No, the links you posted involved jurisdictions that either did not have a similar anti-discrimination law or the law was enacted after the attack. There is no substantive proof showing any sort of cause/effect between anti-discrimination laws and bathroom attacks.
We will have to disagree then, because my definition of substantive proof is obviously different than yours. None of this really matters anyway. The law has already sided with the women and children of this state. Thank God!
That was not my question, My question is, how many of the 50 states allow anyone to use any bathroom? How many restrict that usage to people of that biological sex?
Because that is the case. There are no differences in the statistics between attacks before transgender access was allowed and after. NONE of which related to a transgender. There are attacks but NONE are related to transgender access according to the statistics compiled over decades of such access being allowed. It is similar to saying a prohibition on having wolves as pets is needed because the wolves attack people. The evidence given involves dog attacks and none concerning wolves. Thus, the evidence does not support the claim that having wolves will increase the number of attacks. And men are all bad? Yes, and what is you have been taking male hormones and are growing a beard? Would YOU want to have someone like that in the restroom with you? At least you do not think she will attack you, but men will.
Yes, the WITH or WITHOUT means there is NO difference between the two situations causing attacks, which is what has been presented repeatedly.
If you assume the legislation will survive the court reviews to which it will be subjected and that is not very likely at this point.
None have a biological restriction other than North Carolina. It looks like a dozen states do have protections for gender identity. http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533 Colorado State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2008. In 2008, Colorado expanded its Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class. [The Denver Post, 5/29/08] Coalition Against Sexual Assault: Opponents Of Protections Are Creating "Unsubstantiated Fear." Alexa M. Priddy, director of training and communications at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, reported no problems as a result of her state's non-discrimination law. In an email to Media Matters, she wrote: Denying equal rights is yet another form of discrimination against transgender individuals, which is pervasive within our society and institutions. Such criticisms of this law and ads [that] invoke what we see as "trans panic," an attempt to create fear of transgender people and a false label of trans individuals as sexual predators. CCASA would love to see the real focus be on the realities that transgender people are far too often targeted for sexual violence, and if they seek support through victim services or the criminal justice system in the aftermath, they often face continued discrimination from the very people who are there to help. Sexual assault is already an under-reported crime, and we see this increase with marginalized communities. We want to focus on creating safety for transgender survivors and not on creating unsubstantiated fear. [Email exchange, 3/8/14] Connecticut State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity or expression. [Bay Windows, 7/6/11] State Commission On Human Rights: "Unaware Of Any Sexual Assault." In an email to Media Matters, Jim O'Neill, legislative liaison and spokesman for the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights in Opportunities, reported no problems as a result of the state's non-discrimination law: I am unaware of any sexual assault as the result of the CT gender identity or expression law. I'm pretty sure it would have come to our attention. [Email exchange, 3/6/14] Hawaii State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2006. In 2006, Hawaii expanded its non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/12/14] State Civil Rights Commission: Non-Discrimination Law "Has Not Resulted In Increase[d] Sexual Assault Or Rape." William Hoshijo, executive director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, told Media Matters in an email: In Hawai`i, the protection against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sex, including gender identity or expression, has not resulted in increase sexual assault or rape in women's restrooms. The HCRC is not aware of any incidents of sexual assault or rape causally related or attributed to the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. (In contrast to anecdotal reports of transgender students being harassed and bullied in school restrooms when forced to use an assigned restroom inconsistent with their gender identity.) [Email exchange, 3/6/14] Iowa State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, the Iowa Civil Rights Act was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [Iowa Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/14/14] Des Moines Police Department: "We Have Not Seen That." In an interview with Media Matters, Des Moines Police Department spokesman Jason Halifax stated that he hadn't seen cases of sexual assault related to the state's non-discrimination ordinance: We have not seen that. I doubt that's gonna encourage the behavior. If the behavior's there, [sexual predators are] gonna behave as they're gonna behave no matter what the laws are. [Phone interview, 3/13/14] Maine State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2005. In 2005, Maine adopted legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. [GLAD, 2/25/14] State Human Rights Commission: "No Factual Basis" For Sexual Assault Fears. In an email to Media Matters, Executive Director Amy Sneirson of the Maine Human Rights Commission said that the state's non-discrimination law hadn't led to increased sexual assault or rape: I know that this concern persists but I personally have not seen any factual basis for it. I am not aware of any increased sexual assault or rape in women's restrooms as a result of Maine's 2005 adoption of protections in the Maine Human Rights Act for sexual orientation (which, in Maine, includes "a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression"). [Email exchange, 3/7/14]
Massachusetts Cambridge Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 1997. In 1997, the city of Cambridge expanded its non-discrimination ordinance to prohibit discrimination against transgender people in public accommodations. [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, July 2008] Cambridge Police Superintendent: "No Incidents" Of Transgender Protections Being Abused. Police Superintendent Christopher Burke told Media Matters in an email: Back in 1984 Cambridge enacted an ordinance that established the Human Rights Commission. The purpose of the ordinance was to protect the human rights of all citizens of the City. In 1997 this ordinance was amended to specifically include gender identity and expression. Much like the Transgender Equal Rights Bill proposal, the City of Cambridge sought to offer protection to transgender individuals from being harassed, fired from a job, denied access to a public place, or denied or evicted from housing. Since this 1997 amendment there have been no incidents or issues regarding persons abusing this ordinance or using them as a defense to commit crimes. Specifically, as was raised as a concern if the bill were to be passed, there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense. [Email exchange, 3/7/14, emphasis added] State Victims' Advocacy Group: Fears About Transgender Protections Are "Beyond Specious."Toni Troop, spokeswoman for the statewide sexual assault victims organization Jane Doe Inc., told Media Matters in an email: The argument that providing transgender rights will result in an increase of sexual violence against women or men in public bathrooms is beyond specious. The only people at risk are the transgender men and women whose rights to self-determination, dignity and freedom of violence are too often denied. We have not heard of any problems since the passage of the law in Massachusetts in 2011, nor do we expect this to be a problem. While cases of stranger rape and sexual violence occur, sexual violence is most often perpetrated by someone known to the victim and not a stranger in the bush or the bathroom. [Email exchange, 3/7/14, emphasis added] Minnesota State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 1993. In 1993, Minnesota amended its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against transgender people in public accommodations. [OutFront Minnesota, accessed 3/13/14] Minneapolis Police Department: Fears About Sexual Assault "Not Even Remotely" A Problem. Minneapolis police spokesman John Elder told Media Matters in an interview that sexual assaults stemming from Minnesota's 1993 transgender non-discrimination law have been "not even remotely" a problem. Based on his experience, the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women's restrooms to commit sex crimes "sounds a little silly," Elder said. According to Elder, a police department inquiry found "nothing" in the way of such crimes in the city. [Phone interview, 3/11/14] Nevada State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Nevada enacted three transgender non-discrimination laws, including a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 6/2/11] Las Vegas Police Department: No Problems Since Passage Of Non-Discrimination Law. Asked whether Nevada's 2011 gender identity law had fueled a rise in sex crimes, Las Vegas Police Department spokesman Jesse Roybal told Media Matters, "the answer would be no." After the department's lieutenant for sexual assault ran a check of crimes since 2011, Roybal told Media Matters that the department had not "had any incidents involving transgender suspects." [Phone interview, 3/6/14, 3/11/14] New Mexico State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2003. In 2003, New Mexico amended its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [The Williams Institute, September 2009] Albuquerque Police Department: "Unaware Of Any Cases Of Assault" Due To Non-Discrimination Law. Officer Tasia Martinez, Public Information Officer for the Albuquerque Police Department, told Media Matters in an email: We are unaware of any cases of assault in our city as a result of transgendered [sic] accommodations. [Email exchange, 3/13/14] Oregon State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, Oregon enacted the Oregon Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Lambda Legal, accessed 3/13/14] Bureau of Labor And Industries: "Zero Allegations" Of Assault Due To 2007 Law. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman Charlie Burr told Media Matters in an email: The Oregon Equality Act protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians in employment, housing and public places and has done so without any incidents of LGBT assaults on women in public restrooms that we're aware of. Our agency has encountered zero allegations of LGBT assault related to this public accommodation protection. [Email exchange, 3/7/14] Portland Police Department: "I Have Never Heard Of Any Issues Like This." Portland Police Department spokesman Peter Simpson wrote in an email to Media Matters: I have never heard of any issues like this in Portland. We have a very low rate of sexual assault/rape crimes here overall. [Email exchange, 3/7/14] Rhode Island State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2001. In 2001, Rhode Island explicitly prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression in public accommodations. [GLAD, 2/25/14] State Commission for Human Rights: No Increase In Sex Crimes Due To Non-Discrimination Law. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights Executive Director Michael D. Evora told Media Matters in an email: The Commission for Human Rights has not taken in any cases alleging gender identity discrimination in respect to bathroom usage in public facilities since the law was amended to prohibit such discrimination. In addition, we are not aware of any affect the passage of the law has had on incidents of assault in public restrooms. [Email exchange, 3/7/14] Vermont State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, Vermont explicitly prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations. [GLAD, 3/4/14] State Human Rights Commission: "We Are Not Aware" Of Any Problems From Non-Discrimination Law. In an email to Media Matters, the Vermont Human Rights Commission's Karen Richards said: I have only been here a short time so was checking with my staff to find out if they were aware of any issues. ... We are not aware of any other issues or problems similar to this caused by prohibiting discrimination against those who are transgendered. [Email exchange, 3/7/14] Montpelier Police Department: No Complaints. Montpelier PoliceChief Tony Facos responded to an email inquiry about whether the state's non-discrimination law had led to incidents of rape or sexual assault in women's restrooms, stating, "We do not have any complaints related to this issue." [Email exchange, 3/10/14]
I think there are about ~20 states that include gender identity within their state-wide anti-discrimination laws. I am not a lawyer, but I believe the courts have interpreted this as meaning that public establishments cannot bar someone from using the restroom of their choice, simply because of their gender identity. I think bathroom-specific issues are handled at the local level instead of the state (which is yet another reason why HB2 is wrong -- it removes ability for municipalities to create their own ordinances).
We can only hope and pray it does. And if it doesn't...you think transgenders are in danger now?? I'm not a proponent of violence, let me make that clear, however there will be pissed off people who are.
Not to mention the minimum wage, which would be better served as a local control since it is the cities where the cost of living exceeds that of the rural areas.
Yes, either for being assaulted for being in the "wrong" restroom, or arrested for again using the other "wrong" restroom. Yes, and there are cases of transgender people being assaulted which is why the localities pass such ordinances. If there is no law giving them the right to use the restroom which most fits their identity they can be at a disadvantage with ANY restroom they wish to use.
Veiled threats against Transgenders if/when HB2 is ruled unconstitutional? Really? Now you're simply making up things... Just like there was no mass violence at gay weddings when NC's Amendment One was overturned, there will be no additional violence here.
http://courier-tribune.com/news/nor...groups-sue-challenge-hb2#sthash.eRvaH84l.dpuf Two transgender people and a lesbian law professor at N.C. Central University filed a lawsuit in federal court early Monday challenging North Carolina’s new law that bans local governments from passing local anti-discrimination ordinances and dictates that transgender residents use the public restrooms of their biological sex. Representatives from the ACLU of North Carolina, Lambda Legal and Equality NC and the plaintiffs announced the legal challenge on Monday. And the creation of a problem by the new legislation, which did not seem to have been a problem before : The plaintiffs include: * Joaquin Carcano, a 27-year-old transgender UNC-Chapel Hill employee who has not changed his birth certificate, which lists him as female, to reflect his gender identity. *Peyton Grey McGarry, a transgender UNC-Greensboro student who also has not changed his birth certificate, which states he is female, to reflect his gender identity. * Angela Gilmore, a 52-year-old lesbian who lives in Durham and works at N.C. Central, where she is an associate dean and professor at the law school. Among those being sued are Gov. Pat McCrory, state Attorney General Roy Cooper, the UNC system Board of Governors, which oversees the campuses where the three plaintiffs work or are in school, and Louis Bissette, chairman of the UNC board. Those who brought the legal challenge listed the officials as people in charge of enforcing the fledgling law. Before the law was passed, according to the lawsuit, Carcano used a designated men’s restroom at work
This should impact a good portion of the NC law as it specifies educational entities which would be covered under Title IX: http://www.wral.com/north-carolina-bathroom-law-could-be-decided-in-virginia/15609730/ RICHMOND, VA. — The fate of North Carolina's new law aimed at restricting restroom use by transgender people could be determined in Virginia, where a school board has ordered a teenager to stay out of the boys' room. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond could rule any day now in the case of Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as male. Grimm says he has to take a "walk of shame" to use a restroom at Gloucester High School.
I'm not threatening anyone. I'm just telling you that the "real" transgenders will be more at risk than you claim they are now, because people who are using the biologically correct bathroom will assume they are present for the wrong reasons. Before this happened, if they truly "looked" like the opposite sex, no one would have batted an eye. But now that it's out- people will be uber suspicious of anyone who looks like they don't belong there.
He is doing that. The office cannot argue BOTH sides of a case, which is what would occur in the defense of HB2, because HB2 is in conflict of the specific polices of some of the state agencies, including the AG's office.
There is no evidence to prove a person could hit you with even one bullet from an AK auto even if you are unarmed but standing in your hands, instead of your feet, and only 3 feet away with said person firing 25 times, but I bet your ass don't want to experiment with anyone doing that.
