US activists try to calm fears over transgender bathroom access

[Dagnabbit]

...

Is homosexuality 'legal' in Thailand? NO!

...

Correction.

Homosexuality is legal in Thailand.

YES.

It is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Thailand

Private, adult, consensual and non-commercial sodomy was decriminalized in Thailand in 1956.

Not bothering to respond to rest of your RANT. Typical right wing anti-GLBT civil rights BS.

Shame you didn't read it. It was a dose of common sense.

[Dagnabbit]

GLBT activists are the change agents in international GLBT civil rights movements.

Of course not all such activists always do the right thing all the time but without political activism, issues never get addressed.

Bigots who dismiss the civil rights concerns of minorities prefer minorities to just shut up. In the U.S., such bigots called black civil rights activists dirty names -- UPPITY N.-word.

This year in the U.S. the Stonewall Inn in NYC has been designated as a federal monument celebrating the landmark Stonewall Riots ...

The GLBT people that didn't complain about being systemically oppressed get no recognition and they don't deserve any either.

No. They are a fringe group if troublemakers with nothing better to do.

Eventually, they will grow up, get jobs, become productive members of society.

They will look back at their says of being far left activists with some embarassment.

[BB24]

...

Is homosexuality 'legal' in Thailand? NO!

...

Correction.

Homosexuality is legal in Thailand.

YES.

It is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Thailand

Private, adult, consensual and non-commercial sodomy was decriminalized in Thailand in 1956.

Not bothering to respond to rest of your RANT. Typical right wing anti-GLBT civil rights BS.

Shame you didn't read it. It was a dose of common sense.

Thanks for the support - glad others can see common sense when they hear it. People may think I am wrong and they may not agree - but I try to make some sense (usually).

So when someone like the poster you responded to says something - I always ignore - no point trying to 'talk' to someone that does not have or understand common sense.

BUT - given the matter has come to 'light' through your post - I did some more research and there is some truth in what the left-wing Liberal said (I did read the post) and I stand corrected.

But homosexuality was not made 'legal' as such in Thailand in 1956.

What was made no longer illegal in 1956 was the ACT of homosexuality - that is 'doing it' became not illegal.

There has been a lot of additional 'changes' made over the years, but for a long time being homsexual was not 'legal' (only the actual act).

However - homsexuality became 'legal' in 2015 - and I did not know that (obviously not made public much and not discussed in my circles - nor the Thai wife's).

This is from the PinkNews website: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/10/thailand-introduces-first-law-to-protect-lgbt-people/

The country’s first law specifically protecting LGBT people came into effect this week.Thai parliament passed the 2015 Gender Equality Act in March. The law is is designed to protect members of the LGBT community and aims to punish discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Those found guilty of discrimination may face up to six months in jail and a 20,000 baht fine.

So that means of course that I will have to edit and re-post my comments

[BB24]

Too much money!

That's an amusing joke and I did think it was funny.

But of course, this whole thing is going to cost a huge sum of money that would have been better spent elsewhere.

Think for example, of how much money will be spent on litigation. Money that in many cases, will come out of school budgets.

I cannot believe all the stupid ignorant khrapp being written by so many people who support Obama's decree. This is so atypical of the left-wing Liberal agenda - more rules and regulations to control people's lives and to force people to think and believe what they do. There is some genuine stuff by the supporters of the decree - but the vast majority of what they are saying is either ignorance or is just people without a life stirring things up (no names). I have had my say previously, so I wont there again - but here are some valid points (IMO):

There is a reason it is illegal for a male to enter a female toilet (and vica versa); There are more devient men (and some women) than there are TG people; There is no way I will ever accept a law that makes it illegal for me to stop a male (TG or non-TG) entering the public toilets where my 9 yr old daughter is; Any male that does not have a child/daughter should preclude themselves from this discussion - this is something you dont understand (yet).

This issue is not about TG rights - the issue for most of us dead against this khrapp is about the rights of a parent to protect their daughter/son. The current laws provide me/us with that protection - taking that away aint gonna happen - end of story.

SO - given we are in Thailand (well most of us are) and most of us have children (well most of us do) - I want to raise a few more issues that are 'local'.

Is homosexuality 'legal' in Thailand? It was not before 2015! But does that mean everyone used to go about beating/killing gays and lebs? NO! Are they persecuted? NO! Were they persecuted before 2015? NO!! Why not - I dont understand - Dont gays/lebs need protection in laws to make them safe and secure? NO! But I thought that was how to get 'equality' and 'security' for gays/lebs - pass laws making it legal to be gay/leb and more laws making it illegal to discrimate or persecute them ? NO! Serious? Yes - those laws are only needed in the West where there are a lot of screwed up people!! Ahhh - now I understand - So is that why it is illegal in the West for a male to enter a female toilet? YES!!!!!!

[Credo]

In some ways it's sad that this has taken so long to come to fruition. Had this happened in the 60's they would have still had those bathrooms that were for Black's. Now they have disappeared.

[Jingthing]

B.S. Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1956. That means before then it was illegal. After that legal.

[BB24]

IMO those that came up with the idea for the decree, and those that support the decree by Obama, lack common sense - so I thought I would make it clear what that is:

Common Sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Common Sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

I just cannot understand how anyone would not have enough common sense to realise that passing any law/decree that makes it legal for a male (any male) to enter a female toilet (for whatever reason), is something that should not be done without great care and attention to the details of implementation and possible negative outcomes. These are examples of Inintended Consequences (Wikipedia) and IMO this decree by Obama would result in similar outcomes (more bad than good):

In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online.^[45] Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys.^[46] The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site.^[47] The Streisand effect was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming widely known, reported on, and distributed.^[48]

Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions.^[49]

The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward, but eventually enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.

Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland (in which thousands of people vowed never to drink alcohol again) led to the consumption of diethyl ether, an intoxicant much more dangerous due to its high flammability, by those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their pledge.^[50] (I will add here the disaster that was Prohibition in the USA).

It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately increasing overall energy consumption.^[51]

A reward for lost nets found along the Normandy coast, offered by the French government between 1980 and 1981, resulted in people vandalizing nets to collect the reward.^[52]

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the Federal Canadian government gave $2.25 per day, per psychiatric patient to the Catholic church in Quebec for their cost of care, and only $0.75 a day per orphan. The perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed mentally ill so the church could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, the children are known as the Duplessis Orphans.^[53][54][55]

Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to increase teenage pregnancy rates, rather than reduce them, when compared to either comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all.^[56]

There are more and more examples available of the folly of humans without common sense - unfortunately they are everywhere (and they vote).

Edited May 29, 2016 by BB24

[Scotwight]

Republicans and their hack commentators so love throwing around derogatory terms like "Tranny".

I wonder how this hypocritical piece of crap is going to enjoy having it thrown at him.

Lemme tell you honey if RuPaul thinks the term, "Tranny" is OK (and she does) then I sure can use that term any time I want. Stick to stuff you have a clue about and leave the tranny community alone.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Scotwight

[mopar71]

Right wingers gone wild!

Who's the threat?

The words my differ, but she is shrieking exactly like Hillary at a campaign speech.

[Dagnabbit]

Republicans and their hack commentators so love throwing around derogatory terms like "Tranny".

I wonder how this hypocritical piece of crap is going to enjoy having it thrown at him.

Lemme tell you honey if RuPaul thinks the term, "Tranny" is OK (and she does) then I sure can use that term any time I want. Stick to stuff you have a clue about and leave the tranny community alone.

I beleive this word is pretty much banned from TV though...

[Chicog]

Republicans and their hack commentators so love throwing around derogatory terms like "Tranny".

I wonder how this hypocritical piece of crap is going to enjoy having it thrown at him.

Lemme tell you honey if RuPaul thinks the term, "Tranny" is OK (and she does) then I sure can use that term any time I want. Stick to stuff you have a clue about and leave the tranny community alone.

[sampan]

*chirping crickets*

Maybe because most sensible people know that market cap is meaningless. It's the revenue that counts and that's going strong.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/target-transgender-bathroom-2/

[sampan]

Any male that does not have a child/daughter should preclude themselves from this discussion - this is something you dont understand (yet).

Anyone who is not LGBT should preclude themselves from this discussion - this is something you just don't understand. (and will never)

[sampan]

IMO those that came up with the idea for the decree, and those that support the decree by Obama, lack common sense - so I thought I would make it clear what that is:

Common Sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Common Sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

I just cannot understand how anyone would not have enough common sense to realise that passing any law/decree that makes it legal for a male (any male) to enter a female toilet (for whatever reason), is something that should not be done without great care and attention to the details of implementation and possible negative outcomes. These are examples of Inintended Consequences (Wikipedia) and IMO this decree by Obama would result in similar outcomes (more bad than good):

In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online.^[45] Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys.^[46] The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site.^[47] The Streisand effect was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming widely known, reported on, and distributed.^[48]

Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions.^[49]

The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward, but eventually enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.

Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland (in which thousands of people vowed never to drink alcohol again) led to the consumption of diethyl ether, an intoxicant much more dangerous due to its high flammability, by those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their pledge.^[50] (I will add here the disaster that was Prohibition in the USA).

It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately increasing overall energy consumption.^[51]

A reward for lost nets found along the Normandy coast, offered by the French government between 1980 and 1981, resulted in people vandalizing nets to collect the reward.^[52]

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the Federal Canadian government gave $2.25 per day, per psychiatric patient to the Catholic church in Quebec for their cost of care, and only $0.75 a day per orphan. The perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed mentally ill so the church could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, the children are known as the Duplessis Orphans.^[53][54][55]

Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to increase teenage pregnancy rates, rather than reduce them, when compared to either comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all.^[56]

There are more and more examples available of the folly of humans without common sense - unfortunately they are everywhere (and they vote).

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

Edited May 29, 2016 by sampan

[Scotwight]

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

[sampan]

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Your insistence on the the concept of genetic men is based on the same ignorance as the drafters of the North Carolina hate legislation HB2 who use the term biological sex.

Straight white men and religious nutbags do not get to define transgender people. Fortunately, the issue of the application of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the courts and as with the case of LGB people, it will be found that the Constitution does not allow States to discriminate against LGBT people.

Your insistence on the shower room angle merely continues the beat up of the scaremongering started by the religious nuts in their ongoing war on LGBT people. The crux of HB2 is not lockerooms but the definition of groups protected by North Carolina law and LGBT people are not included in this definition.

The Tranny argument, the men in dresses, the male sexual predators, the men showing with women - all of this is nonsensical alarmism being spread by people who are wilfully ignorant of LGBT people, their right to dignity and their right not to be defined by those who are biased against them. Transgender use of public facilities is not at all the same thing as men in female showers. You should not be telling transgender people what they should do until you understand and appreciate their position. LGBT people conform to their biology. it is the lack of respect for their dignity that creates the mental health issues in some of the LGBT community.

[Scotwight]

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Your insistence on the the concept of genetic men is based on the same ignorance as the drafters of the North Carolina hate legislation HB2 who use the term biological sex.

Straight white men and religious nutbags do not get to define transgender people. Fortunately, the issue of the application of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the courts and as with the case of LGB people, it will be found that the Constitution does not allow States to discriminate against LGBT people.

Your insistence on the shower room angle merely continues the beat up of the scaremongering started by the religious nuts in their ongoing war on LGBT people. The crux of HB2 is not lockerooms but the definition of groups protected by North Carolina law and LGBT people are not included in this definition.

The Tranny argument, the men in dresses, the male sexual predators, the men showing with women - all of this is nonsensical alarmism being spread by people who are wilfully ignorant of LGBT people, their right to dignity and their right not to be defined by those who are biased against them. Transgender use of public facilities is not at all the same thing as men in female showers. You should not be telling transgender people what they should do until you understand and appreciate their position. LGBT people conform to their biology. it is the lack of respect for their dignity that creates the mental health issues in some of the LGBT community.

The Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/27/north-carolina-governor-says-media-lying-transgender-law/

[sampan]

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Your insistence on the the concept of genetic men is based on the same ignorance as the drafters of the North Carolina hate legislation HB2 who use the term biological sex.

Straight white men and religious nutbags do not get to define transgender people. Fortunately, the issue of the application of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the courts and as with the case of LGB people, it will be found that the Constitution does not allow States to discriminate against LGBT people.

Your insistence on the shower room angle merely continues the beat up of the scaremongering started by the religious nuts in their ongoing war on LGBT people. The crux of HB2 is not lockerooms but the definition of groups protected by North Carolina law and LGBT people are not included in this definition.

The Tranny argument, the men in dresses, the male sexual predators, the men showing with women - all of this is nonsensical alarmism being spread by people who are wilfully ignorant of LGBT people, their right to dignity and their right not to be defined by those who are biased against them. Transgender use of public facilities is not at all the same thing as men in female showers. You should not be telling transgender people what they should do until you understand and appreciate their position. LGBT people conform to their biology. it is the lack of respect for their dignity that creates the mental health issues in some of the LGBT community.

The Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/27/north-carolina-governor-says-media-lying-transgender-law/

You asked to be corrected if you were wrong. I did that yet you retreat to further misinformation and alarmism. I don't think you can be taken on good faith.

Have you actually read the laws or do you just repost right wing alarmist garbage? I made reference to HB2 in my reply. Here is the text http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf Please refer to Part III, Section 3(a). For the Charlotte Ordinance, you are aware that it deals non discrimination in commercial contracts, public accommodations and vehicle hire? Please read the actual text from the ordinances http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com

Breightbard, you and countless others with an agenda push the alarmist crap about showers and toilets.

Charlotte Council passed a non discrimination ordinance. Religious bigots who promote hatred against LGBT people have turned a non issue about transgender females toilet access into a hysterical expression of bigotry fanned by the natural prejudices of straight white men against transgender and other LGBT people.

Just how many times does it need to be demonstrated by actual evidence that you are and continue to be wrong?

[BB24]

Any male that does not have a child/daughter should preclude themselves from this discussion - this is something you dont understand (yet).

Anyone who is not LGBT should preclude themselves from this discussion - this is something you just don't understand. (and will never)

Congratulations - that comment is further from common sense than anythying anyone has posted.

Only LGBTs should discuss issues that affect ALL people - because it has to do with LGBTs - spare me your complete lack of common sense.

[BB24]

IMO those that came up with the idea for the decree, and those that support the decree by Obama, lack common sense - so I thought I would make it clear what that is:

Common Sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Common Sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

I just cannot understand how anyone would not have enough common sense to realise that passing any law/decree that makes it legal for a male (any male) to enter a female toilet (for whatever reason), is something that should not be done without great care and attention to the details of implementation and possible negative outcomes. These are examples of Inintended Consequences (Wikipedia) and IMO this decree by Obama would result in similar outcomes (more bad than good):

In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online.^[45] Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys.^[46] The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site.^[47] The Streisand effect was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming widely known, reported on, and distributed.^[48]

Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions.^[49]

The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward, but eventually enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.

Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland (in which thousands of people vowed never to drink alcohol again) led to the consumption of diethyl ether, an intoxicant much more dangerous due to its high flammability, by those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their pledge.^[50] (I will add here the disaster that was Prohibition in the USA).

It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately increasing overall energy consumption.^[51]

A reward for lost nets found along the Normandy coast, offered by the French government between 1980 and 1981, resulted in people vandalizing nets to collect the reward.^[52]

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the Federal Canadian government gave $2.25 per day, per psychiatric patient to the Catholic church in Quebec for their cost of care, and only $0.75 a day per orphan. The perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed mentally ill so the church could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, the children are known as the Duplessis Orphans.^[53][54][55]

Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to increase teenage pregnancy rates, rather than reduce them, when compared to either comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all.^[56]

There are more and more examples available of the folly of humans without common sense - unfortunately they are everywhere (and they vote).

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

Another posting that shows a complete lack of common sense - you are a newbie, but maybe you should grow up a little before trying to join in with the adults.

I will just throw somehting back at you and let you/others think about what you said exactly: This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense.....

Your Honour - the prosecution rests it case.

[BB24]

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Your insistence on the the concept of genetic men is based on the same ignorance as the drafters of the North Carolina hate legislation HB2 who use the term biological sex.

Straight white men and religious nutbags do not get to define transgender people. Fortunately, the issue of the application of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the courts and as with the case of LGB people, it will be found that the Constitution does not allow States to discriminate against LGBT people.

Your insistence on the shower room angle merely continues the beat up of the scaremongering started by the religious nuts in their ongoing war on LGBT people. The crux of HB2 is not lockerooms but the definition of groups protected by North Carolina law and LGBT people are not included in this definition.

The Tranny argument, the men in dresses, the male sexual predators, the men showing with women - all of this is nonsensical alarmism being spread by people who are wilfully ignorant of LGBT people, their right to dignity and their right not to be defined by those who are biased against them. Transgender use of public facilities is not at all the same thing as men in female showers. You should not be telling transgender people what they should do until you understand and appreciate their position. LGBT people conform to their biology. it is the lack of respect for their dignity that creates the mental health issues in some of the LGBT community.

<deleted>?? That 'reply' makes about as much sense as a three pound note - NONE.

Apologies to Chicog for plagarism, but this your post up entirely:

[sampan]

IMO those that came up with the idea for the decree, and those that support the decree by Obama, lack common sense - so I thought I would make it clear what that is:

Common Sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Common Sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

I just cannot understand how anyone would not have enough common sense to realise that passing any law/decree that makes it legal for a male (any male) to enter a female toilet (for whatever reason), is something that should not be done without great care and attention to the details of implementation and possible negative outcomes. These are examples of Inintended Consequences (Wikipedia) and IMO this decree by Obama would result in similar outcomes (more bad than good):

In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online.^[45] Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys.^[46] The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site.^[47] The Streisand effect was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming widely known, reported on, and distributed.^[48]

Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions.^[49]

The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward, but eventually enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.

Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland (in which thousands of people vowed never to drink alcohol again) led to the consumption of diethyl ether, an intoxicant much more dangerous due to its high flammability, by those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their pledge.^[50] (I will add here the disaster that was Prohibition in the USA).

It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately increasing overall energy consumption.^[51]

A reward for lost nets found along the Normandy coast, offered by the French government between 1980 and 1981, resulted in people vandalizing nets to collect the reward.^[52]

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the Federal Canadian government gave $2.25 per day, per psychiatric patient to the Catholic church in Quebec for their cost of care, and only $0.75 a day per orphan. The perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed mentally ill so the church could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, the children are known as the Duplessis Orphans.^[53][54][55]

Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to increase teenage pregnancy rates, rather than reduce them, when compared to either comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all.^[56]

There are more and more examples available of the folly of humans without common sense - unfortunately they are everywhere (and they vote).

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

Another posting that shows a complete lack of common sense - you are a newbie, but maybe you should grow up a little before trying to join in with the adults.

I will just throw somehting back at you and let you/others think about what you said exactly: This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense.....

Your Honour - the prosecution rests it case.

I am wondering if you are able to back up your very common non-sense statement that your status of over 300 posts makes your statements more credible that those of someone with fewer posts. I have noticed on this thread a number of your posts where you ask then answer your own questions, invariably including the clear and obvious bias of your complete unwillingness to allow LGBT people the right to dignity. This kind of approach does, I guess mean that you can win your own debates.

You have claimed the common sense ground. You may not stray into the world of exceptional sense. You claimed to be common and you are now stuck with it. If you are to claim this ground then arguing that other posters lack this requires evidence and justification and some kind of rationale.

"Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agin" or for those with no Latin "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

You ad hominem waffle and self-congratulatory celebration do not meet this standard. I very much doubt you have the capacity to do so.

Perhaps you might address the issue of the right of LGBT people to not be defined by people like you?

Edited May 29, 2016 by sampan

[Chicog]

Just keep in mind this wasn't an issue until the 'party of values' decided to make it one.

[Chicog]

They do seem to spend a lot of time worrying about peoples' toilet habits.

But apparently if you are a Republican like Dennis Hastert they'll support you all the way when it's *proven* that you're a paedophile. Odd bunch eh?

[Scott]

Off-topic post and replies removed.

[Scotwight]

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Your insistence on the the concept of genetic men is based on the same ignorance as the drafters of the North Carolina hate legislation HB2 who use the term biological sex.

Straight white men and religious nutbags do not get to define transgender people. Fortunately, the issue of the application of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the courts and as with the case of LGB people, it will be found that the Constitution does not allow States to discriminate against LGBT people.

Your insistence on the shower room angle merely continues the beat up of the scaremongering started by the religious nuts in their ongoing war on LGBT people. The crux of HB2 is not lockerooms but the definition of groups protected by North Carolina law and LGBT people are not included in this definition.

The Tranny argument, the men in dresses, the male sexual predators, the men showing with women - all of this is nonsensical alarmism being spread by people who are wilfully ignorant of LGBT people, their right to dignity and their right not to be defined by those who are biased against them. Transgender use of public facilities is not at all the same thing as men in female showers. You should not be telling transgender people what they should do until you understand and appreciate their position. LGBT people conform to their biology. it is the lack of respect for their dignity that creates the mental health issues in some of the LGBT community.

The Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/27/north-carolina-governor-says-media-lying-transgender-law/

You asked to be corrected if you were wrong. I did that yet you retreat to further misinformation and alarmism. I don't think you can be taken on good faith.

Have you actually read the laws or do you just repost right wing alarmist garbage? I made reference to HB2 in my reply. Here is the text http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf Please refer to Part III, Section 3(a). For the Charlotte Ordinance, you are aware that it deals non discrimination in commercial contracts, public accommodations and vehicle hire? Please read the actual text from the ordinances http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com

Breightbard, you and countless others with an agenda push the alarmist crap about showers and toilets.

Charlotte Council passed a non discrimination ordinance. Religious bigots who promote hatred against LGBT people have turned a non issue about transgender females toilet access into a hysterical expression of bigotry fanned by the natural prejudices of straight white men against transgender and other LGBT people.

Just how many times does it need to be demonstrated by actual evidence that you are and continue to be wrong?

Earlier this month, President Obama issued a directive telling schools that they must allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity instead of the sex on their birth certificate.

http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Bevin-filing-lawsuit-against-Obama-administration-over-transgender-bathroom-directive-381124141.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Public schools must permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their chosen gender identity, according to an Obama administration directive issued amid a court fight between the federal government and North Carolina.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/591d51141ae5466a9c3084175f17b2de/us-gives-directive-schools-transgender-bathroom-access

Schools should let transgender students use bathrooms, locker rooms and other sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity, according to the guidance. Staff should address transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. Schools cannot require students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate before treating them consistent with their gender identity, the guidance states.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/transgender-bathrooms-obama-administration/

The letter also contained a portion about restroom and locker room use. That guidance stated that under Title IX, schools were prohibited from forcing students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity. That directive further stated transgender students could not be "segregated" from others in restrooms and locker rooms:

http://www.snopes.com/obama-transgender-bathrooms/

[Boon Mee]

How many bilions of dollars in stock valuations has Target Stores lost to date now with this ridiculous issue?

[Boon Mee]

Sums it right up. Priorities seem to have become skewed:

[arjunadawn]

Republicans and their hack commentators so love throwing around derogatory terms like "Tranny".

I wonder how this hypocritical piece of crap is going to enjoy having it thrown at him.

Lemme tell you honey if RuPaul thinks the term, "Tranny" is OK (and she does) then I sure can use that term any time I want. Stick to stuff you have a clue about and leave the tranny community alone.

This is hilarious. ThkU

[JDGRUEN]

IMO those that came up with the idea for the decree, and those that support the decree by Obama, lack common sense - so I thought I would make it clear what that is:

Common Sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Common Sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

I just cannot understand how anyone would not have enough common sense to realise that passing any law/decree that makes it legal for a male (any male) to enter a female toilet (for whatever reason), is something that should not be done without great care and attention to the details of implementation and possible negative outcomes. These are examples of Inintended Consequences (Wikipedia) and IMO this decree by Obama would result in similar outcomes (more bad than good):

In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online.^[45] Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys.^[46] The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site.^[47] The Streisand effect was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming widely known, reported on, and distributed.^[48]

Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions.^[49]

The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward, but eventually enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.

Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland (in which thousands of people vowed never to drink alcohol again) led to the consumption of diethyl ether, an intoxicant much more dangerous due to its high flammability, by those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their pledge.^[50] (I will add here the disaster that was Prohibition in the USA).

It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately increasing overall energy consumption.^[51]

A reward for lost nets found along the Normandy coast, offered by the French government between 1980 and 1981, resulted in people vandalizing nets to collect the reward.^[52]

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the Federal Canadian government gave $2.25 per day, per psychiatric patient to the Catholic church in Quebec for their cost of care, and only $0.75 a day per orphan. The perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed mentally ill so the church could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, the children are known as the Duplessis Orphans.^[53][54][55]

Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to increase teenage pregnancy rates, rather than reduce them, when compared to either comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all.^[56]

There are more and more examples available of the folly of humans without common sense - unfortunately they are everywhere (and they vote).

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

Total Malarkey