SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

How so?  If a man is psychologically a female, shouldn't she be allowed to enter the bathroom facility that most suits her?

If that man has a Johnson- then HE should not be allowed to enter a female bathroom

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I would oppose changing sex to gender identity.... if some one has had an operation and has certain parts, that is his or her sex. If some one is biologically a male, that person claiming to identify as a female does not give him entry into a women's bathroom. You are opening the door to sexual predators who would exploit our tolerance for their sick gain...

First of all, it's offensive that you think transgender Atlasians are comparable to sexual predators.
Secondly, you are quite mistaken if you think that these people aren't already using the restrooms.
My last point is that it is rather stupid for us, as a government, to deny rights to our people out of a paranoid fear that some creep might try to abuse a restroom and make an illegitimate claim of defense, and further, that our good courts would rule in favor of said creep were there an issue.

This restroom scare is all smoke and mirrors.

I believe my remarks make it quite clear that I am not equating transgenders with sexual predators... I am making a distinction between them and arguing that the latter can exploit laws meant to protect the former

I do not believe a transgender (assuming that means some one who has had a sex change operation) is the same as some one who claims to be another gender which doesn't match his or her biology....which to me seems rather silly. Can my granddaughters check the African-American box when they apply to colleges if they claim to identify as such?

If someone decides to use the law for sexual exploitation, then I don't see how they wouldn't be promptly dealt with for it.  The amendment only seeks to protect transgendered Atlasians, not permit perverted behavior.

Not all transgendered people can afford the necessary procedure to convert them to their natural sex, and not all may be willing to go through with the operation, but that doesn't mean they don't align psychologically with their desired gender.  I don't think your analogy is valid because race pertains more to physical appearance than gender identity.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strawman.

How so? This amendment seeks to equate sex and sexual identity with race in terms of protected status...is it therefore irrelevant to suggest that a white person could claim to identify as an African-American just as a man could claim to identify as a woman?

[Napoleon]

How so?  If a man is psychologically a female, shouldn't she be allowed to enter the bathroom facility that most suits her?

If that man has a Johnson- then HE should not be allowed to enter a female bathroom

Why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strawman.

How so? This amendment seeks to equate sex and sexual identity with race in terms of protected status...is it therefore irrelevant to suggest that a white person could claim to identify as an African-American just as a man could claim to identify as a woman?

Yes. Very irrelevant. And very much a logical fallacy.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Also, Scott- gender identity is inherently physical. I am sure you know biology, but here is the basis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

[Napoleon]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

Also, Scott- gender identity is inherently physical. I am sure you know biology, but here is the basis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. If you're going to cite Wikipedia, you might as well cite the proper article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

[Sbane]

How does this not require the abolishment of separate bathrooms for men and women in public buildings? It makes gender essentially the same as race and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks would not be legal.

AG Afleitch has already answered this.

His restroom analogy is slightly off. Firstly there would still be seperate restrooms should an establishment wish (or unisex restrooms should they wish) as long as both sexes can do what they need to do. That is common practice anyway. All the ERA would outlaw, if it even still happens, is only having toilets exclusively for one sex.

That doesn't really answer the question though. He just says that they will be able to and that transgendered individuals would be allowed to use the restroom of their post operation gender if they are post operation. But why would the establishments be permitted to maintain single-sex restrooms? That's a Separate-But-Equal reading. What is there actually in the constitution after this amendment to allow that type of discrimination other than just that we want to allow it?

I agree with TJ here. Now, I don't think anyone who supports this wants there to be uni-sex bathrooms or locker rooms, but what is there preventing a future court from establishing it if they follow the current language? Someone could argue that separate bathrooms for men and women are unequal.

Of course I don't think uni-sex bathrooms are a big deal. Locker rooms would be though.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, Scott- gender identity is inherently physical. I am sure you know biology, but here is the basis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Let me clarify.  In my opinion, race isn't as much of a factor in a person's personality as does gender.  While it is true that both race and gender play an essential role in defining a person, there are little physical differences between whites and blacks whereas there are vast differences between males and females- the sexual makeup being most significant.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

[Sbane]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

[Napoleon]

Sbane, I am surprised that you would say that! TJ is wrong.

Let's take a look at the United States. The Equal Rights amendment that passed Congress in 1972 read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me assure you that a supermajority of the US Congress did not vote to force men and women into the same bathrooms. Why would that apply here? It's a right wing strawman that we should expose for what it is.

[Napoleon]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

[Sbane]

Also, Scott- gender identity is inherently physical. I am sure you know biology, but here is the basis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Let me clarify.  In my opinion, race isn't as much of a factor in a person's personality as does gender.  While it is true that both race and gender play an essential role in defining a person, there are little physical differences between whites and blacks whereas there are vast differences between males and females- the sexual makeup being most significant.

Scientifically speaking, obviously there is a difference between genders. There is not similar scientific evidence to suggest there is anything called "race". It is more or less a social construct....gender on the other hand is not.

[Napoleon]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, Scott- gender identity is inherently physical. I am sure you know biology, but here is the basis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Let me clarify.  In my opinion, race isn't as much of a factor in a person's personality as does gender.  While it is true that both race and gender play an essential role in defining a person, there are little physical differences between whites and blacks whereas there are vast differences between males and females- the sexual makeup being most significant.

Scientifically speaking, obviously there is a difference between genders. There is not similar scientific evidence to suggest there is anything called "race". It is more or less a social construct....gender on the other hand is not.

I was referring to 'psychical differences' being minor ones like skin color, but you are correct; couldn't have said it better.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

It is simply the fact that men and women, when involved in private activity with exposed private parts, feel more comfortable being seen in such a state by those of their same gender... I don't have poll numbers to jutify this, it is simply a part of human nature or maybe our culture

[Napoleon]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

It is simply the fact that men and women, when involved in private activity with exposed private parts, feel more comfortable being seen in such a state by those of their same gender... I don't have poll numbers to jutify this, it is simply a part of human nature or maybe our culture

Thank you Senator. That is more along the lines of what I was looking for.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the gender binary is a flawed concept and doesn't take a range of gender identities into account?

[Sbane]

Sbane, I am surprised that you would say that! TJ is wrong.

Let's take a look at the United States. The Equal Rights amendment that passed Congress in 1972 read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me assure you that a supermajority of the US Congress did not vote to force men and women into the same bathrooms. Why would that apply here? It's a right wing strawman that we should expose for what it is.

As I already said before, I don't think the proponents here or in the US congress are in favor of uni-sex bathrooms. It just could be used later on to create uni-sex bathrooms. Of course that's not really a big deal.

And even dealing with the separate but equal argument, since gender differences are something that are a reality, as opposed to social constructs like race, a court would have much more of a case to rule that separation of the sexes is sometimes necessary, like in a locker room.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

It is simply the fact that men and women, when involved in private activity with exposed private parts, feel more comfortable being seen in such a state by those of their same gender... I don't have poll numbers to jutify this, it is simply a part of human nature or maybe our culture

That really all depends.  Even so, if someone's caught peeping at another person in a stall, they would be prosecuted for it regardless of gender.

[Napoleon]

Sbane, I am surprised that you would say that! TJ is wrong.

Let's take a look at the United States. The Equal Rights amendment that passed Congress in 1972 read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me assure you that a supermajority of the US Congress did not vote to force men and women into the same bathrooms. Why would that apply here? It's a right wing strawman that we should expose for what it is.

As I already said before, I don't think the proponents here or in the US congress are in favor of uni-sex bathrooms. It just could be used later on to create uni-sex bathrooms. Of course that's not really a big deal.

And even dealing with the separate but equal argument, since gender differences are something that are a reality, as opposed to social constructs like race, a court would have much more of a case to rule that separation of the sexes is sometimes necessary, like in a locker room.

I'm not sure that actually is a possibility. Our lawmakers have sharp legal minds, and anywhere from 33% to 50% of the Congress has a law degree. I am confident that they would not have voted so strongly in favor of an amendment that would cause integration of restrooms. It's not like men are going to start playing in the WNBA or anything like that...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

It is simply the fact that men and women, when involved in private activity with exposed private parts, feel more comfortable being seen in such a state by those of their same gender... I don't have poll numbers to jutify this, it is simply a part of human nature or maybe our culture

Thank you Senator. That is more along the lines of what I was looking for.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the gender binary is a flawed concept and doesn't take a range of gender identities into account?

No problem Napoleon..., I am enjoying this discussion and I will admit that I am not educated on the concept of a range of gender identity... from what I do know there is no objective way to determine where a person is on that range. The objective determinant here is biology- what parts a person has. Could some one with male parts feel like a woman? Sure... I don't deny that, but there is no way to check that the person truly feels that way...even if there was, would we place a number on where that person is on the range?

I believe when we have to draw the line objectively and the physical aspect of gender seems to be our only option

[Sbane]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

Well, couldn't a gay guy conceivably get more than that much of a glance when we are taking a piss in a urinal? Surely there are some perverted ones. Same with lesbians...couldn't they also want to sneak a peek? Why isn't this a problem currently? Don't you think it is because behavior like that would be immediately cracked down upon, either by the bathroom users or authorities. The biggest difference in this case would be that women might be physically unable to do anything against a guy creeping in the bathroom.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

Well, couldn't a gay guy conceivably get more than that much of a glance when we are taking a piss in a urinal? Surely there are some perverted ones. Same with lesbians...couldn't they also want to sneak a peek? Why isn't this a problem currently? Don't you think it is because behavior like that would be immediately cracked down upon, either by the bathroom users or authorities. The biggest difference in this case would be that women might be physically unable to do anything against a guy creeping in the bathroom.

That is exactly the issue I believe... men,regardless of how they identify sexually, are normally stronger physically then a woman and would be more able to commit sexual assault