(05-09-2016 11:49 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 10:56 AM)fsquid Wrote:  So the state has no money for teacher raises, but money for this?

False, McCrory has pitched a 5% increase in salary and an average 3.5% bonus this year.

Only a decade late.

Blame Dumplin and Easley. McCrory came in to office in 2013 and there have been pay increases each year.

(05-09-2016 11:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good move on the Governors part. Obama will be gone when this is settled.

The optics of this are AWFUL for the NC GOP. They are now suing to enact discriminatory laws.

Only it isn't a discriminatory law. Your opinion, no matter how often you repeat it, is not fact.

It endorses and protects firing of LGBT persons from their jobs, simply because they are LGBT. It humiliates Trans persons and puts their safety at grave risk for assault.

The entire purpose of the law is to further discrimination.

Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

(05-09-2016 11:49 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 10:56 AM)fsquid Wrote:  So the state has no money for teacher raises, but money for this?

False, McCrory has pitched a 5% increase in salary and an average 3.5% bonus this year.

Only a decade late.

Well that would put the responsibility back on the Demos' plates then. They had run the show in NC for nearly a century.

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good move on the Governors part. Obama will be gone when this is settled.

The optics of this are AWFUL for the NC GOP. They are now suing to enact discriminatory laws.

Only it isn't a discriminatory law. Your opinion, no matter how often you repeat it, is not fact.

It endorses and protects firing of LGBT persons from their jobs, simply because they are LGBT. It humiliates Trans persons and puts their safety at grave risk for assault.

The entire purpose of the law is to further discrimination.

Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

---

You're going to lose this lawsuit. Actually there are going to be dozens of lawsuits. And the Federal Court has already ruled that Title IX is violated by similar rules in Virginia.

And you've lost the argument. So continuing this will make you guys lose the Governors Mansion and probably a US Senate seat. Along with literally BILLIONS in economic activity.

Obama actually gave McCrory a way out. Not that the NC legislature would take it. They'd burn 90 percent of the state to the ground before they allowed Gay people to be protected from employment discrimination.

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The optics of this are AWFUL for the NC GOP. They are now suing to enact discriminatory laws.

Only it isn't a discriminatory law. Your opinion, no matter how often you repeat it, is not fact.

It endorses and protects firing of LGBT persons from their jobs, simply because they are LGBT. It humiliates Trans persons and puts their safety at grave risk for assault.

The entire purpose of the law is to further discrimination.

Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

(05-09-2016 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Only it isn't a discriminatory law. Your opinion, no matter how often you repeat it, is not fact.

It endorses and protects firing of LGBT persons from their jobs, simply because they are LGBT. It humiliates Trans persons and puts their safety at grave risk for assault.

The entire purpose of the law is to further discrimination.

Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

(05-09-2016 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It endorses and protects firing of LGBT persons from their jobs, simply because they are LGBT. It humiliates Trans persons and puts their safety at grave risk for assault.

The entire purpose of the law is to further discrimination.

Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

So whats the difference between a men's and women's restroom? I thought they all had stalls and sinks...

(05-09-2016 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It endorses and protects firing of LGBT persons from their jobs, simply because they are LGBT. It humiliates Trans persons and puts their safety at grave risk for assault.

The entire purpose of the law is to further discrimination.

Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

Now that is an asinine comparison. men and women segregate themselves to use the restroom everyday without problems,and they share the unisex restrooms without problems. I can't speak to Charlotte Douglass, but there were 'family' restrooms at RDU at nearly every location for men and women's rooms with no lines what so ever. It is pure, unfounded, speculation on your end that there will be "2 hour lines".

Oh dear.. now a unisex restroom offensive?!?

(05-09-2016 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The NC legislature passed the hate bill in one day. They can repeal it in one day too.

Hate bill? Do you prefer to use the women's bathroom over the men's or something?

(05-09-2016 12:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

Now that is an asinine comparison. men and women segregate themselves to use the restroom everyday without problems,and they share the unisex restrooms without problems. I can't speak to Charlotte Douglass, but there were 'family' restrooms at RDU at nearly every location for men and women's rooms with no lines what so ever. It is pure, unfounded, speculation on your end that there will be "2 hour lines".

Oh dear.. now a unisex restroom offensive?!?

lol @ the irony from the ""You guys STILL blowing the fear trumpet I see. Geez...lol" post from the other thread.

(05-09-2016 10:55 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Yet the bill was introduced and passed in less than 12 hours in a special session. The feds gave the state 4 days to respond. The state gave citizens of NC no time.

This is going to cost McCrory his job and he's already admitted that it probably will. I will give him kudos for sticking to his guns and destroying his political career, even if I disagree with him.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you suddenly for letting the citizens of the state vote and have a say-so now?

(05-09-2016 11:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good move on the Governors part. Obama will be gone when this is settled.

The optics of this are AWFUL for the NC GOP. They are now suing to enact discriminatory laws.

Only it isn't a discriminatory law. Your opinion, no matter how often you repeat it, is not fact.

It endorses and protects firing of LGBT persons from their jobs, simply because they are LGBT. It humiliates Trans persons and puts their safety at grave risk for assault.

The entire purpose of the law is to further discrimination.

Gosh, how did mentally disabled people ever make it through life before obama?

(05-09-2016 12:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Quote the section of the bill that "endorses" firing lgbt. You can't, so stop lying about it.

Quote the section that "humiliates" trangender people.

Please show statistics on how many transgender people have been assaulted in NC bathrooms.

It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

Now that is an asinine comparison. men and women segregate themselves to use the restroom everyday without problems,and they share the unisex restrooms without problems. I can't speak to Charlotte Douglass, but there were 'family' restrooms at RDU at nearly every location for men and women's rooms with no lines what so ever. It is pure, unfounded, speculation on your end that there will be "2 hour lines".

Oh dear.. now a unisex restroom offensive?!?

Actually there's no requirement that any public facility provide unisex restrooms at all. And since there's no requirement, Trans persons can be denied restroom access or provided with extremely inferior accommodations. And since its the NC GOP running things, it WILL be hideously inferior.

And that's why it violates Title IX. And it does. The Courts have already ruled on this.

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

---

You're going to lose this lawsuit. Actually there are going to be dozens of lawsuits. And the Federal Court has already ruled that Title IX is violated by similar rules in Virginia.

And you've lost the argument. So continuing this will make you guys lose the Governors Mansion and probably a US Senate seat. Along with literally BILLIONS in economic activity.

Obama actually gave McCrory a way out. Not that the NC legislature would take it. They'd burn 90 percent of the state to the ground before they allowed Gay people to be protected from employment discrimination.

You gonna sit around and check every (wo)man to see if they have a peightnis and a birth certificate? Neither is anyone else. Do you understand what it will take for someone to be arrested for being in the wrong bathroom? Methinks you're bellyaching and crying over nothing.

(05-09-2016 12:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

---

You're going to lose this lawsuit. Actually there are going to be dozens of lawsuits. And the Federal Court has already ruled that Title IX is violated by similar rules in Virginia.

And you've lost the argument. So continuing this will make you guys lose the Governors Mansion and probably a US Senate seat. Along with literally BILLIONS in economic activity.

Obama actually gave McCrory a way out. Not that the NC legislature would take it. They'd burn 90 percent of the state to the ground before they allowed Gay people to be protected from employment discrimination.

You gonna sit around and check every (wo)man to see if they have a peightnis and a birth certificate? Neither is anyone else. Do you understand what it will take for someone to be arrested for being in the wrong bathroom? Methinks you're bellyaching and crying over nothing.

This will be a problem in high schools and universities where some people will know the gender identity of the person. And it only takes one right wing teacher or employee to put them at risk of arrest or humiliation.

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually there's no requirement that any public facility provide unisex restrooms at all. And since there's no requirement, Trans persons can be denied restroom access or provided with extremely inferior accommodations. And since its the NC GOP running things, it WILL be hideously inferior.

And that's why it violates Title IX. And it does. The Courts have already ruled on this.

And whose fault is it that they decided to be a gender they're not? This is as stupid as deciding to become a democrat and then complaining about policies in the Republican area you live in.

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It endorses firing of LGBT persons by allowing it. North Carolina said..."No, you MUST allow people to fire their employees for being Gay".

It demands that a full male with a P8nis must use the ladies room, if that person was born in another country or in Tennessee, Kansas, Idaho, or Oklahoma. Pretty humiliating. Actually dangerous. Extremely dangerous. How many people have threatened to assault anyone who looks like a male in the ladies room?

Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

Now that is an asinine comparison. men and women segregate themselves to use the restroom everyday without problems,and they share the unisex restrooms without problems. I can't speak to Charlotte Douglass, but there were 'family' restrooms at RDU at nearly every location for men and women's rooms with no lines what so ever. It is pure, unfounded, speculation on your end that there will be "2 hour lines".

Oh dear.. now a unisex restroom offensive?!?

Actually there's no requirement that any public facility provide unisex restrooms at all. And since there's no requirement, Trans persons can be denied restroom access or provided with extremely inferior accommodations. And since its the NC GOP running things, it WILL be hideously inferior.

And that's why it violates Title IX. And it does. The Courts have already ruled on this.

Title IX does not define sex, implying that biological sex (male or female) need not be defined. Therefore, I see a fatal flaw in applying Title IX universally to the transgender bathroom problem since it is not biological sex but sexual identity that is the issue.

Title IX does not admit members of one sex to participate in single-sex activities of the other sex - Only that equal opportunities be afforded them.

I would be interested in reading the court rulings if you could provide links to them.

(05-09-2016 01:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Allowance is not endorsement. gays weren't a protected class before this law, so why don't I remember you being pissed off last year? You act as if this is something new.

A person as you described is free to use any unisex or 'family' restroom as they are often called in NC when in a public building. Nothing is 'demanded' of them, however they are prohibited from using the wrong restroom, just as I am.

So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

Now that is an asinine comparison. men and women segregate themselves to use the restroom everyday without problems,and they share the unisex restrooms without problems. I can't speak to Charlotte Douglass, but there were 'family' restrooms at RDU at nearly every location for men and women's rooms with no lines what so ever. It is pure, unfounded, speculation on your end that there will be "2 hour lines".

Oh dear.. now a unisex restroom offensive?!?

Actually there's no requirement that any public facility provide unisex restrooms at all. And since there's no requirement, Trans persons can be denied restroom access or provided with extremely inferior accommodations. And since its the NC GOP running things, it WILL be hideously inferior.

And that's why it violates Title IX. And it does. The Courts have already ruled on this.

Title IX does not define sex, implying that biological sex (male or female) need not be defined. Therefore, I see a fatal flaw in applying Title IX universally to the transgender bathroom problem since it is not biological sex but sexual identity that is the issue.

Title IX does not admit members of one sex to participate in single-sex activities of the other sex - Only that equal opportunities be afforded them.

I would be interested in reading the court rulings if you could provide links to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/us/virgini...room-case/

(05-09-2016 01:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 01:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So they'll have to use the equivalent of the 'colored' restroom. A restroom that isn't as convenient, doesn't have the same availability etc. I'm sure there will be a 2 hour wait for the one unisex restroom at CLT airport. So just like the 'colored restroom' it will be inferior. And the LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT A UNISEX RESTROOM exist. Or be provided. Neither does the executive order. Nor does it suspend enforcement if one doesn't exist.

And then there's the humiliation of being forced to use the 'question mark' (as was said by the Transphobes in here) restroom, especially in educational environments where kids can and will be cruel.

Now that is an asinine comparison. men and women segregate themselves to use the restroom everyday without problems,and they share the unisex restrooms without problems. I can't speak to Charlotte Douglass, but there were 'family' restrooms at RDU at nearly every location for men and women's rooms with no lines what so ever. It is pure, unfounded, speculation on your end that there will be "2 hour lines".

Oh dear.. now a unisex restroom offensive?!?

Actually there's no requirement that any public facility provide unisex restrooms at all. And since there's no requirement, Trans persons can be denied restroom access or provided with extremely inferior accommodations. And since its the NC GOP running things, it WILL be hideously inferior.

And that's why it violates Title IX. And it does. The Courts have already ruled on this.

Title IX does not define sex, implying that biological sex (male or female) need not be defined. Therefore, I see a fatal flaw in applying Title IX universally to the transgender bathroom problem since it is not biological sex but sexual identity that is the issue.

Title IX does not admit members of one sex to participate in single-sex activities of the other sex - Only that equal opportunities be afforded them.

I would be interested in reading the court rulings if you could provide links to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/us/virgini...room-case/

Thanks
It's not as clear cut as you imply it to be.

Quote:In its ruling, the appeals court didn't explicitly say the school board violated Title IX.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, Title IX doesn't mention sexual identity at all. This courts ruling will eventually find its way to the SC. To me, this is a separate issue and has nothing to do with Title IX. We will have to wait and see.

(05-09-2016 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This will be a problem in high schools and universities where some people will know the gender identity of the person. And it only takes one right wing teacher or employee to put them at risk of arrest or humiliation.

Whose going to know something personal unless it's announced? And as much as you'd love to feel that way. "right wingers" aren't evil like you love to think. If something happened and the suspect was someone not meant to be in that bathroom then there would be an arrest. Outside of that, there's nothing to any of this.