Got a recorded message on my home phone today from Lance. His message was to vote against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance to keep men out of women's restrooms and boys out of girl's locker rooms. He justified his position by saying he was the father of four girls who he wanted to protect! Well, as the father of two young women (both Rice grads), they would both join me in saying what a total crock that comment is! My perspective is shared by the Houston Chronicle and the Greater Houston Partnership, as well as many other business groups in Houston. As a female business associate said recently, "They don't check genitals when you go into a restroom now!"

I support Lance.

Seriously, how screwed up as a society are we when we are debating whether men can go into women's restrooms. This is just ridiculous. How can anyone support men going into women's restrooms -- especially when many of these "men" are best described as sexually confused/deviant. It's absurd that the issue has even gotten this far.

(10-02-2015 06:26 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  I support Lance.

Seriously, how screwed up as a society are we when we are debating whether men can go into women's restrooms. This is just ridiculous. How can anyone support men going into women's restrooms -- especially when many of these "men" are best described as sexually confused/deviant. It's absurd that the issue has even gotten this far.

There are cities all over the country which have this same or did in place and none of this fear mongering BS has ever occured!

(10-02-2015 06:31 PM)RiceDad Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 06:26 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  I support Lance.

Seriously, how screwed up as a society are we when we are debating whether men can go into women's restrooms. This is just ridiculous. How can anyone support men going into women's restrooms -- especially when many of these "men" are best described as sexually confused/deviant. It's absurd that the issue has even gotten this far.

There are cities all over the country which have this same or did in place and none of this fear mongering BS has ever occured!

Should say "ordinance in place."

I started this thread in the spin room a few days ago, and that's where it belongs.

(10-02-2015 06:07 PM)RiceDad Wrote:  Got a recorded message on my home phone today from Lance. His message was to vote against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance to keep men out of women's restrooms and boys out of girl's locker rooms. He justified his position by saying he was the father of four girls who he wanted to protect! Well, as the father of two young women (both Rice grads), they would both join me in saying what a total crock that comment is! My perspective is shared by the Houston Chronicle and the Greater Houston Partnership, as well as many other business groups in Houston. As a female business associate said recently, "They don't check genitals when you go into a restroom now!"

Greater Houston Partnership Reiterates Support for
Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

Since Lance is a high profile athletic alum, what he says in a highly public way ought to be considered something the people on this board ought to give a **** about, so I think it is not smack! So , can I hear some rational response???

(10-03-2015 12:29 AM)RiceDad Wrote:  Since Lance is a high profile athletic alum, what he says in a highly public way ought to be considered something the people on this board ought to give a **** about, so I think it is not smack! So , can I hear some rational response???

I totally disagree with Lance on this one. It's worth noting, of course, that on the other side of the issue is another high profile alum, Houston Mayor Anise Parker. I think the current White House Press Secretary is an alum, as was Alberto Gonzalez, and George P Bush. So if nothing else, it shows Rice has a broad political culture.

Having said that, I think this was a pretty dumb move for him if he's wanting to get into coaching. There will now be resistance to him wherever he might be hired. On some level you can argue that that shouldn't be the case, we are a democracy with freedom of speech after all. But some positions are public and it's not unreasonable for the employers to expect employees not to be taking stances on highly controversial issues in such a public and active manner. My dad was a local news anchor - publicly he was supposed to keep his political leanings unknown. Kind of the same deal for coaches, though it's not as directly related to the job.

And this is a different sort of issue. It's one thing for him to have said in an interview "I believe in lower taxes and smaller government" and another to be actively campaigning against people's civil rights. (I know those on his side don't see it that way, but that's how increasingly large majorities do...)

(10-03-2015 08:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  It's one thing for him to have said in an interview "I believe in lower taxes and smaller government" and another to be actively campaigning against people's civil rights. (I know those on his side don't see it that way, but that's how increasingly large majorities do...)

Careful now: it wouldn't be hard for the grievance industry to manufacture a complaint that lower taxes and smaller government ARE a civil rights violation (to public employee unions and tax collectors, if no one else). The perpetually aggrieved are nothing if not creative.

(10-03-2015 09:53 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 08:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  It's one thing for him to have said in an interview "I believe in lower taxes and smaller government" and another to be actively campaigning against people's civil rights. (I know those on his side don't see it that way, but that's how increasingly large majorities do...)

Careful now: it wouldn't be hard for the grievance industry to manufacture a complaint that lower taxes and smaller government ARE a civil rights violation (to public employee unions and tax collectors, if no one else). The perpetually aggrieved are nothing if not creative.

Quit hating on Trump's supporters.

The ad, as I have been told (I haven't seen it myself) depicts a man...clearly a man following a woman into the bathroom.

You're right that they don't check genitalia at the door... so I support the depiction, whether or not it is showing what they/he is concerned about.

I understand that people can dress up as the other sex and enter with bad intentions, but that's not what we're talking about. I think it is a critical mistake to allow someone with the outward appearance of a 'man' to enter the women's restroom. It lessens their awareness of the potential danger. I don't want someone seeing a 'man' following my daughter into a restroom thinking, oh that's okay. Despite the memes, the transgendered really want to appear outwardly as they feel on the inside. More significantly, and someone can correct me if I am wrong... but they have to live as 'the other sex' for a long period of time (a year?) before they can have the surgery. So we are forcing them to dress like women, and then making them use the men's restroom? That just seems wrong and causes problems and 'discussions' that I suspect some children aren't ready to hear yet,

(10-03-2015 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The ad, as I have been told (I haven't seen it myself) depicts a man...clearly a man following a woman into the bathroom.

Not to mention that a man with evil intentions CAN ALREADY follow a woman into a bathroom.

HERO is an opportunity for Houston to legally protect people who have to deal with enough **** already. These ads are fearmongering at best.

(10-02-2015 06:26 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  I support Lance.

Seriously, how screwed up as a society are we when we are debating whether men can go into women's restrooms. This is just ridiculous. How can anyone support men going into women's restrooms -- especially when many of these "men" are best described as sexually confused/deviant. It's absurd that the issue has even gotten this far.

I think its more screwed up that we have to insist on classifying people into buckets that were defined centuries ago. Much like the US has been insisting marriage (which is a human defined social construct) must be between a man and a woman until very recently.

So what is your preferred solution? A biological woman who feels and identifies as a man, who dresses like a man should walk into the womens room? Wouldnt that be far more awkward for all parties involved?

As for your bolded part, I can't tell if you're joking.

(10-03-2015 01:07 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 12:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The ad, as I have been told (I haven't seen it myself) depicts a man...clearly a man following a woman into the bathroom.

Not to mention that a man with evil intentions CAN ALREADY follow a woman into a bathroom.

HERO is an opportunity for Houston to legally protect people who have to deal with enough **** already. These ads are fearmongering at best.

I think you're missing my point. Right now if you see that, you're going to be wary... so is your daughter. If we start having people who 'appear' as men go into the ladies restrooms, then we suddenly don't notice... or worse... feel 'bad' for thinking something.

I really don't particularly care about righting wrongs for people if it puts other people at risk. They have a tough situation to be sure.... but you don't solve problems for one group by making problems for others.... especially in so vulnerable a position. The 'right' solution doesn't need to do that... I just don't know if HERO does that or not. I know that having people who appear to be men go into the women's restroom without question (as supposedly depicted in the ad) doesn't do that.

I've actually heard some people I don't think are very open minded suggest that someone going through a change from man to woman should have to use the men's restroom... and I think that is exactly the wrong solution.

Hambone - I was agreeing with you in a lot of ways. Don't know if it came across.

I was objecting to the fearmongering as the case is that the token circumstance simply is not really a factor in anything

(10-03-2015 08:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Having said that, I think this was a pretty dumb move for him if he's wanting to get into coaching.

Very good point - I hadn't thought of that angle before yet. Certainly he has no chance now of coaching in Austin, and his chances of coaching at Rice have gone way down too (we did have Ken Hatfield who probably had similarly controversial statements on a social issue, but that was well before the proliferation on instant media).

He probably could still coach at TCU or Baylor?

Who is Lance Beekman?
Is he from that farm?

(10-03-2015 10:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 08:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Having said that, I think this was a pretty dumb move for him if he's wanting to get into coaching.

Very good point - I hadn't thought of that angle before yet. Certainly he has no chance now of coaching in Austin, and his chances of coaching at Rice have gone way down too . . .

Being in favor of this particular ordinance is a prerequisite for working at Rice?

(10-03-2015 12:06 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 09:53 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 08:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  It's one thing for him to have said in an interview "I believe in lower taxes and smaller government" and another to be actively campaigning against people's civil rights. (I know those on his side don't see it that way, but that's how increasingly large majorities do...)

Careful now: it wouldn't be hard for the grievance industry to manufacture a complaint that lower taxes and smaller government ARE a civil rights violation (to public employee unions and tax collectors, if no one else). The perpetually aggrieved are nothing if not creative.

Quit hating on Trump's supporters.

LOL. My thought was more about the subset of Christians who are convinced they are a persecuted minority about to be thrown to the lions - despite Christians being the overwhelming majority in this country.

(10-04-2015 04:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 10:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 08:30 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Having said that, I think this was a pretty dumb move for him if he's wanting to get into coaching.

Very good point - I hadn't thought of that angle before yet. Certainly he has no chance now of coaching in Austin, and his chances of coaching at Rice have gone way down too . . .

Being in favor of this particular ordinance is a prerequisite for working at Rice?

I know you didn't mean that literally, but yes, very publicly taking a controversial position (especially one seen as very much on the wrong side of history*) is not a great plan if you are interested in a public job, where you kind of need to appeal across the spectrum. If this is Lance's only foray into politics, I think he's fine. If he decides to become "Lance Berkman, former MLB player and anti-gay rights campaigner" that will close some avenues to him...


*My larger point applies to political activism generally, but on this one the general cultural and generational shift has been pretty swift and stunning. I saw a poll a while back where even a majority of *evangelical Christians* under 30 supported gay marriage.... (Yes, I realize the ordinance in question isn't about gay marriage...)