(06-08-2018 12:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This crap is why I like the scheme that many hotels/restaurants opt for in California.

One large wash/rinse area with craploads of individual private stalls. The drawback to this setup is that it mimimizes the raunchy pictures on men's rooms walls and almost destroys completely the ubiquitous condom dispensing machine. Tough on those who dont previously plan for a date working out......

Doesnt address the issue with school locker rooms, though.

I do know plenty of otherwise liberal-leaning fathers who dont want every Tom and Harry ambling into a restroom used by their daughters......

Left one out.

Although I avoid California when I can, that set up is similar to what I have experience with.

(06-08-2018 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I understand the relationship of the employment and other equal rights provisions to those Rice values.
What I am not understanding is how and why the bathroom provisions relate to those values. As long as someone has an appointed place to poop and pee, I'm not sure what rights are violated.
It's amazing how far things have come. I remember Ronald Reagan years ago citing an example of a husband and wife business operating a walk-up/drive-up take-away stand, where they were the only employees, being cited for having only one bathroom for both male and female employees. Today that might be mandated. I guess we are fulfilling Reagan's prophecy that "everything that isn't prohibited will be mandatory."

Because the bill, among other things, allowed "transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex."
The bill was meant for people to do what you said, always have a place to do their business where they felt comfortable, without someone trying to bar them from doing so.

With or without HERO, they always have a place to do their business. What if the place where they are "comfortable" makes others around them "uncomfortable"? Then whose rights prevail?

Quote:Under HERO, someone who identifies as a woman, who looks like a woman, who acts like a woman, but may have been born a man, couldn't be discriminated against from using the woman's restroom because someone knew their birth sex.
So some people viewed the opposition to the bathroom provisions as being discriminatory against those who were in that situation - whose biological sex didn't quite match with the restroom door, but everything else, for all intents and purposes did.

Well, if we are worried about making everyone comfortable, then what is a solution that doesn't cause someone else discomfort? And whose rights should prevail?

Quote:From a discriminatory standpoint, it didn't help that some people who were against HERO suggested that passing HERO would allow sexual predators to molest people in bathrooms. That rationale reeked of the awful things said about homosexual teachers molesting children, as the reason to not allow gays in the classroom back in the day.

I think this part may have been overplayed by the opponents. But I also don't think there's a zero probably of bad things happening in this regard.

As a practical matter, I think someone who identifies as a woman and dresses as a woman and has the appearance of a woman can probably go into a female restroom damn near 100% of the time without creating a stir, regardless of the statute. In fact, damn near 100% of the time I would expect that if someone like that attempted to use the men's room, he/she would probably be directed elsewhere. But I also think that could be abused, and I would rather have a statutory remedy if it is, no matter how infrequently.

Again, I don't know why this had to be appended to a statute whose main purpose was to guarantee equal rights in employment and other situations. I am fully supportive of rights in those other situations. I think these provisions were unnecessary and inappropriate overreach, quite likely for the express intended purpose of provoking precisely the storm that they did provoke.

And I don't quite understand why a trans persons "right" to "be comfortable" extends to a right to create situations in which other people are distinctly uncomfortable. I have always subscribed to the notion that my rights stop where your rights begin, and this seems a distinct violation of that principle.

If you can explain, please do. I can see the rationale if we assume that ONLY the trans person has rights that matter. But I don't grant that assumption. He/she has rights, but so do others, and if he/she cannot exercise certain "rights" without infringing upon rights of those others, then there is no slam dunk decision.

Trans people have rights. So do all other people. Which rights prevail and why?

(06-08-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Tanq, a long time ago, AG Mark White of Texas stopped a home run hitting contest at Midwestern State because he could "find no law permitting it". FYI.

That situation is partly a mess of the Texas Constitution. A state actor (public state school like Midwestern) in Texas has to be granted positive permission to do something. That is why we have so many Constitution votes here -- what could ordinarily be done in a normal scope by a state actor has to be 'allowed by the legislature', and in order to be allowed by the legislature it has to be allowed to be allowed by the Texas Constitution.

That is also why the Texas Constitution reads like a normal state code of laws. Really messed up to the nth degree.....

(06-08-2018 12:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 12:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This crap is why I like the scheme that many hotels/restaurants opt for in California.

One large wash/rinse area with craploads of individual private stalls. The drawback to this setup is that it mimimizes the raunchy pictures on men's rooms walls and almost destroys completely the ubiquitous condom dispensing machine. Tough on those who dont previously plan for a date working out......

Doesnt address the issue with school locker rooms, though.

I do know plenty of otherwise liberal-leaning fathers who dont want every Tom and Harry ambling into a restroom used by their daughters......

Left one out.

Although I avoid California when I can, that set up is similar to what I have experience with.

Yeah, I specifically left one out due to the subject matter at hand, my friend.... glad to know that the subtlety was noticed.....

And kick some booty at the World Series.

FWIW, Popovich has indeed caught a lot of flack here about his views, to judge by letters to the editor. (He may be partly insulated from even more outrage by his military education and service and, of course, his coaching success.)

(06-08-2018 12:37 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  FWIW, Popovich has indeed caught a lot of flack here about his views, to judge by letters to the editor. (He may be partly insulated from even more outrage by his military education and service and, of course, his coaching success.)

But he hasn’t been fired or refused consideration for a job.

(06-08-2018 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 12:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 12:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  ... every Tom and Harry...

Left one out.

... glad to know that the subtlety was noticed...

I read somewhere that the earlier version of the phrase was "Tom, Dick and George", and that it shifted to "Harry" with the popularization of the legend of Henry V.

And speaking of these names, here is a very good -- in fact, convincing -- in fact, inspiring -- article that the country would be better off if every Tom Dick and Harry were more like good ol' George:
https://books.google.com/books?id=v1otAA...&q&f=false

If Berkman is the pick, anyone here want to donate to the "Rice Baseball Season Tickets for Annise Fund"?

I'll pledge a sawbuck to the fund to buy two Field level season tickets for her if this happens. Only need three sawbucks and a half more to do this!

"Under HERO, someone who identifies as a woman, who looks like a woman, who acts like a woman, but may have been born a man, couldn't be discriminated against from using the woman's restroom because someone knew their birth sex."

First, I think this situation is so unlikely as to fit into the category of laws requiring cars to install meteorite shields.

BUT, let's look into this statement.

Who decides if somebody "looks like a woman"? I have certainly met my share of people who I could not decide what sex they were. Some were male, some female, and some I still have no idea. There are a lot of steps in transition, you seem to concentrate on the end result. What if a person in the early stages of transition who looks and acts like a male goes into the ladies room? Should anybody ask?

It's Pat!

Also, I would buy tickets to watch you explain to your wife or girl friend what "acting like a woman" means. Good luck with that. You might start with "Just like a woman!"

Just the idea(s) that you can define "looks like a woman" and "acts like a woman" sniffs of bigotry. Care to explain how the other categories of people "look" and "act"?

I have only known two transgenders in my life, both in passing, but I would have no problem with either of them using any bathroom they please. However, I am one of those who place little importance on how a person looks or acts.

Still this is no importance in selecting a coach. I am willing to let Lance believe one way, even if I believe in another.

(06-08-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "Under HERO, someone who identifies as a woman, who looks like a woman, who acts like a woman, but may have been born a man, couldn't be discriminated against from using the woman's restroom because someone knew their birth sex."

First, I think this situation is so unlikely as to fit into the category of laws requiring cars to install meteorite shields.

BUT, let's look into this statement.

Who decides if somebody "looks like a woman"? I have certainly met my share of people who I could not decide what sex they were. Some were male, some female, and some I still have no idea. There are a lot of steps in transition, you seem to concentrate on the end result. What if a person in the early stages of transition who looks and acts like a male goes into the ladies room? Should anybody ask?

It's Pat!

Also, I would buy tickets to watch you explain to your wife or girl friend what "acting like a woman" means. Good luck with that. You might start with "Just like a woman!"

Just the idea(s) that you can define "looks like a woman" and "acts like a woman" sniffs of bigotry. Care to explain how the other categories of people "look" and "act"?

I have only known two transgenders in my life, both in passing, but I would have no problem with either of them using any bathroom they please. However, I am one of those who place little importance on how a person looks or acts.

Still this is no importance in selecting a coach. I am willing to let Lance believe one way, even if I believe in another.

OO, what exactly are you trying to suggest about me based on this comment?

(06-08-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "Under HERO, someone who identifies as a woman, who looks like a woman, who acts like a woman, but may have been born a man, couldn't be discriminated against from using the woman's restroom because someone knew their birth sex."

First, I think this situation is so unlikely as to fit into the category of laws requiring cars to install meteorite shields.

BUT, let's look into this statement.

Who decides if somebody "looks like a woman"? I have certainly met my share of people who I could not decide what sex they were. Some were male, some female, and some I still have no idea. There are a lot of steps in transition, you seem to concentrate on the end result. What if a person in the early stages of transition who looks and acts like a male goes into the ladies room? Should anybody ask?

It's Pat!

Also, I would buy tickets to watch you explain to your wife or girl friend what "acting like a woman" means. Good luck with that. You might start with "Just like a woman!"

Just the idea(s) that you can define "looks like a woman" and "acts like a woman" sniffs of bigotry. Care to explain how the other categories of people "look" and "act"?

I have only known two transgenders in my life, both in passing, but I would have no problem with either of them using any bathroom they please. However, I am one of those who place little importance on how a person looks or acts.

Still this is no importance in selecting a coach. I am willing to let Lance believe one way, even if I believe in another.

OO, what exactly are you trying to suggest about me based on this comment?

I think it is unconscious on your part, but I think it ludacris that you think you can define how a woman acts or looks and expect to impose that on others.

It is a type of unconscious bias - they have to fit a certain mental profile of how women look and act. After you define how a woman looks and acts, then move to Asians and Muslims and do the same. It cannot be done without resorting to stereotypes.

Now, if I see a burly individual with a beard entering the ladies room, that is far enough out of the profile that I would be suspicious. But if I asked him about it and he says he identifies as a woman, what could I do? He hits on one of your three criteria. is that enough?

Nothing personal, Lad. But if there are to be criteria applied, they should not be based on stereotypes.

(06-08-2018 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 12:37 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  FWIW, Popovich has indeed caught a lot of flack here about his views, to judge by letters to the editor. (He may be partly insulated from even more outrage by his military education and service and, of course, his coaching success.)

But he hasn’t been fired or refused consideration for a job.

And we don’t know that that has happened to Berkman. (And I agree that it shouldn’t.)

You said no repercussions. I was pointing out that there have been some.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-08-2018 08:43 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 12:37 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  FWIW, Popovich has indeed caught a lot of flack here about his views, to judge by letters to the editor. (He may be partly insulated from even more outrage by his military education and service and, of course, his coaching success.)

But he hasn’t been fired or refused consideration for a job.

And we don’t know that that has happened to Berkman. (And I agree that it shouldn’t.)
You said no repercussions. I was pointing out that there have been some.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't consider negative letters to the editor to be repercussions. "Show me on this doll where that letter to the editor hurt you."

Getting fired from a job or not getting hired for a job would be material repercussions.

(06-08-2018 12:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First let me say I don't remember Berkman's issue so I'm not speaking of what he said either support or condemn....

(06-08-2018 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because the bill, among other things, allowed "transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex."

But iirc, it didn't specify how you define someone as transgendered, other than their belief/claim... which is fine for those in that actual situation, but also obviously opens the door for deviants (who aren't the same as transgendered) to simply claim it as well. This is I believe where the argument goes awry... because some 'noninclusive' people latch on to that comment and call TGs deviants, and others claim that the statement labels them so, when the reality is that without a clear definition of whom is protected by this law, it creates a bad/worse outcome.

To me the solution is simple and consistent with what happened before to another identified group (the disabled) and has regularly been happening anyway.

A third 'family' option for all new construction or major retrofits. Older buildings are grandfathered, but are encouraged to adapt where possible (i.e. they essentially have single stalls anyway)

There certainly would still be places where the genuinely transgendered don't know which bathroom to use, but that is what they already face, so it is still 'better'... and it's not as if people can check equipment at the door. Prosecute those who 'hang out' in bathrooms (which should be happening anyway) and also make someone claiming that someone is doing so somehow document how they have been wronged, and not merely... I saw this man in drag enter the bathroom and 'he's' been in there 10 minutes and I'm afraid... That's not a police matter.

I think we're giving this issue vastly more power than it needs, to the detriment of both sides. This isn't an issue that affects lots of people or places... and without these arguments, I bet lots of people wouldn't even notice or care.

It's a solution in search of a problem

Good post. I will add that I don't think taxpayer money should be used on constructing gender neutral restrooms in currently existing buildings, it would be far more sensible to convert one or two restrooms into gender neutral facilities. That should satisfy all sides.

Lance referring to transgendered people as "troubled men" is far more concerning than supporting a bathroom bill. That's an embarrassing view for someone with a Rice degree to have. This should not affect his candidacy, though.

(06-08-2018 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because the bill, among other things, allowed "transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex."

But why does that wording have to be in a bill dealing with things like employment rights? I see no problem with an employment rights bill that did not include that provision.

I think the bathroom provision was inserted to provoke a reaction. I can see no other reason tout it in.

Its justification is supposed to be that not having it transgender persons the right to pee and poo. No, it does no such thing. They can still pee and poo in rest rooms appropriate for their equipment. But that makes them "uncomfortable." But letting them do anything else makes other people "uncomfortable." Whose rights are more important? That's the issue that gets overlooked.

If trans persons could use any restroom they want and that causes no harm to anyone else, then let them. But if the only problem using assigned bathrooms is "feeling uncomfortable," then why is okay for them to cause other people to be "uncomfortable"?

I would be interested in hearing any argument that balances the equities.

Clarifying my earlier statements...

We all, every single one one of us have some sort of image come to mind when we hear the words "redneck", or "fashion model", or "truck driver", or "Norwegian".

Thing is, not all people in those groups will match the image. some won't even come close.

So setting a standard of "looks like a woman" is going to fail. How would somebody go about codifying that phrase?

Same thing for "acts like a ________".

I asked my girl friend how she would react if somebody tried to tell her how a woman looks or acts. her response cannot be translated to post.

One of the trannies I met was 6'4". Did he look like a woman? Well, to me he did, albeit a very tall one. But even Mark/Autumn was not yet a woman. He was in transition, but had not yet had the surgery. So was he a woman? I don't know if he acted like a woman. He came to my attention when some ladies came to me complaining of a man in the ladies room. His/Her dress and heels did not fool them. But maybe the height was a clue. He/she was a bit unsteady on those high heels.

One of my favorite movies was "To Wong Fu with Love, Julie Newmar". In one scene, one of the drag queens scornfully tells another "You're no woman, you're just a boy in a dress." The remark means there is more to the journey than the first steps. So when does a tranny get their full bathroom rights? After the first hormone shot? After the gender reassignment surgery? It's a long journey. Relying on a stereotype of how a woman (or a man) looks and/or acts is not going to make it easier.

Personally I don't care. If a woman comes into the men's room and stands next to me at a urinal, no problem. If she goes into a stall, no problem. (this has actually happened to me). But then, I have no daughters or granddaughters. Maybe if I did, I would feel differently about the opposite situation - men in a ladies room.

Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

(06-11-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to have an exception for those who have started on gender reassignment?

(06-11-2018 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to have an exception for those who have started on gender reassignment?

So I actually decided to look up the text of HERO to try and figure out what language it used to define bathroom use - here's the irony - there is none.

There are two references to bathroom (none for restroom): https://archive.org/stream/equal_rights_...e_djvu.txt

And both references deal with handicap accessibility, and not who can access which bathroom.

Looks like I, and everyone else, should have done a bit more reading about what HERO actually stated.

And honestly, this does make me feel a bit worse about Lance's statement now, given that HERO never broached the subject specifically.

(06-11-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

Best solution: no legislation at all.

This history seems proof positive (as if we needed it) of the wisdom that the government that governs least governs best.

For similar reasons, my dear old Dad's default position on any proposed legislation was No. He would change his mind if the merits warranted, but he started with the presumption that any proposed government initiative should be met with skepticism. He was onto something.