Ok, I tried to email it to myself because I can't access youtube from work. I'll repost when I get home.
You should try Google some time and you might find the facts. https://autogynephiliatruth.wordpre...irls-presented-by-transgender-bathroom-bills/
If you believe random blogs on the internet rather than real news sources, you will never know the truth about anything.
Using your typical modus operandi little Wayne - attacking the source because you haven't approved it. If you had taken the time to read the article you would have seen that it was a compilation of news story about the subject at hand with EACH source cited and a link to the supporting story and documentation. That fact alone reveals your dismissive statement for the lame attempt it was. I know. It is easier for you to deflect and ignore rather than actually educating yourself.
The links were to other versions of the same blog, but why not believe them because they quoted themselves? Actual news sources use links to credible outside information and that is not what your source used. Hint: got to the link click the links embedded and compare the headers to see just how many outside references they really use. Then when you have educated yourself you can return and apologize for trying to mislead people.
First, I'll ignore the non-USA "examples" as I don't know enough about the civil liberties and constitutions of other countries. Second, the issue at hand was this statement: and its assumption that passing non-discrimination laws (such as Charlotte's) would lead to a rise in bathroom attacks by freaks and pedophiles. Of the items from the video and blog that I was able to research, less than a third occurred in cities with similar non-discrimination laws. And of those, it appears that the attacks happened before the law was enacted. You central claim, that letting Transgender people use the bathroom of their gender identity will cause an increase in bathroom attacks is not supported by the facts. I'm not saying that sexual assaults don't happen -- they do. But they're not caused protecting the rights of Transgender people. Your opposition seems eerily similar to those who opposed integration of bathrooms in the 60s, fearing an increase in attacks and disease if Blacks were allowed to use the same bathrooms as Whites. It didn't happen.
Like any true liberal; always fall back on race but leave out the fact that those racists were mainly registered Democrats at the time.
Yes, many Democrats of the time were racist. I don't deny that. Those beliefs are just as wrong now as they were then. I was simply trying to draw a parallel from recent history. Regardless, I fail to see how your ad hominem attack furthers the (mis)belief that protecting the rights of Transgender people will cause an increase in bathroom attacks. Oh, and I'm not sure I'd categorize myself as a true liberal -- I'm very "pro gun," in favor of smaller government, and a NASCAR fan.
I'm not real big on being told what I should and should not care about. Thanks. Last I checked I was grown. That said, I am going to have to go read this bill because I think both sides are twisting things. As usual.
You ignore the ones in Canada? Even though similar laws and "protection clauses" were used? Oh yeah, because sexual assualt in Canada is different than it is here. Raping a 7 year old is different there. Ricks, I'd hate to see a female you love be victimized simply because you wanted a transgender to be able to go potty where they please. It boils down to this...use the unisex restroom, don't go at all, or use the one that was designed for your biological parts. And thank God that this law affords that.
Forget about equal rights for everyone because why? I know some have an easy time ignoring the rights of others in favor of those right with which they agree for whatever reason, but I have a hard time understanding why they can do so.
Seriously, "yellow journalism" and modern, online "click bait" has replaced much of traditional, old school journalism, yet people can't seem to understand that hyperbole doesn't count as researched fact.
I had to read it a few times, because legal mumbo jumbo can be cumbersome. It basically says- go potty where your birth certificate says you're supposed to, or use the unisex restroom. And here's the thing, people are upset because they say using the unisex restroom alienates them, they want to use the group facilities. Well damn, if I have a choice, on a regular day, I'd much rather use a single stall unisex restroom, for privacy reasons if nothing else. So I don't understand, why someone who obviously identifies as being different, wouldn't be thrilled with that privacy. Unisex single stall bathrooms have multiple uses, not just for the transgender community. Dad's taking their daughters, Moms taking their sons, people with handicap children assisting them, taking your elderly parents in who need assistance... It's not like just because you walk into the unisex bathroom, everyone is going to assume you're a dude in a dress??
Unisex bathrooms would be a solutions, but EVERY public place and business would have to have them. The people do NOT identify themselves as being different because they are themselves, other people are making that definition. That definition is the basis for discrimination. Now, all one has to do is decide when they can legally change their birth certificate, except in those states which will NOT make a change, and then carry it with them at all times. Papers please!?
How the state's new qualifier will stand under the comparison is questionable at best. Federal law: U.S. Code § 1311 - Rights and protections under title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title I of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (a)Discriminatory practices prohibited All personnel actions affecting covered employees shall be made free from any discrimination based on— (1) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, within the meaning of section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–2); (2) age, within the meaning of section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 633a); or (3) disability, within the meaning of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) and sections 102 through 104 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112–12114). State law: Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. (a) It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all individuals within the State to enjoy fully and equally the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of places of public accommodation free of discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex, provided that designating multiple or single occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities according to biological sex, as defined in G.S. 143-760(a)(1), (3), and (5), shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination.
But Wayne, they aren't being discriminated against because of their biological sex. They have the same rights that you and I do. But I also have the right to a reasonable expectation of safety in a public restroom! You cannot cater to the few when the safety of the many outweigh it!!
I think you're wrong here. There are a ton of public places and businesses that don't even have public restrooms. Gas stations, Goodwill, most clothing stores, etc.
The federal definition is not "biological" but sex. Do you know that about 1.7% of live births have a doctor "assign" the biological sex? How do they know they have assigned correctly? You may fear there is a safety issue, but the facts do not support that fear and as such would not mitigate the discrimination based on such a view because there is no threat to the safety of the many. The threats to the minority using a restroom which others may believe is wrong, is greater than the assault increase the legislature fears.
Goodwill HAS to have restrooms for the volunteers/employees and as such they would have to have a unisex bathroom if they initially had a multi-person facility. Any business with a unisex bathroom for their employees now would already be covered. It is the larger employers and buildings which will be hit. It is not just restrooms open to the public which are affected but ALL restrooms where there is multi-person occupancy. A small business might be exempt due to size, but the building would eventually have to be brought up to code in time if it were large enough.
