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

[Sbane]

Scott, you of course have 24 hours to advocate for this. I trust that won't be a problem, unlike a certain other Senator whose display name begins with the same letter.

Screw you, Yankee.

Unless you were talking about Seatown....in which case I say screw you for insulting a constituent of mine.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

Yeah, but why would they be more likely to commit sexual assault in a bathroom rather than anywhere else?

I think you pretty much have this right...we can discuss this theoretically but people think differently. Women probably would not like men hanging about in their bathrooms, even if they were gay. And men also would not like wo....actually wait a second, men might like women hanging out in their bathrooms come to think of it.

[Sbane]

I don't see any problems with this, and given the detailed testimony of the Attorney General, it has my support.

I will also be supporting it since I do believe the Supreme Court is competent enough to decide when separation of the sexes is necessary and when it isn't. I still agree with TJ though that this could lead to a case about uni-sex bathrooms, in which case I hope common sense prevails. In any case I will be supporting Clarence's amendment so we make it clear to begin with.

[Sbane]

I urge Senators not to disgrace our honorable Constitution by inserting language telling us who can use what toilet and when. This is a ridiculous idea that should be met with strong opposition.

I think women will actually prefer to use bathrooms without men in it. So I will be supporting Clarence's amendment. We can theoretically argue why it isn't a big deal, and I do think if put into practice in the real world will not be a big deal, but it's something that really no one wants so putting it into this amendment is harmless.

[Sbane]

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.

Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

[Sbane]

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.

Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

Now some use the analogy of segregation in that there used to be seperate facilities for people of colour and of course now there are not. The difference is however that white men and black men do not have have different bodily functions requiring seperate bathrooms. The division there was a constructed one as political definitions of 'racial difference' was being used as a reason to seperate individuals

May I also remind Senators of the legal strength of privacy laws which would covers the continued seperation of public toilet and changing facilities.

Thanks. I wanted to know why that analogy could not be used in court to create uni-sex bathrooms and I think you made a strong argument. Men and women are different with different bodily functions which would justify the use of different bathrooms. Does this not suffice Clarence? Also I am concerned about the language in your amendment being too vague. What you are trying to get out of your amendment, I think is already how this constitutional amendment is going to be interpreted.

[Sbane]

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.

Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

It only guarantees that the facilities be provided equally for each sex. No one with a law degree would agree with this conclusion. It's illegitimate.

The real question was how to separate this from the "separate but equal" argument made to justify segregation. I think Afleitch explained it pretty well that since men and women do have different bodily functions, separate bathrooms can be justified. It is different from race since people of different skin tones of the same gender are not really that different, compared to the differences between genders. We have been dancing around this the whole debate, but Afleitch explained it very well. I am satisfied that this amendment will not lead to uni-sex bathrooms, and thus any amendment from Clarence would be unnecessary. Not to mention the vagueness could open up a whole new can of worms.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better?

Given that perceived 'biological differences' between the sexes and the resulting capacity or capability of each sex being able to do or not do specific tasks is the root cause of sex discrimination, why should an exemption be made for it? Surely 'biological difference' can be used to justify hiring a woman over a man in a child nurturing role or a man over a women in a labour role?

Yes!!! What is the problem with this? If a man is more physically able to hold a job in construction, why shouldn't I be able to hire him for that reason?

All the ERA would require of you is to give everyone equal consideration. It is probable most of the people most capable of doing the job will be men, but that's not necessarily true. I was watching this documentary about the new Bay Bridge and there was a woman working on the construction team. And she seemed to be doing a good job.

[Sbane]

It doesn't matter what Napolean or Scott argue, it is how the amendment will be interpreted by the court that matters. Your concerns are being looked after in the amendment written as is.

[Sbane]

Nay

[Sbane]

Aye