C'mon Lance Berkman - What's this drivel coming from your mouth? (Houston: cost of, ordinances)

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

So, do you somehow believe that a transgender with a p3n1s is not capable of peeing or pooping in the men's room?

I think you may be missing the point of my argument. Clearly, anyone is capable of peeing and pooping in either restroom. It's not about need, it's about desire. I was responding to your question about whether or not a trans person really "needs" to use the restroom they want to use. The answer is that of course they don't need to, but that's not why any of us use the bathroom we choose. We use that bathroom because we think based on social convention that we should be there. Why not grant trans people this same accord?

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Yes, I do expect your son to use the restroom with other men.

Since people still die in cars with seat belts, crumple zones and safety glass, do you say we shouldn't use them since people still die?

Keeping men out of women's restroom will reduce sexual crimes. Just because it might not protect your son while in the men's room doesn't mean we should suspend every other aspect of safety.

Why is it worth legislating to protect girls and not worth legislating to protect boys, given the fact that the crime of child molestation is not prosecuted based on whether the victim was a boy or a girl?

[Velocity_Boy]

I agree with the Lancer 100%. I don't want some little 10 y.o. girl walking in with Daddy while I'm taking a leak. Nor do I want some Chomo strolling in the ladies room where there are female kids.

*******s...wake up. Just because you're angry because you spilled your skinny-mocha-latte on the seats of your new Prius while running late for your ACLU meeting this morning doesn't mean you have to whine for every new elitist-socialist piece of slimy cheesy Nanny State legislation that trickles down the left leg of Congress.

Let's just leave the rest rooms the way they are. It's worked for a couple hundred years. What's changed? Why change it?

The answers are: "Nothing" and "OK, V-Boy, you're right, let's not" in case you don't know. LOL

I've already noticed there are baby changing stations everywhere, as well as coed or "family" restrooms. And parents already take their little kids with them into the restrooms of both genders. (I have seen ******* parents take kids as old as 12 into opposite-gender restrooms. And had pre-pubescent girls stare at my junk while I'm at the urinal. WTF? What about my privacy right?)

But lefties don;t think about that. As a conservative white single veteran I'm not one of their constituency, or as they say in politics, a part of their "base." So my rights mean nothing. It's like how the libs have hijacked my YMCA from me. Nice job. It's the domain of screaming brats and mommies now and men are looked at as an unwanted minority.

[texas7]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

Why is it worth legislating to protect girls and not worth legislating to protect boys, given the fact that the crime of child molestation is not prosecuted based on whether the victim was a boy or a girl?

Most good parents should go to the restroom with their kids. If a mom is alone, she takes them to a ladies room. If a dad is with them, then he should be escorting them to the men's room.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

Why not grant trans people this same accord?

They are granted the same accord.

A trans with a p3n1s who is dressed like a woman will continue going to the women's restroom on the down low but if they are dressed and look like a man, they continue going to the men's room.

If it's a matter of them being uncomfortable, tough luck. It's better that tiny group to be uncomfortable than the majority of the rest of society.

The vast majority of women in the US would be uncomfortable if I strolled into the women's restroom with them.

Originally Posted by jerbear30

Why is it worth legislating to protect girls and not worth legislating to protect boys, given the fact that the crime of child molestation is not prosecuted based on whether the victim was a boy or a girl?

Specifically, what legislation would help protect boys in the men's restroom?

Do you want a law where all restrooms are single use with a locking door? It that the kind of legislation you want?

[curbur]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

They are granted the same accord.

A trans with a p3n1s who is dressed like a woman will continue going to the women's restroom on the down low but if they are dressed and look like a man, they continue going to the men's room.

That sounds extremely subjective, so I'm not sure how it would be enforced and who would deem who makes the cut or not. Is it up to the individual to determine what they look more like? I could imagine a lot of transgendered feel they look like the opposite sex based on how they're dressed, whereas you and other patrons may not. Also, I'd like to just add that there are situations where violence occurs against the individual, like in this case, so it's somewhat shortsighted to claim this is just about being comfortable.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by curbur

That sounds extremely subjective, so I'm not sure how it would be enforced and who would deem who makes the cut or not. Is it up to the individual to determine what they look more like? I could imagine a lot of transgendered feel they look like the opposite sex based on how they're dressed, whereas you and other patrons may not. Also, I'd like to just add that there are situations where violence occurs against the individual, like in this case, so it's somewhat shortsighted to claim this is just about being comfortable.

Google "woman assaulted in restroom" and you see pages upon pages of stories about woman being sexually assaulted while alone in a bathroom.

HERO could provide cover for men who may look for victims in a woman's restroom. Currently, if a business owner sees a man entering a woman's restroom, that business owner could question that man or call the police. If HERO passes, that business owner could not take such actions.

And once again, most women do not want men wandering into their restrooms.

[curbur]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Google "woman assaulted in restroom" and you see pages upon pages of stories about woman being sexually assaulted while alone in a bathroom.

HERO could provide cover for men who may look for victims in a woman's restroom. Currently, if a business owner sees a man entering a woman's restroom, that business owner could question that man or call the police. If HERO passes, that business owner could not take such actions.

And once again, most women do not want men wandering into their restrooms.

All valid points, however, none of them addressed what I pointed out from your original assertions. First point asked where does one draw the line between who looks like a woman sufficiently enough and who doesn't, something you described as an unofficial litmus test for who should be allowed to use the opposite sex's restroom without HERO being in place. The second point I made simply stated that this isn't a matter of transgendered people being comfortable, as so many here have explained it as such, but also a matter of their safety at times. That wasn't meant to be taken as a competition between gender identities as to who has been abused more, but to point out that it does happen. While we're on the subject though, don't you think that women who make up roughly 50% of the world's population would be victimized more commonly than a group of people that make up a fraction of a percent? How often do you think that crimes against transgendered people have even been reported as such, or even reported at all if we look back far enough?

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by curbur

All valid points, however, none of them addressed what I pointed out from your original assertions. First point asked where does one draw the line between who looks like a woman sufficiently enough and who doesn't, something you described as an unofficial litmus test for who should be allowed to use the opposite sex's restroom without HERO being in place.

That is obviously subjective. The transgenders who identify as women that look like women are much less likely to be confronted. The ones who still look a lot like men would have a greater chance of being confronted, but I still believe that only a tiny fraction would ever be confronted.

I'm sorry, but life isn't fair, and in this case, it's better that sometimes transgenders end up in awkward or embarrassing situations than to disrupt the rest of society.

People with colostomy bags encounter all sorts of issues at the airport. Should we reduce airport security to halt any potentially awkward or embarrassing situations for them?

I can come up with all sorts of examples for different people who are presented with situations that might be awkward or embarrassing. How many laws and alterations do you want to make to ensure everyone is comfortable?

Originally Posted by curbur

The second point I made simply stated that this isn't a matter of transgendered people being comfortable, as so many here have explained it as such, but also a matter of their safety at times. That wasn't meant to be taken as a competition between gender identities as to who has been abused more, but to point out that it does happen. While we're on the subject though, don't you think that women who make up roughly 50% of the world's population would be victimized more commonly than a group of people that make up a fraction of a percent? How often do you think that crimes against transgendered people have even been reported as such, or even reported at all if we look back far enough?

With women making up such a large percentage of our population and with the unacceptable amount of sexual violence against them, I'd say if we have to choose a law that would potentially add danger to one group while potentially reducing it for another, it's kind of a no brainer to protect the population that dwarfs the other.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

This HERO law would make it so that people who are dressed like and appear to be men couldn't be questioned as to why they are going into the women's restroom.

The vote is to rescind HERO, not enact it. Since HERO's been in effect for 17 months, why is this not happening now?