Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,733 Views) | |
| Mr Gray | Apr 21 2016, 10:27 AM Post #76 |
![]()
Coach
|
I did not mean to not address your post...I thought I did, but I must have misread. None the less, I'm not real concerned with Europe's sexual assault rate and their co-ed bathroom policy....this isn't Europe. If we want to go down that road, we can find many examples of areas where abuse of women is rampant even through they have very progressive lifestyle policies regarding gender and other things.....but in many of those areas crimes aren't reported due to corruption. I think we can, however, agree that this is a reality, so perhaps we should just deal with the issue here. My point is that a law which allows a strange man to legally enter a women's bathroom, alone, with our daughters is a bad law....and that's where this started (Charlotte). Not to mention where this issue leads us, such as the current case where a school is being sued to allow a teen boy to enter and change clothes in the girls lock room, along side the other girls. This isn't a "slippery slope"...this is happening now. If you support the Charlotte law, and the idea that someone can use the bathroom/locker room of their choice based simply on the gender that they "identify" themselves with, then wouldn't you also have to support this teen boy's case? Here's another example of where this lack of common sense leads us: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/federal-court-schools-may-not-provide-separate-bathrooms-based-on-biology/ Maybe you think that gender really isn't a "thing" and it's absurd for a person, child or otherwise to even be uncomfortable using the restroom or locker room with another gender...ok, I disagree and think that you should probably purchase a science or biology book, but OK. But otherwise, issues like the ones I referenced above should be address in reality...not in ideology. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Apr 21 2016, 10:29 AM Post #77 |
![]()
Coach
|
Brum, I think you have a teenage daughter....are you cool with a law that would allow or have allowed this guy to legally walk into the bathroom, alone, with your daughter either now or when she was younger? Posted Image http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=2084142&AgencyID=54663 |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Apr 21 2016, 10:38 AM Post #78 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
I think Brum's point is that it doesn't matter if there's a law which legally allows that guy to go into a women's restroom. Because if he's going to assault a woman, the idea that he is illegally entering a women's restroom wouldn't be a factor. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Apr 21 2016, 10:47 AM Post #79 |
![]()
Coach
|
that would be a refusal to answer the question or a copout. I would prefer an actual answer.....it is relevant and a little honesty would be nice. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Apr 21 2016, 12:14 PM Post #80 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
But isn't this guy legally barred from going near children anyways, regardless of bathroom law? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Apr 21 2016, 12:23 PM Post #81 |
![]()
Coach
|
I don't think so.....Otherwise he basically couldn't go anywhere dreach. I mean, you couldn't walk into a gas station without hte fear of being near a child. If I recall, he would likely be barred from going near schools and public playgrounds, youth sports parks...and I'm sure other places of the same genre. I don't think they can bar him from going into Walmart or Buffalo Wild Wings, both of which pretty much always have kids present and bathrooms. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Apr 21 2016, 12:47 PM Post #82 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Right. But I was thinking more like the idea of following someone into a bathroom. Either bathroom. Honestly don't know which situations would be covered and which not. But I will answer your questions (even though I know it wasn't for me). Yes. I'm fine with a law that makes it legal for this guy and others to choose which bathroom is most appropriate. Why? Because this guys is one example of many. And many of the child molesters out there are men preying on little boys, not girls. The issue here isn't a law that allows this person to go into a girl's bathroom. The issue is letting someone like this back out on the street before they're actually safe to be around society. EDIT: When I said, "in favor of a law that allows..." that's with the stipulation that there is a law. Of course my first preference, as I stated earlier, is that I don't think we need a law which tells people which bathroom to go in. I might be in favor of a law though that has some approval process for convicted felons, especially those of a sexual nature, before they go into an opposite bathroom. Depends on how the law is written, but I'd def consider it more than just a law aimed at the general public. Edited by dreachon, Apr 21 2016, 12:51 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 21 2016, 01:50 PM Post #83 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
I'll respond when I get home tonight, and do so with 100% honesty. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | Apr 21 2016, 01:54 PM Post #84 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
Rape is illegal, yet it still happens. Molesting someone is illegal, yet it still happens. What would this law do to stop creeps from continuing what they're doing. i never thought I'd be on the "less government" control side of a discussion with Aaron. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 21 2016, 03:52 PM Post #85 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
It's not a refusal to answer the question. I've even said that recent revelations have made me switch stances on the issue. Places are running scared right now and are basically waiting for someone to file a lawsuit somewhere else so that they can lay the legal groundwork. This has the potential to be a big issue in public schools......to the point of where it will impact locker rooms. We do need to keep in mind that the freedom to swing your arm ends at my face. 'Uncomfortableness' of a transgender person in using the same bathroom as their biological sex IMO does not exceed someone's 'uncomfortableness' to use a bathroom without members of the opposite sex. In the case of a transgender boy using a girl's restroom, I don't think that making the transgender boy more comfortable outweighs that of every female who is uncomfortable having to do so. This, IMO, is not about 'the majority of people deciding on minority rights'. The science of the situation is that identifying with the opposite gender sex alone does not change reality of the science. Scientifically, definitions of someone being male do not include transgender females. If you personally say so, that is not through science, but rather through emotion or empathy. But there is a reason there aren't urinals in female bathrooms......simple biology. If you are talking about someone taking the pre-operative hormone therapy or post operative, you certainly could make the argument. But by and large the number of people we are talking about being transgender are not in this designation. The Philly and Portland laws about having a (basically, new public buildings having a unisex bathroom in addition to male/female or having single stall unisex bathrooms), IMO, are based on logic and ones that do the most good. But those laws could be in danger in the courts. Now let's look at the violence aspects. To answer gray's post above: would I want that person in the bathroom with my daughter? No. Am I afraid that with a law like Charlotte's that he is more likely to sexually assault my daughter? Also no. 1. It should be noted that the crime listed above from what can be gathered from the police report, this was not in a public bathroom. It should also be noted that the offender and victim knew each other and either the offender was invited in the home or broke in. In either case, the North Carolina law and the Charlotte law would have had no bearing to his despicable crime. 2. Let's say that the crime had occurred in a women's bathroom....and this is my honest take on it. Let's say North Carolina's law was in place. The two most likely scenarios would have occurred when the man went into the women's restroom: -- the rapist waited until he could enter illegally and then sexually assaulted the victim OR -- the rapist entered the bathroom illegally but did so when being watched. Most likely outcome is that he would have gotten his ass kicked or the police called prior to performing the act. Flip the script and say that Charlotte's law was in place. IMO, the two most likely outcomes: -- the rapist waited until he could enter legally but be unnoticed and then sexually assaulted the victim OR -- the rapist entered the bathroom 'legally' (quotes around legally because I don't think a court in the land would believe that the man above qualifies as transgender) but did so while being watched. Most likely outcome is that he would have his ass kicked or the police called prior to performing the act. The only difference might be that the case gets drug out in court if he claims that he had the legal right to be in there. But I will say this, as someone who is typically non-violent: regardless of the legal standing of him entering the bathroom, I know that if I see someone like him enter a women's bathroom I'm not going to stand by because of the law....I'll take my chances on what would legally happen to me puling him out of there. And I would assume that gray would do the same. In terms of bri's claim that it would cut down on bathroom violence against transgenders.......in the case of a transgender woman entering a men's bathroom, I don't see it. I can not believe that a transgender woman entering a women's bathroom is more at risk than they would be entering a men's bathroom. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Apr 22 2016, 09:00 AM Post #86 |
![]()
Coach
|
hey brum, I like the whole post, but I just want to address 2 points right now...not ignoring the rest, but I really liked 2 parts and am in a hurry.
I agree with the 1st obviously, but I think the 2nd would require a little analysis from people educated in psychology. I have heard it said repeatedly from psychologists that these types of people with sick minds don't think like us....they view women and girls (or boys) differently and something with the dopamine levels in their brain changes with degrees of exposure to these desires....and it continually escalates. So at one point, just looking at a picture of a child and "pleasuring" themselves (sorry to have to put that in there.....I know it's sick, but it is real) satisfies them....and then eventually that isn't enough and they have to see the kids in person at a park or whatever.....and then maybe it's looking at child porn......and eventually none of that is enough and some of them lash out into the realm of assault, because that is the only way to satisfy their sick mind. I think a case can easily be made that increased exposure for these sickos to young girls in private quarters such as a bathroom or changing room fits somewhere in that "escalation" trajectory......that doesn't mean that they would necessarily go in the bathroom to commit assault, but that sort of depends on how sick they are, and what stage they are in.
Of course I would, however I feel confident that based on the way the wind is blowing, if I were to take that kind of action, I would be slapped with a hate crime penalty, which can actually be extremely severe. The way the law was written in Charlotte brum....that guy doesn't have to "prove" that he's transgender....he just has to say that he identifies as a women....that's it. So now if I forcibly removed him, I'm assaulting and descriminating, which makes me a violent hate crime offender. Is that what we want? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 22 2016, 09:16 AM Post #87 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
That is the biggest issue I view with the legislation as written -- that it doesn't seem to be requirements to fit the criteria. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | Apr 22 2016, 10:00 AM Post #88 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
Sigh. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Apr 22 2016, 12:39 PM Post #89 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Brian, I just looked at the study cited by thinkprogress.org http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf The following statement caught my attention: Respondents also reported in qualitative responses having had the police called, having been confronted while using urinals, and being followed after using a facility I think this implies a man dressing as a woman was using the men's restroom. I assume that this person should have been using the women's restroom. If s/he had, and used a toilet (no urinals in women's restroom), there wouldn't have been any problem. The survey has 93 respondents, and the problems reported seem pretty minor, IMO. I would need to see more details to know if there's any there there. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | Apr 22 2016, 02:58 PM Post #90 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
Pretty minor because they didn't happen to you while doing one of the most basic human things. And this is what I'm talking about, the law would force this kind of a situation. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:54 PM Jul 10
|













7:54 PM Jul 10