Gender Neutral Bathrooms: the backlash against urinary segregation at UT

[hog88]

Wasn't that Charlotte example largely a response to the so-called "religious liberty" (also known as "freedom to discriminate") bills sweeping the Midwest and South though?

This whole debate reminds me a lot of the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" cliche. Basically, in this debate, one man's freedom is another man's discrimination, or woman's, or transgendered's, or whatever the preferred nomenclature.

IMO none of this would have ever come about if it weren't for some lawsuits over cakes and pictures.

 

[joevol33]

and before the Charlotte law there was no problem with it. Trannies used whatever bathroom. Now the issue is in Charlotte that anyone can use any restroom. it has pretty much zero to do with trannies. There was no issue of equality because the trannies could use a bathroom just like the rest of us. now Charlotte wants to give special treatment to them above the males and females.

This^^^^

 

[RobsPics]

and before the Charlotte law there was no problem with it. Trannies used whatever bathroom. Now the issue is in Charlotte that anyone can use any restroom. it has pretty much zero to do with trannies.

I already suggested that there should be a compromise...remove both laws.

 

[1972 Grad]

You're the one in here joking about profiting from people's lives.

What would you consider yourself, Mr. Humble?

From reading this and other posts of yours elsewhere, yes, you're sociopathic. Maybe not a "sociopath," but at least sociopathic. You only care about you and yours. The world begins and ends with your wallet. That's pretty much it. If you aren't in fact sociopathic, then you're far different in your day-to-day life than you are a VolNation poster.

You know, you worried me, so I thought that I had better go to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to see if I might be one of these "sociopaths." It stated as follows:



Pervasive pattern of disregard and violation of rights of others occurring since 15 years of age, and indicated by at least 3 of the following:

1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

I have never been arrested, never been accused, never been in jail, never been sued.

2) Deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for profit or pleasure.

I have never conned or cheated anyone, but will admit that 1972 Grad is not my real name.

3) Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead.

I am retired, saved for my own retirement (not a teacher's free ride), owe zero dollars, so I have planned ahead, and have not impulsively pissed away my money.

4) Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights and assaults.

My last fist fight was when I was 15.

5) Reckless disregard for safety of self and others.

I always buckle up, and tell anyone else in the car to do the same.

6) Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior, or honor financial obligations.

I have worked a total of 5 jobs, 2 of which I owned the company, in over 40 years in the workforce. I have never been out of a job for more than 2 weeks in that time. I owe no money to anyone, and have never been late on any loans that I have ever had in the past.

7) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to, or rationalizing hurt, mistreated or stolen from another.

I have never mistreated or stolen from another. Am I indifferent to the plight of others? I can't possibly worry about everybody else's problems.

 

[volprof]

IMO none of this would have ever come about if it weren't for some lawsuits over cakes and pictures.

Probably so. I have no sympathy for such business owners, as I think them ignorant (doesn't business, by its nature, require you to have to assume a posture where you will be forced to provide for or have commerce with people you dislike?) and their business practices antiquated, but it's one of those where the aggrieved parties should have just moved on. I get that being gay in reality (particularly in Smalltown, U.S.A) isn't all the media glitz and glamor some people mistakenly think it is, but are wedding cakes or wedding photos really that big of a deal? Just go find someone who will do it for you, and move on.

 

[LouderVol]

I am not segregating anyone by test scores. The government is when it places higher test scorers in different classes than lower test scorers. And that segregation is not based on intellectual level, it is based on actual performance. People with a "lower" intellect level can perform higher if they are adept at test taking or know how to game the test.

and those with handicaps? they don't get the chance of performing better so you are still segregating them based on physical/mental limitations.

also if its actual performance that matters and makes it ok for segregation that goes right back to our argument of men vs women. the performance of our "junk" is completely different. and in that case the trannies use which ever bathroom conforms to the performance of their junk.

 

[theFallGuy]

There was no issue of equality because the trannies could use a bathroom just like the rest of us. now Charlotte wants to give special treatment to them above the males and females.

this

 

[volprof]

You know, you worried me, so I thought that I had better go to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to see if I might be one of these "sociopaths." It stated as follows:



Pervasive pattern of disregard and violation of rights of others occurring since 15 years of age, and indicated by at least 3 of the following:

1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

I have never been arrested, never been accused, never been in jail, never been sued.

2) Deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for profit or pleasure.

I have never conned or cheated anyone, but will admit that 1972 Grad is not my real name.

3) Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead.

I am retired, saved for my own retirement (not a teacher's free ride), owe zero dollars, so I have planned ahead, and have not impulsively pissed away my money.

4) Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights and assaults.

My last fist fight was when I was 15.

5) Reckless disregard for safety of self and others.

I always buckle up, and tell anyone else in the car to do the same.

6) Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior, or honor financial obligations.

I have worked a total of 5 jobs, 2 of which I owned the company, in over 40 years in the workforce. I have never been out of a job for more than 2 weeks in that time. I owe no money to anyone, and have never been late on any loans that I have ever had in the past.

7) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to, or rationalizing hurt, mistreated or stolen from another.

I have never mistreated or stolen from another. Am I indifferent to the plight of others? I can't possibly worry about everybody else's problems.

I'm glad you're not a textbook sociopath, according to your anecdotal evidence.

Now go back to worrying about that wallet of yours. While Duke may be doing well today, I hear Halliburton shares have taken a small dive.

 

[RobsPics]

and those with handicaps? they don't get the chance of performing better so you are still segregating them based on physical/mental limitations.

That's why they have testing accommodations for people with handicaps.

also if its actual performance that matters and makes it ok for segregation that goes right back to our argument of men vs women. the performance of our "junk" is completely different. and in that case the trannies use which ever bathroom conforms to the performance of their junk.

1.
That's only true if bathrooms were incapable of of providing fixtures applicable to all genders. There's nothing physically preventing all bathrooms from providing all fixtures to conform to all genders.

2.
Toilets conform to the the performance of all genders.

 

[LouderVol]

I already suggested that there should be a compromise...remove both laws.

I would gladly get behind this.

 

[1972 Grad]

I'm glad you're not a textbook sociopath, according to your anecdotal evidence.

Now go back to worrying about that wallet of yours. While Duke may be doing well today, I hear Halliburton shares have taken a small dive.

I don't own Halliburton, so no sh!ts given. Also, I don't really worry about my wallet. I have enough money to last me. If something happens, and it becomes insufficient, I will go back to work. No big deal.

 

[RobsPics]

and those with handicaps? they don't get the chance of performing better so you are still segregating them based on physical/mental limitations.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 represent three attempts to improve the living conditions of those with disabilities."

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund | A COMPARISON of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504

 

[LouderVol]

That's why they have testing accommodations for people with handicaps.



1.
That's only true if bathrooms were incapable of of providing fixtures applicable to all genders. There's nothing physically preventing all bathrooms from providing all fixtures to conform to all genders.

2.
Toilets conform to the the performance of all genders.

to your second point, we already have that. we are already required to provide that in each bathroom. even in the segregated bigoted racist "men's rooms" there are water closets.

oh and for anyone that curious we just talked about this at my office and we think the cost for creating the communal but divided bathrooms Robpics proposes would be about 25-33% increase, and about the same in operating costs. for single use bathrooms (small business) that's a 50% cost increase to provide a third "unisex" bathroom. its a pretty big deal.

 

[volprof]

I don't own Halliburton, so no sh!ts given. Also, I don't really worry about my wallet. I have enough money to last me. If something happens, and it becomes insufficient, I will go back to work. No big deal.

The way you're constantly rushing to Lord Cheney's aid every time you so much as sniff the possibility of a negative word and even when you don't, I figured you owned some Halliburton.

I guess you're just a Cheney true believer then. That's pure. I can respect that, oddly enough.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

No, he was busy banging a 15 year old maid.

Grass on the field.

 

[1972 Grad]

The way you're constantly rushing to Lord Cheney's aid every time you so much as sniff the possibility of a negative word and even when you don't, I figured you owned some Halliburton.

I guess you're just a Cheney true believer then. That's pure. I can respect that, oddly enough.

There is a good possibility that your public pension fund owns both Halliburton and Duke.

You will be glad to know that Duke is currently investing $500 million in North Carolina solar farms, and a total of $3 billion in renewable energy over the next 5 years. This will give them 8,000 megawatts of wind, solar, and biomass by 2020.

Duke is also ranked at the very top of diversity hiring along with Verizon, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson. I own all 4 of those stocks. That makes me a socially responsible investor.

 

[RobsPics]

to your second point, we already have that. we are already required to provide that in each bathroom. even in the segregated bigoted racist "men's rooms" there are water closets.

So in your company's situation, then there is no need for the government to force trannys to only use the bathroom that has the corresponding fixtures...since they all have corresponding fixtures.

oh and for anyone that curious we just talked about this at my office and we think the cost for creating the communal but divided bathrooms Robpics proposes would be about 25-33% increase, and about the same in operating costs. for single use bathrooms (small business) that's a 50% cost increase to provide a third "unisex" bathroom. its a pretty big deal.

It did not propose that the government must force companies to physically alter their already existing bathrooms or physically create new ones.

 

[Roustabout]

Which of these is the more accurate description of what's going on here:

1) There is rampant use of bathrooms by transgender, or gender misidentified people. It happens a lot. It is causing problems because such people are spying for thrills on members of what they identify as opposite sex. We need these laws to protect us from the numerous pervs who are doing this so often it is worth passing a law and suing the feds to make a point.

2) Some yahoo somewhere got as local municipality to adopt an ordinance on bathroom access for a non-existent problem. Seeing it as an opportunity to antagonize gay people whilst simultaneously working their own base up into a frenzy over this "HUGE" problem, the far right shriek machine went into overdrive, and said we need to pass a lot of laws at the state level to deal with this terrible problem.

Aaaaaaaannnddd, go!

Or, some leftist group started probing the boundaries knowing conservatives would react and look like hateful bigots who have nothing better to do than dream up ways to ridicule drag queens.

 

[LouderVol]

So in your company's situation, then there is no need for the government to force trannys to only use the bathroom that has the corresponding fixtures...since they all have corresponding fixtures.



It did not propose that the government must force companies to physically alter their already existing bathrooms or physically create new ones.

I work in an architecture firm. So to your first statement, all bathrooms would be suitable for use by any, as you pointed out with ADA laws in place. so there was no inherent undue limitations on the trannies until NC created a messed up law.

and to the second, I am mostly talking about new ones, and in the case of ADA if you alter an non-compliant bathroom it has to be brought up to the standard of the law.

 

[RobsPics]

I work in an architecture firm. So to your first statement, all bathrooms would be suitable for use by any, as you pointed out with ADA laws in place. so there was no inherent undue limitations on the trannies until NC created a messed up law.

and to the second, I am mostly talking about new ones, and in the case of ADA if you alter an non-compliant bathroom it has to be brought up to the standard of the law.

So it's the company's choice to physically alter an existing bathroom. Thus, any additional cost incurred to make their bathrooms gender neutral is not relevant since no one forced the company to physically alter their bathrooms in the first place.

 

[Obsessed]

So it's the company's choice to physically alter an existing bathroom. Thus, any additional cost incurred to make their bathrooms gender neutral is not relevant since no one forced the company to physically alter their bathrooms in the first place.

Physically alternating bathrooms cheaper that fighting lawsuits?

 

[LouderVol]

So it's the company's choice to physically alter an existing bathroom. Thus, any additional cost incurred to make their bathrooms gender neutral is not relevant since no one forced the company to physically alter their bathrooms in the first place.

depends, I can think of about half a dozen situations where owners have had to redo their bathrooms even if they didn't touch it. The ADA is complicated as all get out. mostly when you change the usage from a true private usage to any time the public can come in the building.

 

[T-TownVol]

depends, I can think of about half a dozen situations where owners have had to redo their bathrooms even if they didn't touch it. The ADA is complicated as all get out. mostly when you change the usage from a true private usage to any time the public can come in the building.

toilets break, sinks break.....touch either one and the whole bath has to be brought to code

 

[lawgator1]

Anyone who thinks that either the Charlotte ordinance or the state law were about transgender people is an idiot. That's the extreme example, it is incredibly rare. It was about public facilities not being able to keep gay men out of the men's bathroom.

 

[tumscalcium]

Anyone who thinks that either the Charlotte ordinance or the state law were about transgender people is an idiot. That's the extreme example, it is incredibly rare. It was about public facilities not being able to keep gay men out of the men's bathroom.

Wut