By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Debate over North Carolina gender law

contestgamer on 22 July 2016
hershel_layton said:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/17120170/nba-moving-all-star-game-charlotte-north-carolina-bill

 

After months of speculation, the nba has officially gone ahead and remove the 2017 all star game from Charlotte. Adam silver said it was due to a law signed by North carolina. Called the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, it:

 

-legislates that in government buildings, individuals may only use restrooms and changing facilities that correspond to the sex on their birth certificates

 

-changes the definition of sex in the state's anti-discrimination law to "the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate."

 

-prohibits municipalities in North Carolina from enacting anti-discrimination policies,[14] setting a local minimum wage, regulatingchild labor, or making certain regulations for city workers. The legislation also removes the statutory and common-law private right of action to enforce state anti-discrimination statutes in state courts

 

 

 

With the NBA removing the game, there have been more debates over the topic of transgenderism and other things.

 

I'd like to know a few things from everyone.

1) what do you think of transgenderism?

 

2) is gender determined by your sex? 

 

3) are there only 2 genders?

 

4) With the NBA removing the all star game, is it hypocritical of them to keep the Charlotte Hornets in North carolina?

 

 

 

Hopefully there isn't any name calling or childish arguments. 

 

1. It's a mental disease and they should be treated as sick, diseased individuals in need of help.

2. There is no such thing as "gender" in nature, there is only sex. Gender has always been used as a synonym of sex, unfortunately it has been twisted by mentally ill to be separate. Gender as explained by SJW's doesn't actually exist, it's a human concept.

3. Yes

4. I dont care, NBA is disgusting to get involved in this to begin with. Attention seeking and disgusting.



Around the Network
Gourmet on 22 July 2016

1) I love all the same.

2) Clearly not. No matter my opinion, I have to use words in their modern meanings in order to communicate. This shouldn't make transgenderism any better, though.

3) Refer on the law for this one.

4) No, and it should be illegal to remove a team for that.



contestgamer on 22 July 2016
Slimebeast said:

This law is very unfortunate. If you want to combat this world crazyness that is political correctness and radical leftism, you don't do it by introducing a wrong. Clearly people who are "transgender" (mixed gender) should be able to decide which toilet to visit.

But there isn't such a state which actually is neutral gender, but you can be of mixed gender. Genitals can be of one gender or in rare cases a weird mix (something that literally is inbetween a coc and a pusy), and at the same time the brain is predominantly of the other gender, or rarely a more even mix.

Typically these new gender identities are ideological or political in nature, not factual or biological.

Stop being so pretentious. There is NOTHING "clearly" about it and millions will attest to that. Dont act like your opinion is a "clear" fact. The law was good. 



contestgamer on 22 July 2016
jardesonbarbosa said:
This law is dumb in so many levels. I understand what they are trying to do, but I don't think many women will more be comfortable sharing a restroom with a trans man than with a trans woman.

 

This law is sound. The goal isn't the law itself at face value - the goal is to stigmatize and ostracize transgender individuals to the point where they go back in the closet. The real problem is that transgender people are now comfortable enough being transgender in public -  50 years ago no way they would have dared to fight a law, let alone go outside looking anything but their sex. This law was just one step to claw our way back to historical normalacy.

- Moderated, Carl



Ganoncrotch on 22 July 2016
the-pi-guy said:
Ganoncrotch said:

There is a guy with a camera out in the bathroom and the cops are called... and you think the law is the one creating the problem here and not the one with the camera out in the bathroom? I wouldn't give a rats if that was inside the mens bathroom with little boys around and he had that camera out I'd be calling the cops or smashing his phone off the ground, this really isn't a gender issue in the slightest, it's a "don't fucking take out a camera in a restroom" thing.

The cops were not called on this guy....  

My point here is that, according to the law that guy has to use the ladies bathroom.  How do you think ladies are going to react to that?  They are likely going to call the cops, because the man was following the law and using the bathroom he was supposed to.  How do you think that's going to end up?  Using public bathrooms will likely become a giant pain for him.   

The reason for the camera is because of a campaign.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/03/14/trans-folks-respond-bathroom-bills-wejustneedtopee-selfies

So I don't know what you think the camera has to do with the story at all.  It has literally nothing to do with my point.  

If the camera had anything whatsoever to do with my point, the story or anything else, I would have to ask what is wrong with taking a picture of myself?

The link to the story might have been important to the original story since that guy in a bathroom is not quite a guy and not a guy in the eyes of the law which is the point you wanted to make?

As for what is wrong with that person taking a picture, it's in a public bathroom, that is what is wrong with it, christ even you can surely see that the picture is not just of that person alone in there? if you are in a male bathroom there is urinals, if you've visited one you would know that people have their dick out inside there, like I said again, if that was in a bathroom here and someone had their camera out inside this person would have one of two things happen to them, the camera/phone would be chucked in a toilet right away and the person would risk getting the shit kicked out of them.

Public bathrooms are not the place for selfies, regardless of the "campaign" it's just not the place for it.

http://lifehacker.com/5912250/know-your-rights-photography-in-public

In particular.

"you can't publish a photo that gives away private information about someone. This includes photos like the aforementioned AA meeting or doctor's office along with any other situation where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Should never have been published online as there is another person present in the bathroom behind this person.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Around the Network
hershel_layton on 22 July 2016
contestgamer said:
Slimebeast said:

This law is very unfortunate. If you want to combat this world crazyness that is political correctness and radical leftism, you don't do it by introducing a wrong. Clearly people who are "transgender" (mixed gender) should be able to decide which toilet to visit.

But there isn't such a state which actually is neutral gender, but you can be of mixed gender. Genitals can be of one gender or in rare cases a weird mix (something that literally is inbetween a coc and a pusy), and at the same time the brain is predominantly of the other gender, or rarely a more even mix.

Typically these new gender identities are ideological or political in nature, not factual or biological.

Stop being so pretentious. There is NOTHING "clearly" about it and millions will attest to that. Dont act like your opinion is a "clear" fact. The law was good. 

I'm not gonna have an opinion on this, but your explanation is rather weak.

 

millions of people believe that the cold gets you sick. does that suddenly make it true? 

 

Millions of people believe rather strange things. it doesn't suddenly make it right(or wrong, depending on context).

 



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

hershel_layton on 22 July 2016
contestgamer said:
jardesonbarbosa said:
This law is dumb in so many levels. I understand what they are trying to do, but I don't think many women will more be comfortable sharing a restroom with a trans man than with a trans woman.

 

This law is sound. The goal isn't the law itself at face value - the goal is to stigmatize and ostracize transgender individuals to the point where they go back in the closet. The real problem is that transgender people are now comfortable enough being transgender in public -  50 years ago no way they would have dared to fight a law, let alone go outside looking anything but their sex. This law was just one step to claw our way back to historical normalacy.

^nornalcy, not nornalacy.

 

anyways, what's historical normalcy in your eyes? It could potentially be anything.

 

Also, you can't always refer to the law as a flawless piece of work. back then people didn't do many things that would get them in trouble. Whether if you respect the concept of transgenderism or not, you can't just refer to the past. we have passed a lot of stupid laws(just look at the Alien and Seditions act passed by John Adams).



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

jardesonbarbosa on 22 July 2016
contestgamer said:
jardesonbarbosa said:
This law is dumb in so many levels. I understand what they are trying to do, but I don't think many women will more be comfortable sharing a restroom with a trans man than with a trans woman.

 

This law is sound. The goal isn't the law itself at face value - the goal is to stigmatize and ostracize transgender individuals to the point where they go back in the closet. The real problem is that transgender people are now comfortable enough being transgender in public -  50 years ago no way they would have dared to fight a law, let alone go outside looking anything but their sex. This law was just one step to claw our way back to historical normalacy.

I'm glad they are comfortable enough being transgender in public. I'll never understand what is to be a transgender because I'm not one, but I can imagine how horrible is to live a life pretending to be someone else. Hopefully they will not go back to the closet, that's a fight worth fighting for.



FIT_Gamer on 22 July 2016
contestgamer said:

This law is sound. The goal isn't the law itself at face value - the goal is to stigmatize and ostracize transgender individuals to the point where they go back in the closet. The real problem is that transgender people are now comfortable enough being transgender in public -  50 years ago no way they would have dared to fight a law, let alone go outside looking anything but their sex. This law was just one step to claw our way back to historical normalacy.

Lol, that's a pipe dream and bigoted as all hell.



Danman27 on 22 July 2016

My opinion on transgenderism is this. Identify however you want to, I don't really care as long as you're not a dick about it. As far as bathrooms go, people are going to continue going to go into the bathroom they feel like, and I think almost the entire population doesn't really care, except for a stupid minority that think this is actually an issue.