ManglerYJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Location
- Lexington, NC
So it looks like we (North Carolinians) are going to court over this. Seems like the absolute worst time in history to have to fight this battle what with the current vacancy in the Supreme Court, but here we are. With all the rhetoric out there about it, it seems that good old fashioned common sense is out the window.
For what it's worth, here's my take:
First a little background: I am a heterosexual male with young daughters. I am very protective of these daughters.
That being said, this law - while completely unnecessary in my eyes - should stand and I applaud Pat McCrory for putting it forward. The reason I feel it's unnecessary is that since the dawn of recorded history (Genesis 1), it was made plain the differences between a man and a woman and the need for privacy to in certain anatomical parts. This is the basis for why we have separate public restroom facilities and have for hundreds of years with little to no problems - until recently.
The problems put forward recently were to challenge the status quo to enable a very small minority access to the bathroom of their choosing based solely on an internal "feeling" or association they have toward their identity. There are many facets to this problem that can be broken down into categories.
There are certain things that I can point to as a moral problem, certain things that I can point to as a bio-mechanical problem, certain things that I can point to as a legal slippery slope.
From a moral standpoint, what is seen cannot be unseen. If my daughters go into a rest room or fitting room, odds are good that they will see other women in the process of changing clothes, using the restroom facilities, etc. Girls seeing anatomy that is outside their expected norm is bound to have ramifications. That's a fancy way of saying I don't want my girls seeing guys' junk. I know it will happen eventually, but I can at least hope that it will be in an appropriate time and place.
From a bio-mechanical standpoint, wouldn't it make sense that a woman who "self-identifies" as a man, would have no use for a urinal? So they are just going to use a private stall anyway just as they probably have been for years un-beknownst to the rest of the world anyway. Same thing for a man "self-identifying" as a woman. Without some kind of incredible mega-surgery, he will have no use for the tampon dispensers in the ladies room, either. There are just some things that were put there because they made sense and changing them doesn't.
As for the legal slippery slope this creates, its an impossible law to enforce. It's not like we are going to have police officers standing outside restrooms to check equipment versus documentation. Heck, it's hard enough to card a line of people waiting to get a drink at the Coleseum let alone a dick-check at the door.
The liberal right has pegged this bill as homophobic and bigoted. It may be bigoted, but it's far from homophobic. If a dude "self-identifies" as a woman, don't you think a true homophobe would WANT him to use the ladies room? You wouldn't want him looking over the urinal checking out your junk. But, instead, it's just easier to keep things the way they are. Pat was only trying to counter what was going on in Charlotte with the passage of a similar, but contrary piece of local legislation.
I just hope that the part of this bill about them not being able to sue the State is not in fact the real problem and it causes the whole thing to get shut down. That would be sloppy bill-writing for sure.
For what it's worth, here's my take:
First a little background: I am a heterosexual male with young daughters. I am very protective of these daughters.
That being said, this law - while completely unnecessary in my eyes - should stand and I applaud Pat McCrory for putting it forward. The reason I feel it's unnecessary is that since the dawn of recorded history (Genesis 1), it was made plain the differences between a man and a woman and the need for privacy to in certain anatomical parts. This is the basis for why we have separate public restroom facilities and have for hundreds of years with little to no problems - until recently.
The problems put forward recently were to challenge the status quo to enable a very small minority access to the bathroom of their choosing based solely on an internal "feeling" or association they have toward their identity. There are many facets to this problem that can be broken down into categories.
There are certain things that I can point to as a moral problem, certain things that I can point to as a bio-mechanical problem, certain things that I can point to as a legal slippery slope.
From a moral standpoint, what is seen cannot be unseen. If my daughters go into a rest room or fitting room, odds are good that they will see other women in the process of changing clothes, using the restroom facilities, etc. Girls seeing anatomy that is outside their expected norm is bound to have ramifications. That's a fancy way of saying I don't want my girls seeing guys' junk. I know it will happen eventually, but I can at least hope that it will be in an appropriate time and place.
From a bio-mechanical standpoint, wouldn't it make sense that a woman who "self-identifies" as a man, would have no use for a urinal? So they are just going to use a private stall anyway just as they probably have been for years un-beknownst to the rest of the world anyway. Same thing for a man "self-identifying" as a woman. Without some kind of incredible mega-surgery, he will have no use for the tampon dispensers in the ladies room, either. There are just some things that were put there because they made sense and changing them doesn't.
As for the legal slippery slope this creates, its an impossible law to enforce. It's not like we are going to have police officers standing outside restrooms to check equipment versus documentation. Heck, it's hard enough to card a line of people waiting to get a drink at the Coleseum let alone a dick-check at the door.
The liberal right has pegged this bill as homophobic and bigoted. It may be bigoted, but it's far from homophobic. If a dude "self-identifies" as a woman, don't you think a true homophobe would WANT him to use the ladies room? You wouldn't want him looking over the urinal checking out your junk. But, instead, it's just easier to keep things the way they are. Pat was only trying to counter what was going on in Charlotte with the passage of a similar, but contrary piece of local legislation.
I just hope that the part of this bill about them not being able to sue the State is not in fact the real problem and it causes the whole thing to get shut down. That would be sloppy bill-writing for sure.
) fit into your equation?... because the door now opens for those folks too
