US: Transgender bathroom bill delayed amid financial questions

[webfact]

Transgender bathroom bill delayed amid financial questions
By ERIK SCHELZIG and SHEILA BURKE

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The sponsor of a Tennessee transgender bathroom bill told a Senate committee Tuesday that he has to consider a state attorney general's opinion before going forward. The move came the same day the White House called the proposal "mean-spirited."

Sen. Mike Bell, R-Riceville, told the Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee that he wanted another day to consider an opinion that State Attorney General Herbert Slatery issued Monday that said federal education funding could be placed at risk if the measure becomes law. A fiscal analysis said the bill could cost the state more than $1.2 billion in federal money for K-12 and higher education.

"I'm still trying to digest and understand the impact of the attorney general's opinion," Bell said.

Bell said he wanted to bring the bill back up Wednesday but Sen. Bo Watson, R-Chattanooga, and the vice chairman of the finance committee, warned that the projected cost of the bill will likely cause it to be placed among unfunded bills to be considered after the budget has passed. Those bills often don't become law unless sponsors find a way to eliminate the cost or find a source of funding.

The bill would require students in public grade schools and universities to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender at birth.

It is part of a wave of legislation across the country that opponents say is discriminatory toward gay, bisexual and transgender people. Supporters say Tennessee's bathroom bill protects the rights of everyone.

A White House spokesman criticized Tennessee's proposed law and similar ones in other states during a press briefing.

"The administration is firmly committed to promoting and defending (the) equal rights of all Americans, including LGBT Americans," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. "Specific laws like this that seek to target and marginalize one small segment of the population is nothing less than mean spirited."

"States like Tennessee and, to a certain extent North Carolina and Mississippi, have a long history over the last couple of generations of working through questions of civil rights. President Obama has talked on a number of occasions about the important progress that our country has made with regard to civil rights.

"This is a good illustration that ... the fight for civil rights is not over and demanding equality for every American and ensuring those Americans are not singled out or targeted because of their sex or their race or what their last name is or their religion or who they love or who they are is a struggle that continues and the president, every time, is going to be on the side of equality and fairness and justice for every American."

Bell disagreed with the characterization of his bill.

"This is not about equal rights or civil rights — it is about special rights," he said in an emailed statement. "It is not surprising that the Obama administration in their own words is 'promoting and defending' this action, while ignoring the safety and privacy of young women and girls."

Republican Gov. Bill Haslam told reporters that he considers the statements out of the White House "sort of immaterial to the debate" at the state Capitol.

"At the end of the day, it will be a Tennessee decision," Haslam said. "It will be decided in the Legislature, and obviously we'll get to decide whether we sign it."

The transgender bathroom bill has already generated backlash from some in the business community, and Haslam has raised concerns that the measure could cost the state money if it becomes law.

In several states, major businesses and sports organizations — including Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines, Walt Disney Co., the NFL and the NCAA — have joined lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists in raising concerns that similar measures could legalize discrimination. CMT, the Nashville-based cable station that features country music videos and other TV entertainment, and parent company Viacom have come out against the bill.
___

Associated Press writer Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-13

[pedro01]

Use locker rooms of your choice?

Well done the BLT community!

Sure - let my daughter change clothes with the boys at school.

What could possibly go wrong???

'Female changing rooms are discriminatory' - sure they are....

Edited April 13, 2016 by pedro01

[Pinot]

Use locker rooms of your choice?

Well done the BLT community!

Sure - let my daughter change clothes with the boys at school.

What could possibly go wrong???

'Female changing rooms are discriminatory' - sure they are....

Yeah, as if...

Wingnuts try and spin this bullshit as everything but what it is, hate directed at a minority they fear. It reminds me of the Voter ID laws. Another law enacted to prevent something that's never happened.

Hate and fear, the two things Republicans can all agree on. The extremism of the GOP establishment becomes more obvious every day. Instead of live and let live they create laws for crimes and situations that don't exist. All these ideas have varying degrees of evil and selfishness.

Keep the population uneducated and fearful and the workers will be less likely to complain about working in poisonous conditions with danger looming daily but at least no gays will be using the porta potty.

The Transgender bathroom bill...this is what the pathetic cracker state wingnuts come up with? They're doing such a great job of not only destroying: the economy, education, healthcare, job creation, pensions, the energy systems, clean water, and the climate/environment, etc. etc, etc.

Republicans no longer resemble American citizens. They're a world wide embarrassment.

[Jingthing]

What's happening in the south now is very similar to what the south did over racial issues. It's the anti-GLBT equivalent of JIM CROW LAWS. It's part of a BACKLASH to the national marriage equality victory, but GLBT Americans still do not enjoy legal protection against discrimination in vital matters such as housing, employment, etc.

The south is properly ASHAMED of the racist JIM CROW laws now just like they will be ASHAMED of these new anti-GLBT JIM CROW laws in future.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/26/its-not-just-az-gay-jim-crow-laws-are-popping-up-across-the-us/

What are JIM CROW laws for those who don't know?

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

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[HarrySeaman]

What's happening in the south now is very similar to what the south did over racial issues. It's the anti-GLBT equivalent of JIM CROW LAWS. It's part of a BACKLASH to the national marriage equality victory, but GLBT Americans still do not enjoy legal protection against discrimination in vital matters such as housing, employment, etc.

The problem isn't just in the Southern USA, it is in the Northern USA too. Don't forget Indiana and other Northern states have passes so called religious rights laws that are clearly laws allowing discrimination against someone that doesn't fit into a narrow definition of sexual orientation or agree the same conservative Christian narrow definition of morality.

Jim Crow is alive and well, it is just rainbow colored now instead of black.

[Jingthing]

Perhaps, but it's still mostly a SOUTHERN thing and I expect that will continue.

[sgtsabai]

I remember those signs as a kid, didn't understand then why a black person couldn't drink the same water I did or use the same bathroom. I remember a visiting my Dad's home in Vandervort, Ark., outside Mena. At the train station in Mena, and there was a large sign making it very, very clear that blacks should not get off the train or be caught after sundown in town. I thought SE Texas was backasswards, damn what a bunch of hillbillies. The locals looked like movie extras and really did not like my cousin and I beating them in pool a few years later when I was 17. Left the pool hall post haste. Fishing was good though.

[Kabula]

A simple solution is to have their own restrooms!

[Jingthing]

A simple solution is to have their own restrooms!

It's not practical to expect separate facilities for transgender people. It's just not economically realistic. Simple but in most cases impossible as the cost can't be justified.

What does work and exists many places already ... UNISEX toilets such as at Starbucks. Single serve though.

[up-country_sinclair]

A simple solution is to have their own restrooms!

Unfortunately, that's not good enough for them.

The agenda driven activists wills say, "oh, it's too expensive" or "oh, it's just not practical" but this is all just a ruse. Tell them that you're going to fund it privately and you can bet they'll turn it down because of some half baked understanding of the term civil rights.

Edited April 13, 2016 by up-country_sinclair

[RaoulDuke]

Given that there have been more arrests of US Congressmen for indecent behavior in public restrooms than there have been of transgender people, it is safe to say these bills are a tiny bit unwarranted. It is also worth mentioning that the states passing these laws are also the states that make it extremely difficult or impossible for transgender people to even change their documents at all. And why would someone intent on committing rape be deterred by a bathroom bill? Is rape legal if they are allowed in said restroom?

[Puccini]

I can't understand why states or counties or municipalities seek to introduce special, discriminatory laws or regulations regarding the use of toilets. Does it not say, in the federal constitution and probably also in the constitution of the state of Tennessee, that all persons have equal right regardless of race, gender, age, political affiliation, sexual orientation, etc?

Therefore, all male persons have the equal right to use men's toilets and it would be discriminatory to force some men to use the women's toilets because they like to wear women's clothes.

All women have equal rights to use women's toilets, ie toilets from which male persons are excluded, and it would be discriminatory to force the presence of men on them in woman's toilets.

In fact, it is already unconstitutional and discriminatory to have separate toilets for men and for women, the same as it would be discriminatory to have separate buses for men and women or for white and black people or for heterosexuals and homosexuals, etc.

[JetsetBkk]

Can someone explain why, in the opinion of State Attorney General Herbert Slatery, "federal education funding could be placed at risk if the measure becomes law."

[Jingthing]

Notice the right wing BIGOT argument doesn't care at all about how their HATE laws endanger the lives of TRANSGENDER people.

[Jingthing]

Can someone explain why, in the opinion of State Attorney General Herbert Slatery, "federal education funding could be placed at risk if the measure becomes law."

This should explain it.

You see these bigot laws violate some FEDERAL protections against discrimination, so even though the feds can't make these states not pass their bigot laws, they CAN deny federal FUNDING.

Nothing new, especially in the SOUTH which is historically resistant to different kinds of CIVIL RIGHTS movements.

http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/4/11/tennessee-ag-anti-trans-bill-will-almost-certainly-cost-state-millions

The U.S. Department of Education has held that because Title IX forbids sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funds, it also bans discrimination based on gender identity or expression. Tennessee receives about $3 billion a year in federal funding for public elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities.

[Jingthing]

I can't understand why states or counties or municipalities seek to introduce special, discriminatory laws or regulations regarding the use of toilets. Does it not say, in the federal constitution and probably also in the constitution of the state of Tennessee, that all persons have equal right regardless of race, gender, age, political affiliation, sexual orientation, etc?

Therefore, all male persons have the equal right to use men's toilets and it would be discriminatory to force some men to use the women's toilets because they like to wear women's clothes.

All women have equal rights to use women's toilets, ie toilets from which male persons are excluded, and it would be discriminatory to force the presence of men on them in woman's toilets.

In fact, it is already unconstitutional and discriminatory to have separate toilets for men and for women, the same as it would be discriminatory to have separate buses for men and women or for white and black people or for heterosexuals and homosexuals, etc.

Satire I reckon.

[Puccini]

Because the federal government and the federal parliament can do it if they want to.

[Jingthing]

Because the federal government and the federal parliament can do it if they want to.

Sure thing. U.S. parliament. You're a real comedian.

[thaihome]

Use locker rooms of your choice?

Well done the BLT community!

Sure - let my daughter change clothes with the boys at school.

What could possibly go wrong???

'Female changing rooms are discriminatory' - sure they are....

Perhaps you should ask your daughter how she feels if a transgender friend were to use the girl's locker room.

TH

[rijit]

Judging by the no of cos that have objected and the financial implications, it needs more than stalling it.needs totally withdrawing QUICKLY.

A major FUC up by the biggots.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[lostboy]

A simple solution is to have their own restrooms!

Unfortunately, that's not good enough for them.

The agenda driven activists wills say, "oh, it's too expensive" or "oh, it's just not practical" but this is all just a ruse. Tell them that you're going to fund it privately and you can bet they'll turn it down because of some half baked understanding of the term civil rights.

You can point to anyone, anywhere who has said this in response to proposals to allow trans people access to toilets?

No. Of course not. These fantasy conversations are just in your own mind.

[JCauto]

A simple solution is to have their own restrooms!

Unfortunately, that's not good enough for them.

The agenda driven activists wills say, "oh, it's too expensive" or "oh, it's just not practical" but this is all just a ruse. Tell them that you're going to fund it privately and you can bet they'll turn it down because of some half baked understanding of the term civil rights.

Okay, as you're either not bright enough to understand or so blinded by hate to understand, I'll explain it for you.

Option 1: Don't pass this new law.

Consequences: Legal - zero. There have been zero reported cases of harassment in public bathrooms by transgendered people. Not passing a law against a crime that has never been committed has zero impact.

Economic - zero. There will be no major impact on the economy since no changes have been made and anyone who would refuse to do business in the state because of the problem of young girls/boys being harassed in public bathrooms does not exist.

Option 2: Pass this new law.

Consequences: Legal - enormous. You can expect this to be a perpetual lawyer money-spinning machine as the court cases against this proliferate and bounce between the state and federal courts. This will result in large costs to taxpayers to fund something that affects nobody and will result in nothing useful. In addition, it's almost certain to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Economic - enormous. There are already billions of state funding for education that will be removed. Similar to what happened in North Carolina, there will be boycotts by companies who will not shoot movies, will move their head offices, etc. This will negatively impact the state and no additional business is likely to be generated by "pro" bathroom segregators whose own businesses would be boycotted outside of the state if they were to publicly support this bill.

Option 3 - OP Suggestion to Require Public LGBT Bathrooms.

Consequences: Legal - This would be far-reaching and a heavy imposition on everyone living in the state. The requirement would likely have knock-on effects on the building codes such that every building that exists and that will be constructed would have to change their designs to accommodate extra bathrooms, no doubt to a level of availability equivalent to non-LGBT people. You can expect a spate of lawsuits against any business who doesn't accede to the heavy burden this new law would place on them.

Economic - This would impose a significant cost and large hassle on EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS in the state who would have to either construct new bathrooms specifically for the small numbers of LGBT people there or allocate some of their existing bathrooms for the purpose. The costs for this would run into the billions for sure, as businesses either have to move premises simply to gain additional bathroom space to comply with the law or have to construct new ones. Oh, not just businesses by the way, also government buildings etc.

So, let's see, which choice to make here? Come on up-country_Sinclair, I know you can do it!

[Jingthing]

Never heard of the idea of separate LGBT bathrooms.

As a gay man I would never agree to be segregated that way.

Or maybe the bigots want gay and lesbian people to have a RED TATTOO saying so branded on our heads.

On the other hand, I'm surprised the OVER THE TOP anti-GLBT BIGOTS aren't trying to legislate banning gay men from the men's and gay women from the women's. Why stop at messing with TRANSGENDER people?

You know those butch lesbians, they might rape your girlfriend with a sex toy. It could happen!

Gay men, they may sneak a cheeky peek at your pathetic ding dong at the urinal ...

Maybe that's next on the list of the hurtful agenda of the anti-GLBT bigots.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[JetsetBkk]

Never heard of the idea of separate LGBT bathrooms.

As a gay man I would never agree to be segregated that way.

Or maybe the bigots want gay and lesbian people to have a RED TATTOO saying so branded on our heads.

On the other hand, I'm surprised the OVER THE TOP anti-GLBT BIGOTS aren't trying to legislate banning gay men from the men's and gay women from the women's. Why stop at messing with TRANSGENDER people?

You know those butch lesbians, they might rape your girlfriend with a sex toy. It could happen!

Gay men, they may sneak a cheeky peek at your pathetic ding dong at the urinal ...

Maybe that's next on the list of the hurtful agenda of the anti-GLBT bigots.

Gay men sneaking a peak in the urinal! Nooo, no!

It's bad enough with the female toilet attendants mopping the floor around you while you are trying to have a quiet pee, without the thought of gays sneaking a peak. Mind you, if the female attendants were actually transgender men then that wouldn't be so ... oh, hang on, I've lost my train of thought here.

[gk10002000]

I am tired of this transgender thing. When I was a freshman in college our dormitory was Co-ed. We shared a bathroom with the girls and the guys. We managed to get along. When you showered, you closed the door. When you sat down on the toilet you closed the door. Nobody ever had to see anybody else naked. So I fail to see why buildings need to be re-built and modified to add new bathrooms. To me a transgender could be as offensive to a man as having a gay man use the same bathroom as a transgender might be to a woman that sees a lesbian use the bathroom, or in either case the opposite sex. I use the bathroom to go to the bathroom. When I am at the beach or some other public outing, there are port potties set up next to each other that boys, girls and everything in between use. I see no reason why interior bathrooms can't bet treated the same way. Stop spending this time and money.

[ChoakMyDee]

How did life get so complicated?

[Jingthing]

How did life get so complicated?

Well, if you're talking about transgender people in the U.S., there has been a trend in recent years towards much greater VISIBILITY of that small minority group.

Films, t.v. shows, political activism, and don't forget CAITLYN JENNER, the transgender REPUBLICAN. Yes, that IS weird.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[ChoakMyDee]

How did life get so complicated?

Well, if you're talking about transgender people in the U.S., there has been a trend in recent years towards much greater VISIBILITY of that small minority group.

Films, t.v. shows, political activism, and don't forget CAITLYN JENNER, the transgender REPUBLICAN. Yes, that IS weird.

before.jpgphotoshop.jpg

When I said "How did life get so complicated?" I meant that we seem to be dealing with a lot of issues nowadays that were never even dreamed of years ago. I'm well aware of the LGBT trend. I have a friend from years ago who recently came out as transgender...I'm sure Caitlyn Jenner has paved the way for a lot of trans people.

[Boatfreak]

Can someone explain me how the US bathrooms look like? Are there no doors on the cubicles? Do they walk around naked or what? At what stage will the women see that the men dressed as a women is shaking his Willy?

Edited April 14, 2016 by Boatfreak

[gk10002000]

Can someone explain me how the US bathrooms look like? Are there no doors on the cubicles? Do they walk around naked or what? At what stage will the women see that the men dressed as a women is shaking his Willy?

The main difference between boy and girl bathrooms is the male bathrooms in addition to sit down enclosed toilets, typically will have urinals along the wall and are not enclosed in a "cubicle". They might have a small partition between each one but that is about it. All sit down toilets have doors, except in the military training boot camps where they practice seems to be to remove the doors!

Edited April 14, 2016 by gk10002000