September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Showing Up | Main | Prince Caspian: Good Film that Misses the Mark »

May 31, 2008

Comments

And how, pray tell, do the lawmakers and police think they are going to be able to differentiate someone who's honestly got a mental illness that makes them think they're of the opposite sex and some lying pervert looking to get a cheap thrill?

"And how, pray tell, do the lawmakers and police think they are going to be able to differentiate someone who's honestly got a mental illness that makes them think they're of the opposite sex and some lying pervert looking to get a cheap thrill?"

Bill Ritter should be consulted in each case. That should keep him busy.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I knew we'd be seeing this sort of thing. And it's only going to become more and more common.

What a bizarre world we live in, where even the most basic of identities - male or female - is questioned. There will be no end to the insanity we'll be seeing along these lines.

God help us.

Greetings;

I am a post-operation transsexual. I pass very well, which only rarely does a complete stranger figure out on their own -- without being told by someone 'in the know', that I was not always the gender I now live as 24/7/365.

Which bathroom/locker room should I use?

Silly, silly, silly.

However, this should make the line to the women's bathroom shorter, since all the smart women will now head for the men's bathroom to avoid the line...

The specious arguments offered by the religious-right opponents of this bill reveals how thoroughly they've lost the culture wars.

SB200 is a basic civil rights bill that simply includes sexual orientation in the very same anti-discrimination legistlation that already covers race, religion, age, etc. Watching Dobson & Co. trying to spin it as about children being molested in restrooms -- well, one almost feels pity for how ridiculous they've become. There was a time not so long ago when they felt perfectly comfortably attacking gays openly with arguments like "Homosexuality is a perversion so gays deserve no legal protections." But they can't publicly state such things anymore, so they have to resort to coded dog-whistles and dire predictions pulled deep from the places where their fantasies and paranoia reside (which, for this crowd, typically involves some combination of children, feces, and sex.) Thus you have the cartoonish, but nevertheless sad spectacle of James Dobson haranguing his audience with (I kid you not; this is an actual quote): "every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence."

Poor Dobson -- he can longer spook the sheep just by saying "Gayyyyy!". He now has to conjure up dirty-fingered molestors and exposed penises lurking behind the girl's bathroom door. The Simpson's creators oughta put Dobson in one of those Springfield townhall meetings, right next to the woman who's always bleating "Do it for the CHILLLDRRREENNN."

I agree with you Mike that the Christians in this county are loosing the culture wars. But clearly this is not about civil right. Gay people had all the civil rights and protections of every other citizen in the US before they started working to get special rights. It has never been legal to harm another. If there were bathrooms for only one sex this would be about civil rights. To get along with your fellow human, why wouldn’t a man go into the men’s restroom. What would be the point of using the woman’s bathroom unless they thought the world revolved around them. If a man was dressed like a woman and did a decent job of it and went into the woman’s restroom, who would even notice unless he made it known to all for some reason. The gays in the US are overt about sexual issues and most Christians find this troubling. Chastity has always been important to the Christian community. The TV stereotype gay guy or gale almost never speaks without making a sexual innuendo. A gay pride parade is always a in your face sexual display. It is the actions of some in the community that bring the condemnation. What do you expect? It looks like James Dobson is only reacting to what the gay folks are proudest of. There insistence on absolute sexual freedom. Why wouldn’t he be concerned. I don’t know any woman that would be comfortable with a man in the woman’s restroom. Why would a man need to use the woman’s restroom unless the men’s room was broken? The vast majority would call this common sense. The Biblical guidelines were designed to protect people and society. This is for the good of everyone not just for the good of a few that have decided that they are special. The bad will that the gay community is creating by insisting on special right is only building ill will. It is only time before it backfires. You post makes it clear that you are consistent with others on your side of the issue. It is all about you.

> SB200 is a basic civil rights bill
> that simply includes sexual
> orientation in the very same
> anti-discrimination legistlation
> that already covers race,
> religion, age, etc.

This not a "basic" change to the anti-discrimination law. It gives the GLBT (and now 'P', apparently) weirdos rights that nobody had and most don't crave. It doesn't extend rights that were given to the general population but denied to a any members of a certain group.

Everybody, straight or weird, had exactly the same rights to public bathroom use.

Bathrooms are segregated by sex, not by sexual orientation.

Gay men (or men that think they are a woman inside) aren't excluded from using the women's bathroom because they're gay. They're excluded because they are male.

This is just another maneuver by the depraved among us to force respectability for their depradations onto general society.

I can imagine it would be very awkward for a transgender person to walk into a bathroom they feel they don’t belong in, but how much more awkward would it be for your usual bathroom visitor to find someone of the opposite sex in the bathroom? As a parallel, is it not worse to find an intruder in your home than to be an intruder in someone else’s? As noted by Mike, bathrooms are differentiated by more than just the sign on the door, but are designed to accommodate physical need. For someone, like Hazumu Osaragi, who is physically female enough to pass as a female and may not be able to use a urinal that would probably be sufficient grounds to allow that person access to the bathrooms. In such a case there are likely little grounds for concern in terms of sexual assault or other such concerns anyways. The problem with this bill is that allows for people access to bathrooms built for the opposite sex simple because they feel that’s where they should go. For one, there is no way to prove conclusively that a person is honest in their intentions; for another, more people would be put into a situation of equal or greater awkwardness. How is this bill just?

Hello? To many of the sadly-misinformed people here (who have apparently not even bothered to read the actual bill; yeah, I'm looking at you, Mike Westfall): Please read it and stop embarassing yourselves with your over-the-top hysteria. The bill is easily located online at: http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?Open&file=200_01.pdf

There's really no excuse for remaining ignorant. The only people who think this bill is about bathrooms are the same religious loonies who are constantly obsessed with gay sex and bodily fluids.

I read the summary of the bill, and the reason why this discussion is centering around "places of public accommodation" is that we have no problem with issues like you getting a public school education, proper medical care, credit, and most of the stuff listed.

I do think that some of the provisions of this law would amount to prohibiting the free exercise of religion which is forbidden by the Bill of Rights, therefore PARTS of this bill should include an exclusion for religious organizations.

But bathrooms come under the "public accommodations" section of this law. Any law allowing men to use woman's restrooms should be very carefully worded to only include men that have been given female body parts, or are offically on the waiting list to get them.

Well, Ok. I guess I should have read the bill before spouting off.

Maybeck is right, this bill doesn't seem to have anything to do with allowing the opposite sex into public bathrooms.

The main thing this bill did was add "sexual orientation" to the list of groups that may not be discriminated against.

Now, where did Dobson get the idea that this would force the desegregation of public restrooms?

I don't see anything in the bill that would force the desegregation of public restrooms. After all, prohibitions against discrimination on account of sex have been in place for many years, but that hasn't caused the desegregation of public restrooms.

I should have known both that you shouldn't necessarily trust the news media (World Net Daily in this case) to report accurately, and that Dr. Dobson is often hyperbolic and sensational on issues he cares about.

I (a man) have accidentally walked into a public women's room on more than one occasion (ok, so I'm a bit absent-minded). The gasps and expressions of shock and horror I received each and every time from the women were telling. A restroom is not just another "place of public accommodation". In fact, a restroom is decidedly un-public. Lumping it together in with other places of "public accommodation" and making sweeping laws does not make much sense.

So what is a gender-confused person to do? I don't mean for this to sound crass, but if you look like a woman, use the women's room. If you look like a man, use the men's room.

>>I am a post-operation transsexual. I pass very well, which only rarely does a complete stranger figure out on their own -- without being told by someone 'in the know', that I was not always the gender I now live as 24/7/365.

Which bathroom/locker room should I use?>>

Since you "pass very well", use the restroom of the gender you look most like. Why is this so difficult?

Thank you, Mike.
You've summed it up perfectly: this bill simply adds "sexual orientation" to the other groups (race, religion, sex, national origin, creed, marital status, disability, age, and ancestry) already covered in anti-discrimination laws. It's not a new law, or a creation of "special rights" -- it simply makes Colorado civil rights law complete and consistent.
You've also reminded up to take the-sky-is-falling pronouncements from WorldNet Daily and Focus on the Family with a heavy dose of salt.
And you've proven yourself big enough to admit a mistake.

What about we transracials? I was born genetic white man, but have always felt I am African Amercian. Genetically I am much closer to a African American man than any women. I want a law to protect me from discrimination and to get all the benefits I deserve as a trans-African American. Where is Gov. Ritter to help me?

Strictly as a practical matter, 100% of public restrooms should be unisex. When you have to go you have to go. Over the years there have been times I went in the women's room because the men's room was either full or locked. If people of any gender - whether a natural or artificial gender - want to use any room for the correctly intended purpose I have no problem with it.

"Sexual orientation" is too vague a description. After all, pedophilia is an "orientation", as is bestiality.

"Sexual orientation" is too vague a description. After all, pedophilia is an "orientation", as is bestiality.

That's exactly like saying this:

Hand preference is too vague a description. After all, left-handedness is not the only preference. Theft is a preference for unpurchased gains, as is fraud.

RyanM writes: "Sexual orientation" is too vague a description. After all, pedophilia is an "orientation", as is bestiality.
----------------------

Um, since the bill SPECIFICALLY addresses how sexual orientation is defined, your comment tells us that either you didn't bother to read the bill .. or you're attempting to pull off a deliberate deception.

Here's the part of the bill you either missed or purposely ignored:
"SEXUAL ORIENTATION" MEANS A PERSON'S ORIENTATION TOWARD HETEROSEXUALITY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BISEXUALITY, OR TRANSGENDER STATUS OR ANOTHER PERSON'S PERCEPTION THEREOF.

Once again, here's where you can read the bill: http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?Open&file=200_01.pdf

"Um"...I'm speaking generally and not about the bill (which I read). Deliberate deception? How pessimistic...I'm simply thinking out loud about the phrase "sexual orientation".

Alan, you so CRAZY!

The comments to this entry are closed.