(07-18-2017 04:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's my view.
1) Someone's right to be 'comfortable' does not and should never interfere with the access to commerce and education by a minority

But bathroom bills don't go there. They address the right of 1% to be comfortable with the right of 99% to be comfortable. They resolve this in favor of the 99%, which is entirely reasonable. Nobody is denied access to commerce or education or any other form of participation in society. There is always one rest room they can use, and wherever there is one type, there must surely be the other. Trying to equate a bathroom bill with depriving any right is an absurdity.

Quote:2) There are no need for any bathroom bill, other than one that mandates access for those matching their gender either at birth, as transitioned
to, or those in the process of transitioning under the care of a medical doctor. This access should be EQUAL in every way to that of those who were born a certain gender.

I don't disagree here, and this is where I have a problem with those bathroom bills based on gender at birth. Base it on what they are now.

Quote:
3) Every single bathroom bill proposed has mandated that some post op men use the women's room (or post of women use the mens room). Every single, last one of them. These bills are all lies. So long as the other side is being 100% disingenuous regarding the content of their bills, there's no point in debating it.

Basing it on what they are now, instead of how they were born, resolves this issue.

Quote:4) Virtually every one of these bills also removes employment and/or public accoomodations access for LGBT persons. That is what these bills are about.

I oppose any and all such provisions. They have no place being tagged onto a bathroom bill, which does address a legitimate issue.

Quote:5) Every debate on this issue centers around the haters trying to scapegoat and punish Trans people for crimes they are not committing. None of these bills do anything to help even mitigate the issue of pervitude in restrooms/changing rooms. Not one single bill. Because all of them mandate some men in womens rooms. So business owners and the state will get sued if they question any man in a ladies room if they guess wrong and the man is simply a post op F to M complying with the law. After a few lawsuits, business owners and the state will simply stop questioning anyone. And God forbid any person complying with the law is assaulted or murdered. The killer/assaulter will probably get no jail time, but it will result in massive boycotts of that municipality.

Spare the hyperbole.

Quote:Under no circumstances should any post op or transitioning (under the care of medical doctor) Trans person ever have to have any disminishment of their full and equal participation in society. Having a 'question mark' restroom for Trans kids is never acceptable because it opens the kids to abuse. Banning Trans kids from MALE ALPHA TEAM sports is also unacceptable. Making Trans people with 200 years for some sort of refurbishment of a building to have access is also unacceptable.

Letting a M to F participate in athletics as a girl is a patently absurd physical mismatch. The same probably applies to a F to M who has been taking substantial male hormones. Have one league for girls who were born girls and have always been girls, and an open league for everyone else--with the proviso that girls can participate in the open league if they want and can be competitive physically.

Quote:Because there IS a solution that works right now....simply allow Trans persons to use the facility consistent with that which they present after surgery or during the process of transitioning under the care of a medical doctor. No need to spend so much as one dime. Just treat people fairly.

Don't have a major problem with this. I'm somewhat concerned about the during transition part. I'm definitely more comfortable with the idea that you go to the room consistent with whatever physical equipment you currently possess. I think that pretty well balances the equities between the two groups. Again this is nothing but a comfort issue either way. Nobody is ever deprived of the right to pee or poo. They are just asked to be considerate of the concerns of others in determining where they do so.

Again, your whole position on this issue is based on the assumption that only one group's rights or concerns matter. Both groups matter, and any reasonable solution has to consider both. You have never done that.