Constitution: transgender bathrooms

fieryFU
i also criticize liberals when they are ignoring the constitution.  for instance on transgender bathrooms.  and yes, even on the 2nd amendment.
fieryFU
ok.  where?
14:01 fieryFU
that is not answer.
14:01 fieryFU
that's just a 1st grade insult.
14:02 fieryFU
CITE something where i have 'ignored the constitution'.
fieryFU
'downplay antifa'.  no...you upplay them.  you think they are almost as serious a threat as say...dressers that are not attached to a wall!  and i barely even know who the fuck talib or omar is, to 'defend' them.  as for AOC, what she is...is the right wing's worst nightmare, because she is as much a troll as they are.  and she is effective at it.  i assume i have praised nancy pelosi...for
fieryFU
"something" in the last couple years, since she has been one of the primary rivals of trump.  but it wouldn't have been about policy, most likely.
14:05 fred_ has left IRC (Ping timeout: 745 seconds)
fieryFU
and i never 'cried for the generals death'.  what you want to think what i think...is not what i think.
voicer has changed mode: +v fieryFU
fieryFU
i criticized HOW trump killed him...and the CONSEQUENCES of it.
fieryFU
the point is, you made a claim, and have yet to prove it.
14:07 fieryFU
saw "what"?  quote it.,
fieryFU
where did i ever say it was ok for obama to use drones...to kill civilians?
14:08 infspire
fieryFU: How do transgender bathrooms ignore the Constitution?
fieryFU
oh, i didn't?  i was one of THE people to complain about continuing to stay in the middle east, under obama.  and, i also said he lied about closing gitmo.
14:10 fred_ has joined ([email protected])
fieryFU
infspire...what constitutional amendment insists transgenders have their own bathroom?
infspire
fieryFU: That's not a coherent question.
infspire
It is not coherent because the Constitution doesn't describe all the rights of people -- it describes all the powers of the state.
infspire
The document specifically states it does not describe all the rights of the peole.
infspire
people
fred| has left IRC (Ping timeout: 745 seconds)
infspire
Remember, the underlying political philosophy of the Constitution is that rights are possessed by people before the construction of the state.
fieryFU
it's not a coherent argument for transgender people to have their own bathroom, or get to choose which bathroom they should get to use.  do you get to choose what bathroom you get to use?
infspire
The state has to be explicitly provided with powers to serve the interests of the people.
infspire
The reason that any rights are listed is because people like Franklin were concerned not being explicit would, in practice, give too much power to the state.
infspire
Abortion, for example, is not listed in the Constitution, but is a right.
fieryFU
right to privacy, right.
infspire
It is derived from multiple amendments, but most notably the 4th Amendment.
infspire
fieryFU: Whether or not there is a right to transgender access to bathrooms, it will be a derived right, i.e. not listed in the Constitution.
infspire
The clearest argument for there being a constitutional right for transgender access to bathrooms would probably be via privacy.
infspire
That is, enforcing a no non-transgender access policy would likely violate privacy.
fieryFU
so...what in the constitution gives a person a right, to get to choose what public bathroom they should get to use?  and what about the rights of the person or company who owns the bathroom?  shouldn't they get to seperate by gender, if they prefer?  so long as neither biological gender is say, using an outhouse while the other has a standard bathroom?
infspire
It's not possible for the state to enforce biological definitions of privacy at the point of a bathroom without violating privacy.
infspire
How would you do it?
infspire
You could evaluate people's genitals, but that's obviously a no go.
infspire
So, you'd evaluate their face, height, build, etc. to get a probabilistic system that would be somewhat accurate.
infspire
And it would misclassify people and they would argue it's discriminatory on its face.
infspire
And I think courts would likely uphold that.
fieryFU
so...everybody should just get to choose what bathroom they want to use?  even if it removes rights from the owner of the bathroom?
infspire
That seems to be the only legal position, yes.
fieryFU
or, do only transgender people get the special privelige to get to choose what bathroom to use?
infspire
Do you have a mechanism for enforcement that doesn't violate privacy or isn't discriminatory?
infspire
fieryFU: Remember, that the concept of rights is to protect minorities from the state and majorities.
fieryFU
i assume the mechanism for enforcement is the business owner.
infspire
So, this isn't about 'transgenderism' per se.
fieryFU
their rights are protected...equally.
infspire
It's about people making the decision that is right for them about the bathroom they want to use.
infspire
Enforcing a 'social order' starts to raise Constitutional red flags.
infspire
fieryFU: Everybody has rights, but the primary purpose of rights is to protect minorities.
fieryFU
if they are being denied the use of "a" bathroom...or being told to go out back, while everybody else gets to use bathrooms...you would have a 'rights' violation case.
infspire
The rights of the majority are naturally protected through power.
infspire
fieryFU: The only way to enforce a gendered social order for bathrooms is to make decisions about a person's gender.
infspire
Courts will see gender as being an intimate and essential part of a person's identity.
infspire
So, that will be a huge red flag.
fieryFU
bathrooms are not necessarily about gender.  they are about biology.
fieryFU
it's the reason women's bathrooms don't have urinals.
fieryFU
i mean, i think
infspire
The toilets are shaped differently based off anatomy, I agree.
fieryFU
i've never been in a women's room.  do they have urinals?
fieryFU
troughs?
infspire
There are lots of non-discriminatory solutions to that.
infspire
You just equip every multi-use bathroom with equipment that works for everybody.
infspire
Or only have single-use bathrooms.
fred_ is now known as fred
fieryFU
IF a business owner has a unisex bathroom, "ok".  that is their right,.
infspire
fieryFU: So you want to give business owners the right to assess a person's gender knowing they're going to misclassify on a recurring basis?
Fear
WackyLIB behave
infspire
When they misclassify, it will be historically disaffected people at a disproportionate rate.
fieryFU
the business owner has a right to protect their customers.
astra has left IRC ()
infspire
Protect them from what?
fieryFU
from people taking advantage of 'choosing' what bathroom they should get to use.
astra_ has joined (astra@astra.)
fieryFU
that is not a right.
infspire
How does one take advantage? What do they gain?
infspire
What is lost?
fieryFU
i don't know.  but it doesn't really matter...because it's not a right.
astra_ is now known as astra
infspire
fieryFU: Are you aware that in American history majority groups have used the language protection and threats to discriminate against people?
fieryFU
nothing is being denied to them.  unless they are being told they can't use a bathroom at all, or they have to go in the outhouse in the back, there is no real rights violation case.
infspire
It was used repeatedly against African-Americans, for example.
abumlove
i know what cooming means
abumlove
i know what cooming means now, it means to ejaculate (one's semen/sperm)
infspire
fieryFU: That last post won't pass muster.
infspire
Specifically, Brown v. Board of Education.
abumlove
heard it here a bunch, and i'm like, "what????? coom??? what's that??? I'm not familiar with this newly invented word"
Fear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x_9-16vkj0

abumlove
it's one of those funny words
klc- has joined (uid201163@2001:67c:2f08:7::3:11cb)
abumlove
like defenestrate
simboona has joined (uid201163@2001:67c:2f08:7::3:11cb)
abumlove
or discombobulated
infspire
fieryFU: If you use language of 'protecting' customers, courts will have their ears perk up.
abumlove
yes, IRC is about learning.
infspire
They'll know it's possible you're violating rights when you use that language.
infspire
It's the historical language of the oppressor.
abumlove
at its best it's about learning.
abumlove
you become wiser, forever.
infspire
If you can't identify what is being gained or loss, courts will conclude you're being discriminatory.
abumlove
lol
fieryFU
transgender people have to prove they are being 'damaged', in court, by being denied a choice...that OTHER people are not allowed to have.  it's contradictory.
infspire
You'll need to provide very clear and rational gains and losses that cannot be addressed through less invasive mechanisms.
Fear
WackyLIB you don't.
infspire
fieryFU: Are you familiar with the Brown v. Board of Education decision?
infspire
It rules that separate but equal is inherently discriminatory, even if the books are of identical quality, the facilities are identical, and the teachers are identically skilled.
Fear
WackyLIB you belong in the gulag
fieryFU
some.  but i don't recall what the constitutional grounds are in that case
infspire
There's a famous passage about a little African-American boy sitting in a hypothetical school reflecting on the fact that he is unequal given his separated status.
infspire
fieryFU: They ruled the primary damage of separate but equal is internal.
infspire
The primary damage of prohibitions on same sex marriage are internal.
infspire
The primary damage of having somebody tell you what your gender is by blocking you from a given bathroom will be internal.
fieryFU
ok?  but that might only count if businesses had a 'transgender bathroom'...which seperates them out from the public, but 'equally'.  that's not really a thing.
infspire
And courts will value that very highly.
infspire
fieryFU: I only leveraged this to point out that internal, psychological, emotional damage is highly valued in rights cases.
infspire
It's arguably the *primary* consideration of a court.
infspire
The court will likely leverage rulings from the Civil Rights era for precedence about internal harm leading to generational problems with that group.
infspire
And the courts will not want to participate in that whatsoever.
infspire
And so you'll need very good arguments as to what losses are occurring business owners to make decisions about what their customers' genders *really* are.
infspire
Business owners, due to the Civil Rights era rulings, are already blocked from making all sorts of decisions about their customers.
fieryFU
but...faux emotional damage...is not the same as actual emotional damage.  that would like me suing trump for 'emotional distress'.
infspire
You'll have to detail why this is different.
infspire
fieryFU: Imagine you perceive yourself to be a woman and have worked for years to appear as a woman. Then, somebody says sir, go to the man's bathroom! And you feel embarrassed as people are looking at you: now everybody thinks you're not a woman. You try to quietly go into the woman's bathroom.
infspire
What happens next in your scheme, fieryFU?
infspire
One of two things happens: be honest.
fieryFU
what scheme?
infspire
In the scheme the business owner retains this right.
infspire
One of two things happens: The business owner or their agents use force to block you from the woman's bathroom, or the police are called.
infspire
And now the state is involved in figuring out if you *should* be in the woman's bathroom.
infspire
And how will they adjudicate that?
infspire
Both of those scenarios are absolute fucking disasters.
infspire
And the court will want no part of that.
infspire
There's no fucking way the police are going to check your genitals.
fieryFU
but...biologically you are not woman.
voicer has changed mode: +v infspire
infspire
Irrelevant.
infspire
There will be misclassifications, fieryFU.
infspire
Some of the people blocked in some business will be biological women.
infspire
And they'll get fucking furious and some podunk business owner will say, "I know a man when I see one!"
abumlove
Emilie Weaver has been sentenced to life imprisonment for throwing her newborn in the trash.....
infspire
And then they police will be called and they'll be an argument about whether or not she's really a woman.
abumlove
tell me, how different is this, morally, than havign a late-term "abortion" done?
infspire
It's a fucking disaster.
abumlove
is this not an example of a "post-birth" "abortion"
infspire
So, how will she respond to that misclassification?
abumlove
honestly, how different is it????
infspire
She'll sue the business owners?
infspire
But he has a legal right to do what he did, under your system.
infspire
So she's just fucked.
abumlove
adn don't say , "duhhhhhhh we have the draw the LINE SOMEWHERE"
infspire
She votes with her business dollar and frequents other businesses?
infspire
That's the precise issue with whites blocking blacks from businesses in the 1950s.
infspire
And courts said, "Nope".
abumlove
and don't give me the, "oh.. late term abortions are rare.."
infspire
We don't want a segregated American where you don't know which business owners are going to be aggressive about their perception of your gender.
infspire
And then people are responsible for using a Green Book or Yelp to figure out which are safe spaces.
infspire
The historical parallels are devastating.
infspire
So, how should we handle this?
zorg has joined ([email protected])
fieryFU
i don't have an answer for that.  other than 'feeling' is not much of a gauge for legality.  if i murder someone...but 'percieve' that i didn't, does that mean there is no penalty?
infspire
Like we do with almost every other issue: Allow people to make intimate decisions for themselves, i.e. which bathroom is right for them, and if there are alleged abuses the state gets involved only then, after the fact.
infspire
fieryFU: It might mean that.
infspire
Since killing a person is substantial, they'll be an investigation and a possible indictment.
infspire
Not everybody who kills a person is indicted.
fieryFU
sure.  because some killing is done in self defense.  but that's not "murder".  which was the term i used.
infspire
If a person goes into a bathroom and violates norms/policies/rights of others, then the state can get involved.
infspire
"Business owner, this person tried to look under the stall I was in."
infspire
"Police, yes, I'd like to report a crime."
infspire
Also, we can modify our bathrooms through technology to limit these intrusions into privacy.
infspire
For example, doors that go all the way to the ground with no cracks you can see through.
infspire
Converting all single use bathrooms into universal sex bathrooms.
infspire
Maybe having a single tenant bathroom mandated at all businesses above a certain size.
infspire
Courts will love these solutions, as they're not invasive, don't empower the state, protect minority groups, and seem to solve most/all of the problems.
fieryFU
they can do all that junk in codes.  they don't even need much rationale.
infspire
fieryFU: I think you're dramatically underestimating how socially and emotionally devastating transgender people getting blocked from a bathroom would be.
fieryFU
i think you are overstating it.
infspire
I was once in a Starbucks and there was a male gendered and female gendered bathroom.
infspire
One of these was for my gender, and the person was taking a long time. I went in the other one, as they were both single tenant, and I don't believe in the concept of gendered, singled-tenant bathrooms.
alaska-be has joined ([email protected])
infspire
When I came out, a person of the gender matching the picture on the door was waiting and expressed disgust at me.
infspire
It was pretty damn irritating, and I imagine that would be much less than what I am describing.
infspire
About a month later, Starbucks converted all its single tenant bathrooms into universal gender bathrooms.
infspire
At least in my state.
infspire
fieryFU: I would recommend we interview transgender people and allow them to tell us how it makes them feel.
infspire
Everything I know about people tells me people get very hurt when they're misperceived in such an intimate way.
turona has joined (~quassel@2a01:c22:ac29:a500:283a:430e:e06e:f469)
infspire
Generally, the pattern is that people not in that group -- I perceive you to not be transgendered -- underestimate the harm the people in that group are experiencing as a result of a policy they claim is discriminatory.
infspire
That's what the Civil Rights era teaches me.
infspire
One of the issues with norms around multi-tenant bathrooms is that they're not universal.
infspire
And I see strong parallels to the reasoning in Roe v. Wade.
infspire
In the majority decision, Blackmun discussed how cultures vary in their approach to the beginning of life, etc.
infspire
Some cultures like Christianity have strong anti-abortion views, but Islam has much weaker, Hinduism and Roman culture had different views.
fieryFU
there is a reason you cannot drink and drive.  even though "some" people can handle it and manage to make it home without taking out a bus full of nuns.  the laws , and more importantly, the impedences are put in place to mitigate that...at the expense of all the people who can drive home drunk.  it's not a case by case basis.  if you are over the legal limit you will be arrested, whether
fieryFU
you show signs of being under the influence or not.  the point is that you have to weigh liberty of one person, against the rights of everyone else.  and a transgender person being unable to 'cope' because they can't get to choose what bathroom they get to use, which is a special privelige, the rest of us don't get...is not outweighing the rights of everyone else.  your best argument is to
fieryFU
allow everyone to get to choose what bathroom to use.  but then, it doesn't solve what you are claiming is the problem.
infspire
And so enforcing a particular norm -- no abortions in the case of Roe v. Wade -- or only people in a multi-tenant bathroom of the same gender appearance -- will seem to suffer the problem the state is enforcing one 'way of being'.
infspire
Which will likely violate the 1st Amendment or 14th Amendment.
abumlove
sorry
abumlove
that was an old story
infspire
fieryFU: I don't like that analogy.
infspire
Drinking is not an intimate way component a person's conception, in general.
infspire
Gender is.
infspire
-way
infspire
fieryFU: I also think you have it reversed @ transgender with special rights.
infspire
These laws would allow you to go into whatever bathroom you choose, too.
phil has left IRC (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
infspire
It gives each person the right to self-identify which bathroom is right for them.
fieryFU
if a transgender person gets to choose what bathroom they get to use, and i, or you don't...what do you call it?
infspire
You can use whatever bathroom that is right for you in this system.
fieryFU
your system is flawed.
infspire
Maybe you're cisgendered but where one raped by a man and so you feel unsafe there.
infspire
You haven't shown me why it is flawed.
infspire
I have shown you why your system is flawed.
fieryFU
you just allowed the people who make the transgender people uncomfortable, to get to choose to use the bathroom they are in.
infspire
It's impossible for the state to resolve all these issues, so we allow each person to choose for themself.
infspire
Any problems that arise are handled by the state *after the fact*.
infspire
Like we do with every other situation.
infspire
This whole thing is a non-issue to a large extent, you realize, right?
abumlove
cisgendered people are paradoxically called "cissies"
infspire
There are almost no reported cases of transgender people doing crimes in bathrooms.
infspire
It's largely a manufactured right-wing issue to rally their base.
infspire
Like they did with 'the niggers' in the 1950s.
fieryFU
if a transgender male who feels like a female uses the female's restroom, out of a fear of males in the male's restroom...in your system, you allowed the males to get to choose to go into the female's bathroom to potentially harrass that transgender male.
infspire
'These niggers are just gonna come up and use your bathroom? With your little white girls across the hall? Not on my watch."
fieryFU
now my head hurts.
infspire
fieryFU: If they harass that person, then that have violated the law.
infspire
And the state will respond.
fieryFU
right?  so your entire system is moot.
infspire
What the state won't do is pre-emptively respond to people reporting 'being uncomfortable' based off essential characteristics.
fieryFU
the harrassment is the crime.
infspire
"I'm uncomfortable with the Muslim person in my bathroom. Call the police."
Fear
WackyLIB why is cohen funnier, more charismatic, and better person than you are?
infspire
fieryFU: There's no non-discriminatory mechanism to enforce your proposal.
infspire
In practice, most cisgendered people will continue to use their gender's bathroom in our culture, as that is the current norm.
phil has joined ([email protected])
infspire
The idea there will be a bathroom apocalypse where cats and dogs are living together in multi-tenant bathrooms is fallacious.
fieryFU
if given a choice...i might use the women's restroom.  gotta be a little cleaner in there.
infspire
Okay.
infspire
You do you.
infspire
There's no way to adjudicate your plan without empower people to judge essential characteristics of people.
infspire
It's unenforceable.
infspire
The only solution is for people to be more emotionally resilient to variation and enforce violations after the fact.
infspire
And to buttress that with technological changes, as I've mentioned.
infspire
You've presented no plan.
infspire
You never addressed key questions.
infspire
Do you support the owner using force to stop people from using certain bathrooms?
fieryFU
my 'plan' is as it exists now.  peepees go to the boy's room and nonpeepees go to the girl's room.  if a business wants to change that, to unisex or whatever...i'm fine with that.  that is their decision, so long as they are not discriminatory.  what i am not fine with, is special privelige.  which is a slap in the face of the constitution.
infspire
How do you enforce your plan?
infspire
You've mentioned "business owners".
infspire
What will "business owners" do to enforce your plan?
fieryFU
what plan?
infspire
The plan you detailed 37 seconds ago.
czarbomba has joined ([email protected])
infspire
A person is about to walk into the male bathroom, but the business owner perceives they don't have a "peepee".
infspire
Now what?
fieryFU
you mean, the current way everybody goes to the bathroom at mcdonald's?
fieryFU
leave.
infspire
So, currently transgender people use the bathroom of their choice, then, it sounds like.
infspire
Right?
infspire
If not, why not? What stops them?
fieryFU
no.  they shouldn't.
infspire
So if they do, what then.
infspire
Does the owner glare at them when they walk out of the bathroom?
infspire
fieryFU: You have a lot of passion on this topic and, apparently, you've never thought how to enforce it.
fieryFU
maybe.  i don't know.  you can't stop that.
czarbomba
Mandatory pecker checks
infspire
Okay, so you can't stop people from using whatever bathroom they select?
infspire
Is that your position?
czarbomba
That's a good jobs program for MAGA. Red state pecker checkers
fieryFU
you can't stop a business owner from giving a 'glare'.
infspire
So, transgender male can use a male bathroom and there's no way to stop that.
infspire
Is that your position?
infspire
So you dislike it when that happens, clearly, and might support glaring.
infspire
But no ability to stop, right?
czarbomba
EZdummy is the first volunteer for pecker-checker
infspire
I'm not trying to trick you.
infspire
Feel free to say your views.
czarbomba
Anybody really surprised?
infspire
fieryFU: It appears we have the same position.
infspire
Though, you seem to shut down when we get specific.
infspire
If you don't support any mechanisms to stop a person from using the bathroom of their choice, then we have the same position.
czarbomba
Can't wait for the fraudvangelicals to lose their everloving shit when they discover that this cuts both ways and Muslims are allowed to pray too
infspire
In the various "bathroom bills" of noble states like South Carolina -- surely a harbinger for justice in these United States -- force was used by the state to stop people.
czarbomba
inb4 "sharia law! sharia law!"
infspire
So, school officials would walk into the bathroom and grab students by the arm or wait for them to finish them and then sanction them in formal proceedings.
infspire
Or, most progressively of all, they'd be charged with crimes by the state in criminal court.
infspire
Do you support any of those mechanisms, fieryFU?
fieryFU
yeah, i'm against those bathrooms bills.  see, because that is the state telling people, business owners what they can or can't do, regarding their bathrooms.
infspire
Le sigh.
infspire
fieryFU: Are you aware Congres removed a whole host of 'rights' of business owners in the 1950s and 1960s?
infspire
And that SCOTUS largely said, "That's cool."
infspire
Anyways, we're circling back to earlier parts of the conversation.
fieryFU
i'm pretty sure i already said i was against discrimination.
infspire
There's no non-discriminatory way to enforce a person's "real" gender.
czarbomba
Someone is pretending to be fieryUSA again, huh
fieryFU
one of these asshats juped my nick
chrono- is now known as doesntcar
infspire
Any enforcement will result in substantial emotional harm and lots of misclassifications and big scenes and people boycotting businesses and 21st century green books as to which businesses to patronize.
czarbomba
Surprise surprise
infspire
Therefore, people have to just deal with it.
infspire
And it's not hard to deal with it.
doesntcar is now known as CHRONOIRC
infspire
The only people who have a hard time dealing with it are conservative people, typically, with antiquated values.
infspire
And it will be just as hard to integrate as race was in the military.
infspire
Oh, wait that was never that hard and it was just used a canard by white supremacists.
infspire
And I'm sorry if you dislike that comparison, but your precedent is with the white supremacists of our past.
infspire
There's no way anything like bathroom bills or continued hostility to transgender people are the leading values in the future.
czarbomba
FBI removed 3 more Trump voters from the electorate
czarbomba
They were also virulent white supremacists, but the MAGAcult keeps telling me there's no such thing as white supremacism
czarbomba
They're just anti-melanin activists
fieryFU
you keep reverting to the 'emotional harm' argument.  but...that can be used as a defense for anything.  not getting to choose what bathroom you should get to use, is not the same as being denied use of a bathroom, or being told to go use this shittier bathroom over here, because of the color of your skin.
infspire
fieryFU: SCOTUS has a tremendous amount of precedence on this topic.
infspire
It has already identified various dimensions of personhood with differing levels of presumed harm.
czarbomba
Any more "white pride" folks suing 23andme for revealing their sub-saharan ancestry?
CHRONOIRC is now known as chrono148
czarbomba
The only problem, infspire, is that the current bench seems to want to do away with stare decisis
infspire
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
infspire
czarbomba: Yes, they're looking for a reset into their corporate Dominionism.
fieryFU
this is would be like if i got to sue george clooney, because of the 'emotional toll' he takes on me, because i am not as pretty as he is.  and that offends 'me'.  and hurts 'me'.  and i feel like my feelings should supercede his feelings.
infspire
fieryFU: That is a discriminatory comment.
infspire
It's like saying 'nigger boy' in the 1950s.
fieryFU
no it isn't.  it is a hyperbolic one.  and you can still say that...in 2020.
fieryFU
there is no law against saying 'nigger boy'.
infspire
Correct.
infspire
But when you say it, we realize the speaker is just some old boomer with obsolete views.
infspire
And we don't consider anything they say as serious.
CoMBo has set topic: holy shit czarbomba is back from the nuthouse
fieryFU
i would hope so.
infspire
fieryFU: You just equated the psychological, emotional, and social challenges with transgenderism with a personal orientation towards Clooney.
czarbomba
I love how the shamed chatters I haven't read in months are still trying to get my attention
fieryFU
but there is a difference between that, and legal discrimination.
czarbomba
It means I'm highly effective
czarbomba
Watch as this assmonkey tries to communicate with me via /topic
infspire
It was very dismissive of you in the same way somebody in the 1950s saying, "Oh, sure some little nigger boy is gonna be president some day and so he's being discriminated in his classroom -- he's lucky to have a classroom at all."
infspire
All the whites around that person would nod in agreement and think those white liberals who see it otherwise were just making a big ol' fuss out of nothing.
fieryFU
except, that's not what i said.
infspire
fieryFU: Transgenderism is not at all like your analogy.
infspire
The only point of your analogy was to dismiss a minorities difficulties.
palin has joined (~palin@2607:5300:60:5582:ef::32be)
infspire
It was the essential act of discrimination.
infspire
Transgenderism prevents profound problems for the transgendered person, and it's part of a shared orientation that effects lots of people related to an essential part of their identity.
infspire
None of that is present with the Clooney example.
infspire
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
infspire
In the current law, gender is placed in middle-tier scrutiny.
Fear
WackyLIB got owned by fieryFRAUD
infspire
2.  MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
fieryFU
it also does not deserve special rights.  that is my point.  and your best argument is that 'everybody' should just get to choose what bathroom they get to go to.  that voids the argument of special rights.  but it does not solve the original complaint of 'fear' of using a bathroom you don't feel like you belong in, because it allows those that you fear, to get to choose to use it.
infspire
So, you have a burden -- not me.
infspire
You have leveraged 'the way things currently are' repeatedly.
infspire
This has almost no legal value.
infspire
The 'way things currently are' have often been discriminatory, since majorities don't think about why they do the things they do -- they just do them.
infspire
That's the benefit of being a majority -- you just get to do things.
infspire
So, then somebody claims they are receiving gender discrimination, the state acquires the burden.
chrono148 is now known as chrono-`_
fieryFU
you think that's why i am arguing the way i am?
fieryFU
'majority'?
infspire
Yes.
fieryFU
i'm not gay.  and yet, i was all FOR gay people being allowed to get married.  because their rights were being denied.  they were not being treated equally under the law.  and yet, i have no stake in that.  other than the concept of taking away another person's liberty, is how mine can end up being taken away.
infspire
The way things have been in your lifetime are that peepees go in the boys bathroom and nonpeepees go to the girls bathroom, and this New and Different.
czarbomba
And back we come to official pecker checkers
fieryFU
TN is wanting to pass an anti-gay adoption  bill.  that removes rights.  i am all for gay people being allowed to adopt...AND i am all for transgender people being allowed to adopt, equally, under the law, as any other people.
infspire
fieryFU: You've been unable to highlight the harm that comes from people choosing their bathroom.
infspire
You've mentioned business owners protecting their customers from threats.
infspire
So, transgender people are threats people need to be protected from in bathrooms.
infspire
There's no data to support that.
czarbomba
Have you seen the utter bullshit that anti-gay advocates have been spewing to support that bill?
infspire
This is the *precise* pattern of discriminatory, conservative thinking.
czarbomba
It's like they dug out their 1930s "science" textbooks
infspire
fieryFU: I'm not transgendered.
czarbomba
I wonder if "ill humours" are involved
fieryFU
i don't think i ever claimed you were
infspire
You didn't.
infspire
I didn't claim you were gay.
infspire
We're giving additional information.
infspire
There's no non-discriminatory way to enforce multi-tenant, gendered bathrooms.
fieryFU
right.  but you were implying i was going against transgender bathrooms, because of 'majority'.  which is not how i think.
infspire
And it's largely a fabricated problem.
zorg has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
czarbomba
Unisex bathrooms. Problem solved.
infspire
fieryFU: You have not presented rational types of harm that would come from modifying the current structure.
infspire
The current structure is alleged to be discriminatory by a minority group.
infspire
You have talked of business owners having the right to glare at people.
infspire
fieryFU: There have been more republicans who have committed sexual crimes in bathrooms than transgender people.
infspire
There's no rational basis for fear of transgender bathroom usage.
infspire
Maybe we should have political, gendered bathrooms.
fieryFU
alleged.  again...feelings can be manipulated.  they have to prove where the emotional toll is, that they should get to choose something everybody else doesn't get to.  it's like they are wanting a handicapped ramp, for their feelings.
infspire
fieryFU: I already stated that.
fieryFU
they are not being denied something.  and they are not being forced to use something inferior.  that is where the civil rights arguments can be made.  they can not be made here.
infspire
Precedence from Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges.
infspire
They are being denied something.
infspire
They are being denied something related to an essential part of their identity.
fieryFU
no.  brown vs board of education was about black people getting an equal education, as white people.
infspire
They are being denied the right to determine who they are and have that choice be socially acceptable.
fieryFU
they were being denied something.
fieryFU
transgender people are not.
infspire
fieryFU: I already went through that.
Fear
WackyWolf also known as WackyTear/WackyFRAUD/WackyLIB/WackyHYPOCRITE fears transgenders.
infspire
In Brown v. Board of Education it was ruled that 'separation is inherently discriminatory'.
infspire
That is, when social systems classify you in a way that you don't choose, it's discriminatory.
fieryFU
so...how are transgenders being 'seperated'?  they aren't.
infspire
They're not being separated.
fieryFU
so the argument is invalid.
infspire
They're being disallowed to have their self-identity validated by society.
infspire
Precedence can be more abstract than A is A.
fieryFU
ugh.  that is where you lose me.
infspire
fieryFU: The state cannot tell people its essential characteristics.
infspire
Do you agree with that?
infspire
their essential characteristics*
fieryFU
i think i was the one saying the state should not have a role in this.
czarbomba
My only comment about that is: Where's the uproar when fraudvangelicas demand to be validated by society?
czarbomba
+l
infspire
Okay, so the state cannot tell you whether or not you're a woman or a man.
infspire
So, who should go in women's bathrooms? Women.
infspire
Who are women?
infspire
Self-identification.
infspire
That's it.
infspire
Any system which tells people what 'women really are' will be the state determining an essential characteristic of people and enforcing that on them.
infspire
And that will be necessarily discriminatory, in at least some cases.
infspire
Because classification systems *separate* people into their bins, fieryFU.
infspire
Like in Brown v. Board of Education.
fieryFU
if i want to identify as a dog...and be validated, does that mean i should have a right to fly in the animal area of a plane, for a cheaper price?  seriously...there is a difference between what a person is, and what they want to feel like they are.  and laws can not accomodate everybody's feelings.
infspire
You have it reversed.
infspire
Laws aren't passed and then we try to accommodate people if we can.
infspire
That is anti-American.
infspire
Instead, humans have rights. Then, states are formed. States are given those powers that are not violative of the rights.
infspire
No law can exist that violates rights.
infspire
Rights first, then laws.
infspire
This is the American Way as detailed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
czarbomba
There was another protest against Loving v. Virginia on the anniversary of the ruling
infspire
In order to have legally mandated gendered bathroom usage, the state must have a mechanisms for defining 'woman'.
czarbomba
I wonder how long before we start seeing anti-Brown v. Board protests from the "nonexistent" white supremacist set
infspire
That definition will classify people in ways that some people reject, and it's related to an essential characteristic, violating their rights.
czarbomba
MAGA monkeys don't eat peanuts, they eat banaqnas
czarbomba
-q
infspire
There's no way to have a legal classification of woman *when it comes to bathroom usage*, as that would require violations of privacy.
infspire
Therefore, those laws cannot exist.
infspire
And it's unforceable for there to be legally mandated gendered bathroom usage.
infspire
And all people can do is have their personal feelings, like on race and on gay marriage, and form cliques where they share those views.
infspire
And people can continue to do that with the 'niggers' and the 'fags'.
infspire
Except no business owners can make any business decisions on the basis of 'niggerness', 'fagness', or 'womanness' (in the case of bathroom usage).
infspire
A company might be able to use a 'womanness' criterion when comes to pap smears.
czarbomba
I enjoy how expertly the Democrats maneuvered the Trumpublicans into openly opposing the ERA now that Virginia is poised to ratify
infspire
As conducting a pap smear already requires 'genital access' and so there is no privacy violation.
infspire
Or with issues related to pregnancy.
czarbomba
They literally tricked the GOP into rehashing 50 year old arguments against women's rights in 2020
infspire
But not with bathroom usage, as we don't currently inspect genitals -- the status quo -- and we can't *start* inspecting genitals to enforce these laws.
infspire
The current status quo, fieryFU, as you seem to have agreed with, is 'people pick their bathroom and if they look wrong people glare at them and otherize them'.
czarbomba
I'm sure Trump will find some way to enable mandatory pecker-checks
czarbomba
His party is preternaturally obsessed with penis, after all
legendary has joined (uid64117@2001:67c:2f08:8::fa75)
infspire
They would *love* genital access
infspire
That's one of their Big Dreams
infspire
They wish to dominate and own others, and having genital inspection rights is one of the best ways to own others
infspire
fieryFU: In Obergefell v. Hodges, SCOTUS ruled that who you love and want to marry is an essential part of personhood, and so the state can make no rules on that.
infspire
And that, since it's an essential part of personhood, any rules on that necessarily creates profound harm for those that are blocked -- gay people in this case
infspire
And that violates human rights
infspire
Your gender is arguably more important than the person you love/want to marry
infspire
It's who you are before, during, and after any marriage
infspire
They state must not involve itself in what a 'real woman' or a 'real man' is
infspire
That would be more problematic that what a 'real spouse' or 'real husband' or 'real wife' would be
infspire
That is what I mean by validated
infspire
I don't mean, "Oh, good for you!"
infspire
I mean, "That is a valid choice, as you've chosen it. It's not invalid as determined by our Group."
infspire
When you can't marry a man, as a man, then that's not a valid way to be, and its devastating.
czarbomba
Mikey Flynn got some pretty terrible legal advice. Now that he's petitioned to withdraw his guilty plea, the prosecution has carte blanche to throw the book at him.
infspire
When you're a man and you can't enter the man's bathroom, then that's not a valid way to be, and it's devastating
czarbomba
I suspect we may have entrant #3 for the "Gonna Die In Prison" sweepstakes
abumphone has joined (~abum@2601:243:1801:fa0:d156:de85:b32f:345c)
infspire
And, again, the ONLY way to say, "Well, they really aren't a man...", without using a cultural or religious system, will be to violate a person's privacy.
czarbomba
Old white felons should really listen to their lawyers when sentencing comes
infspire
Either with genital checks, genetic screening, or blood screening.
infspire
Any usage of a cultural or religious system will violated the 1st Amendment.
infspire
And the latter all violate privacy rights.
infspire
Therefore, there is no legal definition of 'man' or 'woman' in a generic context.
czarbomba
Seeking a second legal opinion from the Breitbart set is a good way to extend your prison sentence
infspire
If you wish to live a life where you feel you know exactly what men and women are, that makes senses -- go find or form a clique
infspire
The state is not your clique
infspire
In your clique, you can have all sorts of rituals and dress enforcement rules for 'man' and 'woman'
czarbomba
Pelosi Derangement Syndrome
Fear
TDS
Fear
tsarbomba derangement syndrome
infspire
But once you own a business, you're part of Top Level Society, and we don't allow you to do that because you have to serve everybody because we want a non-segregated culture where people don't have to worry about which businesses they can visit