Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's just a bathroom. Who cares what frekin parts dangle from between the legs.
It's not just bathrooms. You've missed the part about anatomical males infiltrating girls' multiple occupancy open locker/changing/shower rooms (and vice versa), too.
Half-dressed and/or naked anatomical males in the girls' locker/changing/shower rooms(and vice gersa)? No. Most people are against that, even liberal NYC parents...
Quote:
"Girls from a swim team in New York City's Upper West Side are too scared to use the women's locker room at a Parks Department swimming pool. In March, a sign appeared noting that everyone has the the right to use the restroom or locker room consistent with their "gender identity or gender expression." Around the same time, the girls, who range in age from about seven to 18, became concerned after they saw a "bearded individual" in the women's changing room.
They are now using the family changing room to change in and out of their swimsuits, but it is not big enough for all 18 girls...
An employee at the center who spoke on condition of anonymity says the individual using the locker room appears to present as a man—wearing swim shorts or trunks to swim, with sideburns going down into a beard—which is partly what alarms the girls and their parents. Staff members have also been warned that asking individuals to prove their gender identity would be discriminatory. "Our hands are tied," the worker said. "We can't say anything about it."
LGBT SJWs pushed way too far on this and the backlash has lost the LGBT community a lot of the sympathy for and support of their cause they used to have. When LGBT SJWs lose the support of even very lefty NYCers for their cause, that should be telling them something.
Why should girls/women be forced to submit to the sexual harassment/intimidation described above? There's no valid reason for it.
Oh, yeah, that's going to happen. NOT! Why do you Lefties go straight to the edge of the cliff with EVERYTHING!? I know, I know, your like minded hive residents will believe anything.
Because we can read. Maybe you should try it. There is a link in the OP, literally describe a bill giving nurses permission to deny services to LGBTQ people.
Im not in favor of laws allowing discrimination. That said the ones crying about this law also defend a Muslim's right to refuse to do their job based upon religious beliefs. Flight attendants refusing to serve alcohol, truck drivers refusing to deliver beer etc. Muslims refusing to remove head coverings at airports. All acceptable because of their religion. So which is it religious freedom or no?
As a scientist, would you like me to explain it to you?
Surely as a scientist you recognize the importance then of assuming nothing and questioning everything. This is why it's important for this discussion for people to see the specific language of the bill in question before being badgering into providing flippant and unfounded opinions on the matter.
If Texas violates the federal Constitution, the ACLU will certainly get a restraining order in minutes from any federal judge in Austin.
There is no violation, as far as public facility single-sex restrooms/locker/shower/etc. rooms restrictions.
This has already been decided in Federal Courts. The Federal Court ruling after a F to M but still anatomically female transgender student was expelled from Pitt (state university) for using men's locker/shower rooms on campus after male students complained about her presence in their facilities:
Quote:
"Federal Judge Kim R. Gibson dismissed Johnston's suit, saying that his transgender status was not covered by either the Constitution's equal-protection clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds.
With regard to the equal-protection clause, Gibson writes that transgender status is not a "suspect class" under equal-protection review, so that Pitt can prevail as long as it shows a "rational basis" for its actions. The university "explained that its policy is based on the need to ensure the privacy of its students to disrobe and shower outside of the presence of members of the opposite sex. This justification has been repeatedly upheld by courts," Gibson writes."
Do lawmakers really not have anything important to do? Work on tax reform, create jobs, get the roads fixed, etc?
Why are they so obsessed with genitals and taking a whizz?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
