Federal judge strikes down Tennessee's transgender bathroom sign law

[tmurray]

When a transgender person has been appointed to a position of authority am I not allowed to be concerned that the mental illness that caused that person to remove their genitals might manifest in other abhorrent ways?

You're a little bit behind the times, while being transgendered was once considered a mental illness, it was removed from ICD-11 and is no longer considered an illness.

 

[tmurray]

Not all change is for the better. There is no way to prevent change so Luddites are vocal but not heard. I have no issue with an individual that chooses to deny their gender other than a belief that when taken to an extreme it becomes an illness of the mind.

The government has no authority over a transgender person's life. The conundrum then is what can the government require of me with regards to those people with the aforementioned condition. Am I supposed to embrace them as normal in every respect. When a transgender person has been appointed to a position of authority am I not allowed to be concerned that the mental illness that caused that person to remove their genitals might manifest in other abhorrent ways?

A recent Miss USA pageant contestant from the state of Nevada was a man. Do you think that perhaps this has gone a step too far?

Sorry, just realized you posed a question and I did not answer. My honest response is that I genuinely do not care what a pageant does or does not do. I feel try provide little if any value to society.

So, they can do whatever they want. It doesn't affect me.

 

[ICE]

You're a little bit behind the times, while being transgendered was once considered a mental illness, it was removed from ICD-11 and is no longer considered an illness.

Oh not just a little bit....I'm miles away from you guys. Luckily it matters not. There's plenty that was once considered a mental illness and has now been affirmed as normal....at the worst, unusual but hey now, live and let live. You can thank the medical profession for that. Once the tail gets to wagging the dog, rational reasoning is pushed aside.

 

[ICE]

So, they can do whatever they want. It doesn't affect me.

You are wrong about that. You might not care about that particular travesty but as these deviations pop up they give rise to the next. Given time there will be strange phenomena that will impact you. It could hardly be otherwise.

Consider the effect on the rest of society. A society that you are a member of. As it changes them, it changes you. Ten years ago would you have been nonchalant about transgenderism? How about twenty years ago?

 

[BJN]

I'm more concerned by the thousands of transgendered assaulted by transphobic people. Forcing a transgendered female to only use male restrooms will result in many more assasults.

When does that happen and it isn’t later proven to be a hoax?

Hoaxes, btw, are hate crimes against straight people.

 

[tbz]

The sidestep a post can take, a good friend of mine has been saying for a few years now, he feels deeply for his grandchildren and is thankful he is closer to being on his way out, than way in.

What I find the most ironic, is those that that preach inclusion and social justice issues the most, are the most intolerant and bias pointing out if you don't agree with their point of view, you should have no rights at all because you are "stupid and a racist".

I am glad I came up in the era I did, because those of us that had a different view talked about it, and enjoyed the conversation and not screaming matches stopping the other from expressing a view, nor insulting them for that view. Simply we agreed to disagree.

Today, to disagree with or even listen to another point of view is considered blasphemy.

The discussion should not be gender IMO, it should simply be privacy and security.

The simple fact is, IMO, I don't believe a rightminded male has any issues with a female using the same facility, however I am venturing a guess that a majority of females have a greater issue with males using their facilities.

Thus, as stated earlier in the thread xy and xx is one fix, because scientific facts should count for something.

The other is simply just social distance everyone from any contact at all, especially in the restroom, thus private restrooms for everyone, hence no sign needed to be explained, other than this is the place....but here comes the next question of security, if everyone is blocked off completely, how does someone know if someone else is in destress?

and When did the good of the few become greater than the good of the many?

All only questions for thought and reflection, and hopefully returns to open debate in the future.

 

[bill1952]

What I find the most ironic, is those that that preach inclusion and social justice issues the most, are the most intolerant and bias pointing out if you don't agree with their point of view, you should have no rights at all because you are "stupid and a racist".

That was my point about the paradox of tolerating the intolerant. In this thread though, your point is disproved based on who labels transgenders mentally ill.

 

[ICE]

your point is disproved based on who labels transgenders mentally ill.

Well I wasn't screaming.

"and When did the good of the few become greater than the good of the many?"

0.039% of the US population identifies opposite of the biological sex at birth. There is no reliable statistic as to the percentage of the population that thinks that transgenderism is wrong. I have met many people that are okay with it and think that it is wrong. I would venture to guess that everyone that is not transgender thinks it is wrong and a great many consider it to be extremely wrong.... a mental illness.

 

[mtlogcabin]

There is Tolerance and there is Acceptance and they mean different things. However one group strongly believes that if someone does not accept a certain lifestyle choice of an individual then that person is intolerant when in reality that person just disagrees with the lifestyle choice that group has chosen.

 

[bill1952]

Part of tolerance is allowing those person's whose lifestyle you do accept to exist. Labeling them mentally ill and not affording them the right of their choices is intolerant.

 

[ICE]

Calling transgenderism a lifestyle is a stretch that I'm not willing to make. The suffix ism indicates that there's more to this than a casual life choice. Racism, narcissism, cannibalism....well I guess that last one is proof that I am not unwilling to stretch.

I have not advocated that transgender people should not be allowed to exist. I would be pleased if the concept didn't exist but that cat escaped and there's no putting it back in the tube. What I find extraordinary is transgender people demanding privileges beyond what the rest of us expect. They have the balls to push us around....well I guess that's not true...no matter which way they go.

So now that I have sufficiently offended you, Shirley you will see the crux of the situation. The absolute horror that accompanies the mutilation of the human body. If that's not a mental defect...then there is no such thing as a mental defect.



Jeff hasn't been logged in since 5-1-2022. When he returns I hope that he understands that this thread is not about religion or politics...nay, nay...this is a lifestyle topic.

 

[bill1952]

Evidence of transgender people from 9000 years ago, not quite like the cat escaped in our lifetime.

Are you against boob jobs too or do you consider that mutilation of the human body OK? And only a minority, 10-15%, have reassignment surgery in the genital area, so if that's your main objection, consider giving the overwhelming number a break.

 

[ICE]

Bill,
Neither of us is going to change course. We can agree to disagree and let this discussion fade away.

 

[steveray]

how does someone know if someone else is in destress?

(Add) 1109.2.4 Single occupancy toilet. Required accessible toilet rooms designed for single
occupancy in other than Group R shall meet the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1. Each such
room shall contain both toilet and lavatory, shall have a lever handle privacy lockset and shall
have an emergency call system that actuates a visible and audible alarm in a normally occupied
area. An alarm pull switch, identified with emergency instruction, shall be provided within 3 feet
of the water closet with a pull cord extending to within 12 inches of the floor. Emergency
instructions shall be provided outside the toilet room at the normally occupied location.

 

[bill1952]

That's for "required accessible toilet rooms". Are you suggesting all single user toilet rooms be so equipped? Universal design.

I don't know if there is concern for rooms like this in high schools.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The transgendered person in Northern Virginia was transferred to another school where he/she raped a female student. The school board tried to cover it up. The father of the first girl was arrested after he got irate at a school board meeting where the superintendent lied about the incident.

 

[ICE]

A female inmate in California is now reportedly pregnant after women’s prisons were forced to accept biological male prisoners claiming to be women.

 

[Yikes]

As it regards the code, California Building Code does not require multi-user restrooms to be gender-neutral. It also does not require single accommodation restrooms.
However, California law does require that when single-accommodation public restrooms are provided, they must have have gender-neutral or "family" signage.

Side topic: Prior to the industrial revolution, outhouses were originally gender neutral (and/or there were "chamberpots"). Sex-specific outhouses came about because guys made such a mess that the women demanded their own. The men's outhouses had a sun logo, and the women's a moon logo. Over the years, the Sun outhouses deteriorated quicker (due to all the men's 'overspray') and fell apart, which is why when you visit a ghost town you see mostly just the moon outhouses still standing. This is how we associate the moon as a symbol for outhouses in general.

The modern sex-specific, indoor-plumbed, multi-user restroom came about during the industrial revolution as women left the home/rural environment to work in factories in the city. This was a shift in culture, as they were leaving the male family and community members who they might typically rely upon for protection around the home or farm, and going into a city full of strangers. So yes, the goal behind sex-segregated multi-user restrooms was to protect females from male predators.

 

[tbz]

(Add) 1109.2.4 Single occupancy toilet. Required accessible toilet rooms designed for single
occupancy in other than Group R shall meet the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1. Each such
room shall contain both toilet and lavatory, shall have a lever handle privacy lockset and shall
have an emergency call system that actuates a visible and audible alarm in a normally occupied
area. An alarm pull switch, identified with emergency instruction, shall be provided within 3 feet
of the water closet with a pull cord extending to within 12 inches of the floor. Emergency
instructions shall be provided outside the toilet room at the normally occupied location.

I get the whole; emergency pull and code/standard requirement.

However, my concerns and thoughts are more from a concern of someone being shoved into a space which has no other observational view.

Thus, more privacy could lead to more problems, possibly?

Hence your dammed if you do and if you don't.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Simple fix for the next session to consider

(a) A public or private entity or business that operates a building or facility open to the general public and that, as a matter of formal or informal policy, allows a member of either biological sex to use any public restroom within the building or facility ( delete shall and place with may) post notice of the policy at the entrance of each public restroom in the building or facility.

 

[ICE]

Simple fix for the next session to consider

(a) A public or private entity or business that operates a building or facility open to the general public and that, as a matter of formal or informal policy, allows a member of either biological sex to use any public restroom within the building or facility ( delete shall and place with may) post notice of the policy at the entrance of each public restroom in the building or facility.

How many languages? Better than a sign would be icons and the words MEN and WOMEN. In as much as this concept of allowing confused people to use any restroom they want has not been put to widespread use, I predict that after a few bad outcomes we will revert to protecting women once again.

 

[bill1952]

I get the whole; emergency pull and code/standard requirement.

However, my concerns and thoughts are more from a concern of someone being shoved into a space which has no other observational view.

Thus, more privacy could lead to more problems, possibly?

Hence your dammed if you do and if you don't.

Early ANSI A117.1 hearings on family or assisted restrooms - a 5 x 8 toilet room - brought up the shopping mall concern of these being used for prostitution. Seems online shopping and the pandemic might have made this concern a low priority.

 

[ADAguy]

The sidestep a post can take, a good friend of mine has been saying for a few years now, he feels deeply for his grandchildren and is thankful he is closer to being on his way out, than way in.

What I find the most ironic, is those that that preach inclusion and social justice issues the most, are the most intolerant and bias pointing out if you don't agree with their point of view, you should have no rights at all because you are "stupid and a racist".

I am glad I came up in the era I did, because those of us that had a different view talked about it, and enjoyed the conversation and not screaming matches stopping the other from expressing a view, nor insulting them for that view. Simply we agreed to disagree.

Today, to disagree with or even listen to another point of view is considered blasphemy.

The discussion should not be gender IMO, it should simply be privacy and security.

The simple fact is, IMO, I don't believe a rightminded male has any issues with a female using the same facility, however I am venturing a guess that a majority of females have a greater issue with males using their facilities.

Thus, as stated earlier in the thread xy and xx is one fix, because scientific facts should count for something.

The other is simply just social distance everyone from any contact at all, especially in the restroom, thus private restrooms for everyone, hence no sign needed to be explained, other than this is the place....but here comes the next question of security, if everyone is blocked off completely, how does someone know if someone else is in destress?

and When did the good of the few become greater than the good of the many?

All only questions for thought and reflection, and hopefully returns to open debate in the future.

All points well made, no different then arguing religious differences. There once was a time when certain things were left unspoken weren't there? and then came the internet. You would be stoned for discussing this in some countries

 

[tmurray]

What I find the most ironic, is those that that preach inclusion and social justice issues the most, are the most intolerant and bias pointing out if you don't agree with their point of view, you should have no rights at all because you are "stupid and a racist".

I am glad I came up in the era I did, because those of us that had a different view talked about it, and enjoyed the conversation and not screaming matches stopping the other from expressing a view, nor insulting them for that view. Simply we agreed to disagree.

Today, to disagree with or even listen to another point of view is considered blasphemy.

Yes, I see this on both sides. They both call each other snowflakes. Say what the other is doing is "cancel culture". The list goes on. When someone decides what side of an issue they are on because they identify as a "progressive" or as a "conservative", rather than on the facts surrounding an issue, it is concerning to me. Sheep exist on both sides.

Being born in this generation, I do not feel it is as bad as the media portrays it. The screaming matches are put on display by the news because they are outlying incidences. If these were the norm, it would hardly be news that it happened.

I do worry that the rift between progressives and conservatives appears to be growing, but am not sure if this is the case or not. Throughout history, older members of the population have tried to keep things the same (studies indicate that they are more conservative and more fearful of change), where the younger members of the population are more open and accepting of change. Are we just noticing this more because the media is reporting it?