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

[Napoleon]

Some information from my administration...

If I may adress the Senate on this issue, particularly Senator Clarence's points.

The ERA would simply guarantee that the rights affirmed by our constitution are held equally without regard to sex or sexual orienation. Sex and sexual orientation through this amendment would be considered a 'suspect classification'; similar to how race is treated. Therefore actions taken by this government that treat males, females or peopleacross the spectrum of sexuality differently as a class, would be subject to judicial scrutiny and would have to meet the highest level of justification ('a necessary relation to a compelling state interest') in order to be upheld as constitutional. Senator Clarence suggests that the ERA places a 'blanket ban' on an organisation that discriminates membership based on sex. He should be aware that even without an ERA, Supreme Court decisions undertaken by our predecessor nation has limited the consitutionality of public single-sex unions (Mississippi University for Woman v Hogan, U.S v Commonwealth of Virginia (1996) ) However the constitution already provides for freedom of assembly. The ERA does not contravene that right specifically when applied to exclusively private members organisations. It is important to read this amendment as part of our constitution, not set apart from it.

Senator Clarence also raises his concern over the draft. Amendment VIII of the Third Constitution reads; "Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen, without the consent of four-fifths of the Senate." Naturally the draft has not been enforced since 1973 and this amendment strengthens this position. In the event that four-fifths of the Senate vote to enact compulsory conscription there is nothing currently in the constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. It just so happens that the Senate has not required them to participate or register with the Selective Service System but it still holds the power to do so (confined by Amendment VIII.) Should the ERA be passed then there would still be nothing in the Constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. However it would make exluding them from consideration solely on account of their sex unconstitutional for the first time. There is no legitimate reason in my opinion to exclude women from combat or front-line roles should they be mentally and physically qualified to do so. At the moment, except for a few select positions, women are excluded firstly (and exclusively) on account of their gender, not their combat readiness or any other attribute. If a women is fit to serve a selected role she should serve. If she is unfit she shouldn't serve. This works well for men.

On the matter of transgenderism being a 'choice' I have to stridently disagree with the Senator. Having a gender identity different to one's physical sex is not a choice. 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. However I digress. A post op transgender, having had their physical sex re-aligned with their gender identity should not be barred from using the restrooms allocated to their physical sex. If anything, Atlasia needs thorough and comprehensive legislation on transgender issues but this is something I would put to the Senate to consider.

[Napoleon]

In other words, what problem are we trying to solve here...

We are trying to guarantee equal rights for all Atlasians regardless of sexual orientation or identity by incorporating it in to the supreme law of the land, our Constitution.

[Napoleon]

In other words, what problem are we trying to solve here...

We are trying to guarantee equal rights for all Atlasians regardless of sexual orientation or identity by incorporating it in to the supreme law of the land, our Constitution.

I understand that, but what rights are denied them now? I agree that marriage should be granted and have stood for this... but this law is broad and has many consequences which go far beyond righting obvious wrongs

I'm a forward-thinking progressive. There doesn't need to be rights currently denied if there could be rights denied in the future. I don't expect you'd be the founder questioning why we need a right to bear arms asking "How is it denied now?". For me, it is about guaranteeing freedom to our citizenry. Your examples of consequences have been addressed many times so I have nothing to add there...the amendment is entirely sound. There are minor text changes that may be appropriate so long as the brevity and purpose of the current text remains intact.

[Napoleon]

In other words, what problem are we trying to solve here...

We are trying to guarantee equal rights for all Atlasians regardless of sexual orientation or identity by incorporating it in to the supreme law of the land, our Constitution.

I understand that, but what rights are denied them now? I agree that marriage should be granted and have stood for this... but this law is broad and has many consequences which go far beyond righting obvious wrongs

I'm a forward-thinking progressive. There doesn't need to be rights currently denied if there could be rights denied in the future. I don't expect you'd be the founder questioning why we need a right to bear arms asking "How is it denied now?". For me, it is about guaranteeing freedom to our citizenry. Your examples of consequences have been addressed many times so I have nothing to add there...the amendment is entirely sound. There are minor text changes that may be appropriate so long as the brevity and purpose of the current text remains intact.

I agree with your intention but my concerns have not been addressed... I believe the bill currently is too broad and would like to see an amendment specifically excluding single-sex organizations. If I want to start a Newberry Men's Club, I ought to be able to... same for the Women's Club which exists now. I should not be able to join the Women's Club if they don't want men as members

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but to reiterate what AG Afleitch ahs already had to..

I do not know where you think this law will cause men and women to 'use the same restroom'; I explained succinctly why that was and is a ludicrous position.

We understand that it might be difficult for some of our more conservative Senators to vote in favor of protecting gay rights and gender equality. We have put this amendment forth because it represents our values and have explained how it would work with clarity.

[Napoleon]

Respectfully, I think you are confused about what this amendment will actually do. I'm happy to answer questions but I don't want to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over as I think the other Senators will find that unproductive.

[Napoleon]

Respectfully, I think you are confused about what this amendment will actually do. I'm happy to answer questions but I don't want to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over as I think the other Senators will find that unproductive.

Right...I appreciate your position and believe we are united in intent, but not the method of how to get there. I look forward to a respectful discussion

Thank you Senator. Let me know if you have further questions.

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.

[Napoleon]

If some are still unconvinced by the arguments put forth by Afleitch, Napoleon and myself, I'd be willing to find common ground and modify the language so that it specifically includes exemptions for single-sex clubs and separate bathrooms; I would much rather to do so in order to pass the amendment with bipartisan support.  That said, I urge my colleagues that modifications to the text do not refute the amendment's central purpose.

Unfortunately, Senator, that would remove the 'teeth" from the amendment.

It's quite obvious that things like restrooms , school locker rooms, sports organizations and such would not be affected by this amendment. Why weaken the amendment to pacify concerns that are not relevant to the amendment?

The only change that I think should be considered is what Mr. Moderate suggested- changing "sex" to "gender identity".

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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 already pointed out how that is ridiculous in my last post.

"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."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're confusing transgender and transsexual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strawman.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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...

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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

We're happy to have you on board, Senator.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

I will not be the President who (literally) supports adding toilet talk to our most honorable document, our Constitution. If such an amendment is adopted, I will have to withdraw my support, unfortunately.

I've offered evidence from the nation's top law enforcement official as well as the fictional US Senate and House of Representatives, and many state legislatures to support my position. This debate has taken an absurd and embarrassing turn. Not to mention the fact that the proponents of that exact text were (who knew?!) women. So you guys are suggesting that a) the Attorney General is lying b) that the United States Congress wants to open up female restrooms to sexual predators or something like that and c) that women themselves are advocating that those scary predators be allowed in.

Its also a great insult to the effort and intellectual capabilities of the women who have fought for this text for generations.

Can I get an eternal facepalm?

[Napoleon]

Well here we go again Napoleon...

The reality is that the Equal Rights Amendment has not been adopted in the fictional USA...

The ERA was voted for by 354 Representatives and 84 Senators. You're opposed to something that was a mainstream position even in 1972.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know what your link is but an amendment talking about restrooms is a disgrace to our Constitution. Your objection happens to be detached from the legal reality of the text. How do you compromise with a position that isn't even rooted in reality?

I'm not accusing you of trying to use this to mask your opposition, but it simply isn't a truthful argument. This amendment would in absolutely no way mandate unisex restrooms. The only way this amendment would possibly affect restrooms is ensuring that men and women are each offered the proper facilities. What this amendment provides is equal rights under the law. Our right to privacy laws protect us from having to share toilet facilities simultaneously with members of the opposite sex.

You are saying I am not compromising but you're unwilling to even consider the facts that have been repeated over and over.

[Napoleon]

Had you been born yet?

Your use of ad hominems has elevated the quality of this debate.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't really believe that every woman you knew opposed it, but your anecdotal evidence is unreliable regardless. Women have always favored the ERA by overwhelming margins, and men do too. You might have been misinformed of the facts in the past, but I don't see why you can't take a look at the evidence. The people who disagreed with the mainstream position then were old Southern white males near exclusively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess the question I'm asking is how you believe your legal opinion is more qualified than the experts.

[Napoleon]

All of these amendments should be defeated and rejected. That is all.

[Napoleon]

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?

Because it's a stereotype and it's hurtfully discriminatory. I get the feeling you wouldn't be suggesting that its ok to discriminate against blacks because they might be "better suited as janitors or basketball players".

[Napoleon]

I am also not in favor of including anything related to abortion in this amendment.  This amendment was not meant to address the abortion issue; that is a discussion for another day.
 Peace!

It's a dirty but textbook tactic, bringing abortion up where it obviously isn't relevant. Here it's used as part of an "everything but the kitchen sink" strategy of opposition. It's problematic first for implying that abortion isn't already guaranteed by the Constitution under our right to privacy and perhaps more importantly, part of a larger sexist history where men oppose women's rights by hiding behind abortion. Do any of our Senators look at this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and see anything relevant to elective abortion? If so, please keep it to yourself because it would make you look quite foolish. No judge is going to rule in favor of elective abortion because women are given equal rights as men.