not about revenue at all.
Why not make it [taxes] simple?
We use the tax system for two very different purposes.
The first is raising money to fund the government. It’s what most of us think about when paying them. And what drives most of the ant-tax crowd — they don’t mind taxes so much as they mind government.
But the second is to incentivize behavior. We tax things that we don’t want people to do. And we give tax credits for things that we do want people to do.
That’s why there are high taxes on, for example, tobacco products. And why (at least in theory) there are low taxes on capital gains. (You can argue both over whether a particular behavior ought to be encouraged or discouraged, and over whether the tax-based approach actually works.)
For the first purpose, there is no reason not to have an extremely simple system. But once you get into the second, you have complexity rising rapidly. That’s what most of the tax laws (by page count) are: details of incentives, not about revenue at all.
Why not make it [taxes] simple?
We use the tax system for two very different purposes.
The first is raising money to fund the government. It’s what most of us think about when paying them. And what drives most of the ant-tax crowd — they don’t mind taxes so much as they mind government.
But the second is to incentivize behavior. We tax things that we don’t want people to do. And we give tax credits for things that we do want people to do.
That’s why there are high taxes on, for example, tobacco products. And why (at least in theory) there are low taxes on capital gains. (You can argue both over whether a particular behavior ought to be encouraged or discouraged, and over whether the tax-based approach actually works.)
For the first purpose, there is no reason not to have an extremely simple system. But once you get into the second, you have complexity rising rapidly. That’s what most of the tax laws (by page count) are: details of incentives, not about revenue at all.
“Though the thought of Rose cracking a book seems unlikely.”
Well, sure. But I hear he knew his way around the Daily Racing Form.
and what wj said.
“Though the thought of Rose cracking a book seems unlikely.”
Well, sure. But I hear he knew his way around the Daily Racing Form.
and what wj said.
“Though the thought of Rose cracking a book seems unlikely.”
Well, sure. But I hear he knew his way around the Daily Racing Form.
and what wj said.
Slarti,
Yes, good article…a good reminder for all that history is not always what it seems (grinding ax for my long ago history degree).
Slarti,
Yes, good article…a good reminder for all that history is not always what it seems (grinding ax for my long ago history degree).
Slarti,
Yes, good article…a good reminder for all that history is not always what it seems (grinding ax for my long ago history degree).
This makes sense:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/we-need-quit-trying-cut-middle-class-income-taxes
This makes sense:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/we-need-quit-trying-cut-middle-class-income-taxes
This makes sense:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/we-need-quit-trying-cut-middle-class-income-taxes
Since he hasn’t been mentioned, Phil Niekro’s last season was 1987, he turned 48 on April 1st of that year. Won 121 games after turning 40.
Since he hasn’t been mentioned, Phil Niekro’s last season was 1987, he turned 48 on April 1st of that year. Won 121 games after turning 40.
Since he hasn’t been mentioned, Phil Niekro’s last season was 1987, he turned 48 on April 1st of that year. Won 121 games after turning 40.
Re: the Count’s 1:02 PM post, the biggest single chunk of taxes I pay are property taxes. Just a bit more than 10% of my household, pre-tax income goes straight to property taxes, which is deducted from my taxable income for both federal- and state-tax purposes. With exemptions, deductions and credits, I pay less than 2% of my pre-tax income in federal income tax.
Re: the Count’s 1:02 PM post, the biggest single chunk of taxes I pay are property taxes. Just a bit more than 10% of my household, pre-tax income goes straight to property taxes, which is deducted from my taxable income for both federal- and state-tax purposes. With exemptions, deductions and credits, I pay less than 2% of my pre-tax income in federal income tax.
Re: the Count’s 1:02 PM post, the biggest single chunk of taxes I pay are property taxes. Just a bit more than 10% of my household, pre-tax income goes straight to property taxes, which is deducted from my taxable income for both federal- and state-tax purposes. With exemptions, deductions and credits, I pay less than 2% of my pre-tax income in federal income tax.
Wow.
I’d have to go look at the particulars, but for the last couple of years my property tax has been negligible, my state income tax has been 5%, and I normally pay around 20% of my income as federal tax.
I could probably get tax-exempt status for being a farm, but we’re not really selling anything at this point, nor are we trying. So even though I could, or could with minimal effort, I’d be committing a crime as far as _I_ am concerned.
Wow.
I’d have to go look at the particulars, but for the last couple of years my property tax has been negligible, my state income tax has been 5%, and I normally pay around 20% of my income as federal tax.
I could probably get tax-exempt status for being a farm, but we’re not really selling anything at this point, nor are we trying. So even though I could, or could with minimal effort, I’d be committing a crime as far as _I_ am concerned.
Wow.
I’d have to go look at the particulars, but for the last couple of years my property tax has been negligible, my state income tax has been 5%, and I normally pay around 20% of my income as federal tax.
I could probably get tax-exempt status for being a farm, but we’re not really selling anything at this point, nor are we trying. So even though I could, or could with minimal effort, I’d be committing a crime as far as _I_ am concerned.
ordnance
Somehow this sailed for as long as it has without any resulting explosion of outrage.
ordnance
Somehow this sailed for as long as it has without any resulting explosion of outrage.
ordnance
Somehow this sailed for as long as it has without any resulting explosion of outrage.
Here is a 4th Circuit opinion in a suit by a transgender boy who was barred from using the boys restroom at his school. He alleged unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX and a violation of Equal Protection under the Constitution.
Neither the 4th Circuit or district court below reached the merits of the Equal Protection claim.
So, it seems we may have a court opinion government enforced different sex bathrooms is constitutional at some point….
Here is a 4th Circuit opinion in a suit by a transgender boy who was barred from using the boys restroom at his school. He alleged unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX and a violation of Equal Protection under the Constitution.
Neither the 4th Circuit or district court below reached the merits of the Equal Protection claim.
So, it seems we may have a court opinion government enforced different sex bathrooms is constitutional at some point….
Here is a 4th Circuit opinion in a suit by a transgender boy who was barred from using the boys restroom at his school. He alleged unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX and a violation of Equal Protection under the Constitution.
Neither the 4th Circuit or district court below reached the merits of the Equal Protection claim.
So, it seems we may have a court opinion government enforced different sex bathrooms is constitutional at some point….
The 4th Circuit may not have ruled on the merits of the claim. But they definitely ripped the district court for its refusal to consider the claim. Repeatedly and vigorously.
The 4th Circuit may not have ruled on the merits of the claim. But they definitely ripped the district court for its refusal to consider the claim. Repeatedly and vigorously.
The 4th Circuit may not have ruled on the merits of the claim. But they definitely ripped the district court for its refusal to consider the claim. Repeatedly and vigorously.
I’m kind of surprised at how serious the privacy concerns are stated, or rather, how awful it would be to be seen nude or partially nude by a member of the opposite sex but that to be seen nude or partially nude by a member of the same sex is not even worth mentioning, as if no one could be traumatized by that.
I’m kind of surprised at how serious the privacy concerns are stated, or rather, how awful it would be to be seen nude or partially nude by a member of the opposite sex but that to be seen nude or partially nude by a member of the same sex is not even worth mentioning, as if no one could be traumatized by that.
I’m kind of surprised at how serious the privacy concerns are stated, or rather, how awful it would be to be seen nude or partially nude by a member of the opposite sex but that to be seen nude or partially nude by a member of the same sex is not even worth mentioning, as if no one could be traumatized by that.
Total change of subject:
For some reason, McKinney, Texas, has become a reoccurring decimal in my life. I thought at first that McKinney Texas was a guy in Texas named McKinney who commented here. Then i learned through the dog rescue network of a hoarder/failed rescue outside of McKinney, Texas, so it is a town. Then I learned through Facebook of a family of dogs that needed rescue, specifically needed transport north to a rescue from a municipal shelter in—wait for it– McKinney, Texas. so i sent a donation and am now part of the local McKinney, Texas,rescue network and have a Facebook friend there now. Then as if that wasn’t enough I ran into a reference to McKinney, Texas in an English fantasy novel It was not flattering so I won’t repeat it.
So I looked it up on Wikipedia. A small city, very flat, described as being near Plano, which probably means more to people who live in Texas than people who live in Washington. The pictures look very pleasant. In fact it looks a lot like the town I grew up in in Iowa.
Anyway a family of dogs, mom and sight puppies, are on their way from the city shelter to a rescue in Minnesota and I expect I will learn more in time about McKinney, Texas.
Total change of subject:
For some reason, McKinney, Texas, has become a reoccurring decimal in my life. I thought at first that McKinney Texas was a guy in Texas named McKinney who commented here. Then i learned through the dog rescue network of a hoarder/failed rescue outside of McKinney, Texas, so it is a town. Then I learned through Facebook of a family of dogs that needed rescue, specifically needed transport north to a rescue from a municipal shelter in—wait for it– McKinney, Texas. so i sent a donation and am now part of the local McKinney, Texas,rescue network and have a Facebook friend there now. Then as if that wasn’t enough I ran into a reference to McKinney, Texas in an English fantasy novel It was not flattering so I won’t repeat it.
So I looked it up on Wikipedia. A small city, very flat, described as being near Plano, which probably means more to people who live in Texas than people who live in Washington. The pictures look very pleasant. In fact it looks a lot like the town I grew up in in Iowa.
Anyway a family of dogs, mom and sight puppies, are on their way from the city shelter to a rescue in Minnesota and I expect I will learn more in time about McKinney, Texas.
Total change of subject:
For some reason, McKinney, Texas, has become a reoccurring decimal in my life. I thought at first that McKinney Texas was a guy in Texas named McKinney who commented here. Then i learned through the dog rescue network of a hoarder/failed rescue outside of McKinney, Texas, so it is a town. Then I learned through Facebook of a family of dogs that needed rescue, specifically needed transport north to a rescue from a municipal shelter in—wait for it– McKinney, Texas. so i sent a donation and am now part of the local McKinney, Texas,rescue network and have a Facebook friend there now. Then as if that wasn’t enough I ran into a reference to McKinney, Texas in an English fantasy novel It was not flattering so I won’t repeat it.
So I looked it up on Wikipedia. A small city, very flat, described as being near Plano, which probably means more to people who live in Texas than people who live in Washington. The pictures look very pleasant. In fact it looks a lot like the town I grew up in in Iowa.
Anyway a family of dogs, mom and sight puppies, are on their way from the city shelter to a rescue in Minnesota and I expect I will learn more in time about McKinney, Texas.
Ugh, perhaps it’s just that the folks getting all worked up about this don’t want to think about homosexuality. Or else want to believe it is something that someone has to be seduced into embracing — and nobody in high school (at least nobody in their high school) has had time to be seduced yet.
Ugh, perhaps it’s just that the folks getting all worked up about this don’t want to think about homosexuality. Or else want to believe it is something that someone has to be seduced into embracing — and nobody in high school (at least nobody in their high school) has had time to be seduced yet.
Ugh, perhaps it’s just that the folks getting all worked up about this don’t want to think about homosexuality. Or else want to believe it is something that someone has to be seduced into embracing — and nobody in high school (at least nobody in their high school) has had time to be seduced yet.
A small city, very flat, described as being near Plano,…
As a minor matter of coincidence, I live in Plano.
A small city, very flat, described as being near Plano,…
As a minor matter of coincidence, I live in Plano.
A small city, very flat, described as being near Plano,…
As a minor matter of coincidence, I live in Plano.
My Mom lives in North Carrollton on the other side of McKinney
My Mom lives in North Carrollton on the other side of McKinney
My Mom lives in North Carrollton on the other side of McKinney
It looks like good country for a tornado, but that might just be the Iowan in me reacting to plains.
It looks like good country for a tornado, but that might just be the Iowan in me reacting to plains.
It looks like good country for a tornado, but that might just be the Iowan in me reacting to plains.
Why not make it simple?
Actually, it is simple for most taxpayers. You can find varied estimates but it seems that fewer than half of all taxpayers itemize. And I bet that for many who do it’s a matter of a few expenses – mortgage interest, contributions, state and local taxes. Sue me, but that isn’t that tough, especially with things like TurboTax available.
For those for whom it isn’t simple the complication is the determination of income and, so long as we have different categories taxed differently, its categorization. So if you run a business, or have rental property, or earn income as a self-employed worker, or complex investments, it gets tricky, for you and the IRS.
But otherwise it’s not that bad.
Why not make it simple?
Actually, it is simple for most taxpayers. You can find varied estimates but it seems that fewer than half of all taxpayers itemize. And I bet that for many who do it’s a matter of a few expenses – mortgage interest, contributions, state and local taxes. Sue me, but that isn’t that tough, especially with things like TurboTax available.
For those for whom it isn’t simple the complication is the determination of income and, so long as we have different categories taxed differently, its categorization. So if you run a business, or have rental property, or earn income as a self-employed worker, or complex investments, it gets tricky, for you and the IRS.
But otherwise it’s not that bad.
Why not make it simple?
Actually, it is simple for most taxpayers. You can find varied estimates but it seems that fewer than half of all taxpayers itemize. And I bet that for many who do it’s a matter of a few expenses – mortgage interest, contributions, state and local taxes. Sue me, but that isn’t that tough, especially with things like TurboTax available.
For those for whom it isn’t simple the complication is the determination of income and, so long as we have different categories taxed differently, its categorization. So if you run a business, or have rental property, or earn income as a self-employed worker, or complex investments, it gets tricky, for you and the IRS.
But otherwise it’s not that bad.
Looks as though NC will have to rethink its bathroom law, or lose rather a lot of funding:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/04/19/sex_discrimination_is_trans_discrimination_4th_circuit_holds_in_bathroom.html
Looks as though NC will have to rethink its bathroom law, or lose rather a lot of funding:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/04/19/sex_discrimination_is_trans_discrimination_4th_circuit_holds_in_bathroom.html
Looks as though NC will have to rethink its bathroom law, or lose rather a lot of funding:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/04/19/sex_discrimination_is_trans_discrimination_4th_circuit_holds_in_bathroom.html
“that isn’t tough”
Not my point. My point is that the people who get to itemize most are the same people you want to be paying more taxes.
The more complicated, the more possible it is to adjust your behaviors so as to minimize your tax burden. I just, personally, don’t find it desirable to make my life about reducing tax burden, but lots of others are wealthy enough to hire accountants to worry about that for them.
“that isn’t tough”
Not my point. My point is that the people who get to itemize most are the same people you want to be paying more taxes.
The more complicated, the more possible it is to adjust your behaviors so as to minimize your tax burden. I just, personally, don’t find it desirable to make my life about reducing tax burden, but lots of others are wealthy enough to hire accountants to worry about that for them.
“that isn’t tough”
Not my point. My point is that the people who get to itemize most are the same people you want to be paying more taxes.
The more complicated, the more possible it is to adjust your behaviors so as to minimize your tax burden. I just, personally, don’t find it desirable to make my life about reducing tax burden, but lots of others are wealthy enough to hire accountants to worry about that for them.
Slarti,
I agree. Doing something about differential tax rates for dividends and capital gains would help. Given that Reagan did something like that it’s hardly a radical leftist proposal. So would getting rid of the notorious carried interest loophole which is, if nothing else, an example of the influence of very big money on our politics.
Other complications are things like depreciation, depletion allowances, and so on. These have some economic justification, but the tax code doesn’t really pretend to allow for that. Mostly they are manipulated according to how, shall we say, persuasive, lobbyists are.
And some things can’t be solved in a practical way. Lots of small businesses reasonably require things like pickup trucks, tools, whatever. Separating business from personal use is a morass.
Slarti,
I agree. Doing something about differential tax rates for dividends and capital gains would help. Given that Reagan did something like that it’s hardly a radical leftist proposal. So would getting rid of the notorious carried interest loophole which is, if nothing else, an example of the influence of very big money on our politics.
Other complications are things like depreciation, depletion allowances, and so on. These have some economic justification, but the tax code doesn’t really pretend to allow for that. Mostly they are manipulated according to how, shall we say, persuasive, lobbyists are.
And some things can’t be solved in a practical way. Lots of small businesses reasonably require things like pickup trucks, tools, whatever. Separating business from personal use is a morass.
Slarti,
I agree. Doing something about differential tax rates for dividends and capital gains would help. Given that Reagan did something like that it’s hardly a radical leftist proposal. So would getting rid of the notorious carried interest loophole which is, if nothing else, an example of the influence of very big money on our politics.
Other complications are things like depreciation, depletion allowances, and so on. These have some economic justification, but the tax code doesn’t really pretend to allow for that. Mostly they are manipulated according to how, shall we say, persuasive, lobbyists are.
And some things can’t be solved in a practical way. Lots of small businesses reasonably require things like pickup trucks, tools, whatever. Separating business from personal use is a morass.
I’d give everyone a single personal deduction of $XX,000 and eliminate all other deductions from personal income. If someone can claim you as a dependent they can use your deduction.
Cap gains and dividends taxed at same rate as ordinary income.
All business income would be taxed separately as if you had a separate entity even if you are operating as a sole proprietorship or single member LLC. No pass through entities.
You would still have the morass of separating business from personal income, but that is always going to be there.
I’d give everyone a single personal deduction of $XX,000 and eliminate all other deductions from personal income. If someone can claim you as a dependent they can use your deduction.
Cap gains and dividends taxed at same rate as ordinary income.
All business income would be taxed separately as if you had a separate entity even if you are operating as a sole proprietorship or single member LLC. No pass through entities.
You would still have the morass of separating business from personal income, but that is always going to be there.
I’d give everyone a single personal deduction of $XX,000 and eliminate all other deductions from personal income. If someone can claim you as a dependent they can use your deduction.
Cap gains and dividends taxed at same rate as ordinary income.
All business income would be taxed separately as if you had a separate entity even if you are operating as a sole proprietorship or single member LLC. No pass through entities.
You would still have the morass of separating business from personal income, but that is always going to be there.
byomtov: Given that Reagan did something like that it’s hardly a radical leftist proposal.
But consider, Reagan did lots of things that today’s Republicans would consider radically leftist. A politician with his record (but not, of course, his name) would be denounced routinely, both by the right’s media and by the Presidential candidates and legislators.
So don’t look for any support for this any time soon.
byomtov: Given that Reagan did something like that it’s hardly a radical leftist proposal.
But consider, Reagan did lots of things that today’s Republicans would consider radically leftist. A politician with his record (but not, of course, his name) would be denounced routinely, both by the right’s media and by the Presidential candidates and legislators.
So don’t look for any support for this any time soon.
byomtov: Given that Reagan did something like that it’s hardly a radical leftist proposal.
But consider, Reagan did lots of things that today’s Republicans would consider radically leftist. A politician with his record (but not, of course, his name) would be denounced routinely, both by the right’s media and by the Presidential candidates and legislators.
So don’t look for any support for this any time soon.
You would still have the morass of separating business from personal income, but that is always going to be there.
But if you taxed business and personal income at the same rate (business, of course, has no personal deduction), that largely disappears. Not saying that would necessarily be a great idea. Just that it would work around this particular morass.
You would still have the morass of separating business from personal income, but that is always going to be there.
But if you taxed business and personal income at the same rate (business, of course, has no personal deduction), that largely disappears. Not saying that would necessarily be a great idea. Just that it would work around this particular morass.
You would still have the morass of separating business from personal income, but that is always going to be there.
But if you taxed business and personal income at the same rate (business, of course, has no personal deduction), that largely disappears. Not saying that would necessarily be a great idea. Just that it would work around this particular morass.
I don’t have a problem with that, provided that there’s some incentive for reinvestment. You can tax it as ordinary income for all I care, provided that a chunk of money invested with the intent to reinvest after cashing out of the stock/bond/whathaveyou doesn’t get immediately taxed before it can be reinvested.
You can always hit the gain at the point of withdrawal from such an investment structure. I think such things exist already, but may be more limited than I’d prefer as a trade for upping the capital gains rate.
Honestly, I don’t invest any money at all outside my 401k, yet. I just don’t have enough disposable income to invest more than the 401k cap.
I don’t have a problem with that, provided that there’s some incentive for reinvestment. You can tax it as ordinary income for all I care, provided that a chunk of money invested with the intent to reinvest after cashing out of the stock/bond/whathaveyou doesn’t get immediately taxed before it can be reinvested.
You can always hit the gain at the point of withdrawal from such an investment structure. I think such things exist already, but may be more limited than I’d prefer as a trade for upping the capital gains rate.
Honestly, I don’t invest any money at all outside my 401k, yet. I just don’t have enough disposable income to invest more than the 401k cap.
I don’t have a problem with that, provided that there’s some incentive for reinvestment. You can tax it as ordinary income for all I care, provided that a chunk of money invested with the intent to reinvest after cashing out of the stock/bond/whathaveyou doesn’t get immediately taxed before it can be reinvested.
You can always hit the gain at the point of withdrawal from such an investment structure. I think such things exist already, but may be more limited than I’d prefer as a trade for upping the capital gains rate.
Honestly, I don’t invest any money at all outside my 401k, yet. I just don’t have enough disposable income to invest more than the 401k cap.
Slarti,
I don’t have a problem with that, provided that there’s some incentive for reinvestment.
That’s OK if the reinvestment is pretty quick – 30 days maybe.
ugh,
All business income would be taxed separately as if you had a separate entity even if you are operating as a sole proprietorship or single member LLC. No pass through entities.
This is already the case for sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLC’s, single-member or not. The income just gets divided up pro rata with ownership share and is taxed as earned income. Where the fudge comes in is expenses.
Slarti,
I don’t have a problem with that, provided that there’s some incentive for reinvestment.
That’s OK if the reinvestment is pretty quick – 30 days maybe.
ugh,
All business income would be taxed separately as if you had a separate entity even if you are operating as a sole proprietorship or single member LLC. No pass through entities.
This is already the case for sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLC’s, single-member or not. The income just gets divided up pro rata with ownership share and is taxed as earned income. Where the fudge comes in is expenses.
Slarti,
I don’t have a problem with that, provided that there’s some incentive for reinvestment.
That’s OK if the reinvestment is pretty quick – 30 days maybe.
ugh,
All business income would be taxed separately as if you had a separate entity even if you are operating as a sole proprietorship or single member LLC. No pass through entities.
This is already the case for sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLC’s, single-member or not. The income just gets divided up pro rata with ownership share and is taxed as earned income. Where the fudge comes in is expenses.
30 days seems generous. I think we may be in agreement, here.
Not that it’s going to change anything, but still it’s not nothing.
30 days seems generous. I think we may be in agreement, here.
Not that it’s going to change anything, but still it’s not nothing.
30 days seems generous. I think we may be in agreement, here.
Not that it’s going to change anything, but still it’s not nothing.
Stephen Curry’s 3-Point Record in Context: Off the Charts
Stephen Curry’s 3-Point Record in Context: Off the Charts
Stephen Curry’s 3-Point Record in Context: Off the Charts
I think we may be in agreement, here.
What??
You’re right. I was trying to be generous.
I think we may be in agreement, here.
What??
You’re right. I was trying to be generous.
I think we may be in agreement, here.
What??
You’re right. I was trying to be generous.