Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
It Begins:; Watch Cops Drag Girl Out Of NC Bathroom For “Not Looking Like A Woman”
Topic Started: Apr 27 2016, 05:37 PM (2,799 Views)
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
jazzyjeff
Apr 29 2016, 11:42 AM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:27 AM
I hate to use a facebook post for any kind of reference but this post is about the type of individual that I am concerned with when it comes to laws being so loosely written that anyone can go into any bathroom.

https://www.facebook.com/candice.spivey/posts/10207885789130377?fref=nf

I do not know the woman who posted this but she evidently had a run in with this guy a couple years ago, he is a perv who tries to film upskirt videos and voyeuristic videos of women and girls. He tries to chat the women up while videoing them.

Anyway, this particular incident happened in a Target. It is fortunate that this guy has not realized that with Target's new policy he could take his sickness right into the women's room or dressing area and do what he does.

Personally I would rather have more transgender people in our society than scumbags like this guy but unfortunately that is not how things are. So, when we write these ordinances and laws that have the intent to protect transgender people we have to write them in such a manner that they still prevent scumbags like the guy in this event from using those rules to feed their sickness.

There has to be a compromise that can work, it just needs to be found.
In all reality, what kind of law could prevent what happened or what you think could happen?
My point is that if we write the laws/ordinances that are intended to help transgender folks too loosely then they will end up enabling sick individuals like this one to legally enter the women's dressing room or women's restroom.

As things currently stand in most states at at most businesses if this guy tries to walk into a women's room then the staff of the place have the legal right to ask him to leave and if he refuses they can have security physically remove him or call the police. What this guy did in her video did not technically break a law because he was in a place that both he and the woman had a right to be. If we write a loose piece of legislation that let's anyone claim they "self identify as a female" then what we do is enable a guy like this to have a legal right to be in a women's restroom or dressing room. So we would essentially make it legal from him to do what he does in a far more intimate location. A location where there are no security cameras to use in order to prosecute him if he does break the law.

Now, I made the suggestion earlier that we simply have some unisex bathrooms set aside (as many larger places already do) for the transgender folks who do not appear to be female. The one's who appear to be female should obviously use the women's room and the one's who appear to be male should use the men's room.

Now, if it is necessary to legally quantify who can use what bathroom in some ordinance then some definition of what is male and what is female and what is neither would have to be found since we can't use birth certificate as the standard with people who have had gender reassignment surgery.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:58 AM
jazzyjeff
Apr 29 2016, 11:42 AM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:27 AM
I hate to use a facebook post for any kind of reference but this post is about the type of individual that I am concerned with when it comes to laws being so loosely written that anyone can go into any bathroom.

https://www.facebook.com/candice.spivey/posts/10207885789130377?fref=nf

I do not know the woman who posted this but she evidently had a run in with this guy a couple years ago, he is a perv who tries to film upskirt videos and voyeuristic videos of women and girls. He tries to chat the women up while videoing them.

Anyway, this particular incident happened in a Target. It is fortunate that this guy has not realized that with Target's new policy he could take his sickness right into the women's room or dressing area and do what he does.

Personally I would rather have more transgender people in our society than scumbags like this guy but unfortunately that is not how things are. So, when we write these ordinances and laws that have the intent to protect transgender people we have to write them in such a manner that they still prevent scumbags like the guy in this event from using those rules to feed their sickness.

There has to be a compromise that can work, it just needs to be found.
In all reality, what kind of law could prevent what happened or what you think could happen?
My point is that if we write the laws/ordinances that are intended to help transgender folks too loosely then they will end up enabling sick individuals like this one to legally enter the women's dressing room or women's restroom.

As things currently stand in most states at at most businesses if this guy tries to walk into a women's room then the staff of the place have the legal right to ask him to leave and if he refuses they can have security physically remove him or call the police. What this guy did in her video did not technically break a law because he was in a place that both he and the woman had a right to be. If we write a loose piece of legislation that let's anyone claim they "self identify as a female" then what we do is enable a guy like this to have a legal right to be in a women's restroom or dressing room. So we would essentially make it legal from him to do what he does in a far more intimate location. A location where there are no security cameras to use in order to prosecute him if he does break the law.

Now, I made the suggestion earlier that we simply have some unisex bathrooms set aside (as many larger places already do) for the transgender folks who do not appear to be female. The one's who appear to be female should obviously use the women's room and the one's who appear to be male should use the men's room.

Now, if it is necessary to legally quantify who can use what bathroom in some ordinance then some definition of what is male and what is female and what is neither would have to be found since we can't use birth certificate as the standard with people who have had gender reassignment surgery.
So, let me see if I understand your compromise. What you would suggest is that we set aside bathrooms for transgender people because some men are pervy?

Do you not see how this appears to target and punish transgender people for an issue not of their making?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jazzyjeff

Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:58 AM
jazzyjeff
Apr 29 2016, 11:42 AM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:27 AM
I hate to use a facebook post for any kind of reference but this post is about the type of individual that I am concerned with when it comes to laws being so loosely written that anyone can go into any bathroom.

https://www.facebook.com/candice.spivey/posts/10207885789130377?fref=nf

I do not know the woman who posted this but she evidently had a run in with this guy a couple years ago, he is a perv who tries to film upskirt videos and voyeuristic videos of women and girls. He tries to chat the women up while videoing them.

Anyway, this particular incident happened in a Target. It is fortunate that this guy has not realized that with Target's new policy he could take his sickness right into the women's room or dressing area and do what he does.

Personally I would rather have more transgender people in our society than scumbags like this guy but unfortunately that is not how things are. So, when we write these ordinances and laws that have the intent to protect transgender people we have to write them in such a manner that they still prevent scumbags like the guy in this event from using those rules to feed their sickness.

There has to be a compromise that can work, it just needs to be found.
In all reality, what kind of law could prevent what happened or what you think could happen?
My point is that if we write the laws/ordinances that are intended to help transgender folks too loosely then they will end up enabling sick individuals like this one to legally enter the women's dressing room or women's restroom.

As things currently stand in most states at at most businesses if this guy tries to walk into a women's room then the staff of the place have the legal right to ask him to leave and if he refuses they can have security physically remove him or call the police. What this guy did in her video did not technically break a law because he was in a place that both he and the woman had a right to be. If we write a loose piece of legislation that let's anyone claim they "self identify as a female" then what we do is enable a guy like this to have a legal right to be in a women's restroom or dressing room. So we would essentially make it legal from him to do what he does in a far more intimate location. A location where there are no security cameras to use in order to prosecute him if he does break the law.

Now, I made the suggestion earlier that we simply have some unisex bathrooms set aside (as many larger places already do) for the transgender folks who do not appear to be female. The one's who appear to be female should obviously use the women's room and the one's who appear to be male should use the men's room.

Now, if it is necessary to legally quantify who can use what bathroom in some ordinance then some definition of what is male and what is female and what is neither would have to be found since we can't use birth certificate as the standard with people who have had gender reassignment surgery.
I do not believe there was ever any laws preventing trans individuals from using the bathroom of choice. What we are seeing are laws being made to exclude trans individuals from using the bathroom of choice. The real issue should be locker-room changing facilities in which we have both agreed, special accommodations should be made for trans individuals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 12:17 PM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:58 AM
jazzyjeff
Apr 29 2016, 11:42 AM
My point is that if we write the laws/ordinances that are intended to help transgender folks too loosely then they will end up enabling sick individuals like this one to legally enter the women's dressing room or women's restroom.

As things currently stand in most states at at most businesses if this guy tries to walk into a women's room then the staff of the place have the legal right to ask him to leave and if he refuses they can have security physically remove him or call the police. What this guy did in her video did not technically break a law because he was in a place that both he and the woman had a right to be. If we write a loose piece of legislation that let's anyone claim they "self identify as a female" then what we do is enable a guy like this to have a legal right to be in a women's restroom or dressing room. So we would essentially make it legal from him to do what he does in a far more intimate location. A location where there are no security cameras to use in order to prosecute him if he does break the law.

Now, I made the suggestion earlier that we simply have some unisex bathrooms set aside (as many larger places already do) for the transgender folks who do not appear to be female. The one's who appear to be female should obviously use the women's room and the one's who appear to be male should use the men's room.

Now, if it is necessary to legally quantify who can use what bathroom in some ordinance then some definition of what is male and what is female and what is neither would have to be found since we can't use birth certificate as the standard with people who have had gender reassignment surgery.
So, let me see if I understand your compromise. What you would suggest is that we set aside bathrooms for transgender people because some men are pervy?

Do you not see how this appears to target and punish transgender people for an issue not of their making?
There are far, far more women and children that this type of compromise would protect in the USA than there are transgender people on this planet.

I have said that I am not against an ordinance that defined more clearly who was permitted in what restroom if that is now needed. I am perfectly happy going back how things were before any of these ordinances were passed but that is probably not an option. So, if we are going to have these ordinances and get rid of the silliness of the birth certificate standard then we need to do a better job defining transgender.

Look, the transgender people don't like pervs anymore than anyone else. I think if given the opportunity they could come up with a definition that is workable.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
jazzyjeff
Apr 29 2016, 12:35 PM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:58 AM
jazzyjeff
Apr 29 2016, 11:42 AM
My point is that if we write the laws/ordinances that are intended to help transgender folks too loosely then they will end up enabling sick individuals like this one to legally enter the women's dressing room or women's restroom.

As things currently stand in most states at at most businesses if this guy tries to walk into a women's room then the staff of the place have the legal right to ask him to leave and if he refuses they can have security physically remove him or call the police. What this guy did in her video did not technically break a law because he was in a place that both he and the woman had a right to be. If we write a loose piece of legislation that let's anyone claim they "self identify as a female" then what we do is enable a guy like this to have a legal right to be in a women's restroom or dressing room. So we would essentially make it legal from him to do what he does in a far more intimate location. A location where there are no security cameras to use in order to prosecute him if he does break the law.

Now, I made the suggestion earlier that we simply have some unisex bathrooms set aside (as many larger places already do) for the transgender folks who do not appear to be female. The one's who appear to be female should obviously use the women's room and the one's who appear to be male should use the men's room.

Now, if it is necessary to legally quantify who can use what bathroom in some ordinance then some definition of what is male and what is female and what is neither would have to be found since we can't use birth certificate as the standard with people who have had gender reassignment surgery.
I do not believe there was ever any laws preventing trans individuals from using the bathroom of choice. What we are seeing are laws being made to exclude trans individuals from using the bathroom of choice. The real issue should be locker-room changing facilities in which we have both agreed, special accommodations should be made for trans individuals.
The law that was passed in NC which excludes trans individuals was passed in response to an ordinance which effectively made it impossible to prevent a man such as the one in the link from entering a women's room. In fact, the perv from my link could have sued someone for kicking him out of the women's room based on the ordinance in question.

The NC law that excludes trans individuals is very badly written and uses a bad standard for who has permission to enter a certain bathroom. It also has a bunch of other nonsense in it that was not needed.

Essentially what happened in NC was that an unneeded ordinance was passed (because as you say, they were already using the bathroom of their choice) for political reasons and then a state law was passed in a knee jerk overreaction to the ordinance. The whole thing was unfortunate and stupid.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

Demagogue, do you think it's appropriate to further identify transsexuals for any other things, besides not allowing them to use a restroom they are comfortable with?

How about job discrimination or maybe medical care in emergency rooms for example?
Edited by CautionaryTales, Apr 29 2016, 12:59 PM.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jazzyjeff

Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 12:49 PM
jazzyjeff
Apr 29 2016, 12:35 PM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 11:58 AM
I do not believe there was ever any laws preventing trans individuals from using the bathroom of choice. What we are seeing are laws being made to exclude trans individuals from using the bathroom of choice. The real issue should be locker-room changing facilities in which we have both agreed, special accommodations should be made for trans individuals.
The law that was passed in NC which excludes trans individuals was passed in response to an ordinance which effectively made it impossible to prevent a man such as the one in the link from entering a women's room. In fact, the perv from my link could have sued someone for kicking him out of the women's room based on the ordinance in question.

The NC law that excludes trans individuals is very badly written and uses a bad standard for who has permission to enter a certain bathroom. It also has a bunch of other nonsense in it that was not needed.

Essentially what happened in NC was that an unneeded ordinance was passed (because as you say, they were already using the bathroom of their choice) for political reasons and then a state law was passed in a knee jerk overreaction to the ordinance. The whole thing was unfortunate and stupid.
Yes, exactly.

Also what some may fail to realize is if a trans women using a womens restroom and exposes herself (penis) to anyone other then for the purpose of urinating can be arrested for lewd conduct and indecent exposure. The same can even happen to a man in a mens room. Here in Philly they catch homeless people standing naked at the sinks bathing themselves, and they get arrested for it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
"And the freaks shall inherit the earth..."
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Freaks
Member Avatar

clone
Apr 29 2016, 02:24 PM
"And the freaks shall inherit the earth..."
I have big plans! :pimp:
"I'll be the fella to save his Cinderella,
by turnin' her dream world into real life."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
CautionaryTales
Apr 29 2016, 12:57 PM
Demagogue, do you think it's appropriate to further identify transsexuals for any other things, besides not allowing them to use a restroom they are comfortable with?

How about job discrimination or maybe medical care in emergency rooms for example?
CT, I don't think it is necessary to identify trans folks for any purpose. I thought everything was just fine prior to that dumb ordinance being written in Charlotte as well as it's cousins in other places. At that point the tans folks were using whatever bathroom they looked like and nobody really cared except for a few idiots here and there.

So, any time you feel like getting everyone to agree to turn back the laws like this to how they were 5 years ago I will support your efforts. :victory:

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 04:35 PM
CautionaryTales
Apr 29 2016, 12:57 PM
Demagogue, do you think it's appropriate to further identify transsexuals for any other things, besides not allowing them to use a restroom they are comfortable with?

How about job discrimination or maybe medical care in emergency rooms for example?
CT, I don't think it is necessary to identify trans folks for any purpose. I thought everything was just fine prior to that dumb ordinance being written in Charlotte as well as it's cousins in other places. At that point the tans folks were using whatever bathroom they looked like and nobody really cared except for a few idiots here and there.

So, any time you feel like getting everyone to agree to turn back the laws like this to how they were 5 years ago I will support your efforts. :victory:

So, the laws as they were 5 years ago, what was the penalty for a man using the woman's restroom?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 04:59 PM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 04:35 PM
CautionaryTales
Apr 29 2016, 12:57 PM
Demagogue, do you think it's appropriate to further identify transsexuals for any other things, besides not allowing them to use a restroom they are comfortable with?

How about job discrimination or maybe medical care in emergency rooms for example?
CT, I don't think it is necessary to identify trans folks for any purpose. I thought everything was just fine prior to that dumb ordinance being written in Charlotte as well as it's cousins in other places. At that point the tans folks were using whatever bathroom they looked like and nobody really cared except for a few idiots here and there.

So, any time you feel like getting everyone to agree to turn back the laws like this to how they were 5 years ago I will support your efforts. :victory:

So, the laws as they were 5 years ago, what was the penalty for a man using the woman's restroom?
That probably depends on the state and if someone pressed charges. Of course, 5 years ago if a man entered the woman's room then the proprietor of the establishment had a legal right to toss them out of the bathroom also. The same obviously applied to women entering the men's room but we are generally less protective of men in our society than we are of women and children.

From a criminal point of view if the man did anything that was against the law while in the women's room they would almost automatically be considered guilty since they did not have a legal right to be in that room in the first place. So, if a and was accused of something by a woman then even in the absence of other witnesses or corroborating evidence he would be considered guilty by the fact he was in a place he was not allowed to be and was also accused of committing another crime while there.
Edited by Demagogue, Apr 29 2016, 05:24 PM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 05:21 PM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 04:59 PM
Demagogue
Apr 29 2016, 04:35 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So, the laws as they were 5 years ago, what was the penalty for a man using the woman's restroom?
That probably depends on the state and if someone pressed charges. Of course, 5 years ago if a man entered the woman's room then the proprietor of the establishment had a legal right to toss them out of the bathroom also. The same obviously applied to women entering the men's room but we are generally less protective of men in our society than we are of women and children.

From a criminal point of view if the man did anything that was against the law while in the women's room they would almost automatically be considered guilty since they did not have a legal right to be in that room in the first place. So, if a and was accused of something by a woman then even in the absence of other witnesses or corroborating evidence he would be considered guilty by the fact he was in a place he was not allowed to be and was also accused of committing another crime while there.
I think you may misunderstand how the law and the rule of evidence works. Hypothetical example, let's say a man walks into a woman's room and on the floor he finds a woman who is the victim of homicide. Given your legal theory, the fact that he was in the restroom where he had no legal right to be, he is automatically considered guilty because he wasn't allowed to be there to begin with.

That's not how the law works. If he enters the bathroom in violation of the law, then he can be convicted for that, assuming that there is evidence that proves it. The question still remains, once he was in there what did he do and what is the evidence that supports that he did it? Yes, the fact that he knowingly broke the law to enter a woman's bathroom might give a woman's story that he committed an additional crime some added weight. It doesn't lead to an automatic conclusion of guilt.

But all that is really a side issue. You don't seem to know what, if any, penalty there was for someone entering the bathroom of the opposite gender. I suspect that in most states, there isn't/wasn't one. Of course what they did AFTER entering the bathroom might amount to a crime, but I'm reasonably confident that just the act of entering a bathroom of the opposite gender wasn't a criminal violation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Member013

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Enjoy it while you can...

Posted Image
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

Posted Image
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

clone
Apr 29 2016, 02:24 PM
"And the freaks shall inherit the earth..."
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Member013

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply