Would you sue a transgender person for using the bathroom?

[Mindmaster]

Virgina Republican Bob Marshall has proposed a new bill HB 1612 that is much like the N.Carolina bill HB 2. The proposed Virginian bill would make it illegal for any person to use a bathroom that does not correlate to the gender listed on their birth certificate. But the bill also specifically allows you to sue any individual who does so.

I find this typical of Republicans, delicate little flower who want to sue over the potential of having their delicate little feelings hurt by the mere encounter with anyone that is in anyway different. I find it difficult to express just how disgusting I think this is.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+ful+HB1612

It all depends on the way you view gender. I feel gender is a role, not a sex, therefore you have no right to share facilities with people of the same _sex_. Sex is chromosomes, you don't get to pick that. That's not to say that I particularly see any value for separating bathrooms by such criteria, just single occupant closeted bathrooms without a sexual assignment are fine by me. As far as fining people, I don't think that the public at large supports transgenderism nor do they ascribe it to the same thing as LGB. (which are sexual preferences, not genders or identity) Identity politics really are a figment of the mind, and as such require that other people agree with you or they functionally don't exist.

I'm not butthurt over it at all, but I think there is no need for such silly laws. They waste resources that could be spent on more important things, but I don't think we need to push the people of Virginia to conform to liberal opinions either.

 

[Scott C.]

What about the men who are uncomfortable around other men? Or, boys who are uncomfortable around men? Or girls who are uncomfortable around women? Or women who are uncomfortable around other women?

So what do you propose?

 

[buddhist]

So what do you propose?

A libertarian approach.

You must prove a measurable (external world) loss in order to receive a measurable (external world, e.g. money, etc.) recompense from the person who trespassed against you.

Immeasurable losses (internal world, mind, heart) are our own responsibilities - we must govern our own minds and hearts.

 

[Rival]

No, I wouldn't. What a silly thing to sue someone for.

 

[Curious George]

I look at this way if someone want to sue someone that's their right. However, I would mandate that if one does sue and loses they have to pay all legal cost of the defendant. This mandate would apply to all parties, including the government in any and all suits. I would also allow plaintiffs to require lawyers to also be equally accountable for all cost.

LOL, so you would disregard the constitution. Well noted.

 

[Curious George]

Virgina Republican Bob Marshall has proposed a new bill HB 1612 that is much like the N.Carolina bill HB 2. The proposed Virginian bill would make it illegal for any person to use a bathroom that does not correlate to the gender listed on their birth certificate. But the bill also specifically allows you to sue any individual who does so.

I find this typical of Republicans, delicate little flower who want to sue over the potential of having their delicate little feelings hurt by the mere encounter with anyone that is in anyway different. I find it difficult to express just how disgusting I think this is.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+ful+HB1612

Apparently they are trying to protect their safe spaces with excessive litigation that burdens other tax payers because they feel entitled.

 

[suncowiam]

2 questions

Will I win the lawsuit?

How much will I win?

LOL

IMO, it's no different than a gay or bisexual person using the same bathroom. Why make the worst assumption in someone? If they're in their minding their own business then so what.

 

[suncowiam]

As long as the quick stop urinals are not eliminated in the name of equality or privacy, I don't care who uses the restroom when I'm in there. But I'm a man who feels no threat. In our efforts to make sure that people can use the restroom of their choice, we should not dismiss or belittle the reasonable discomfort of the masses.

Can you leave it even more open ended as to how to cater to the masses? People get "uncomfortable" to all sorts of things. Let's just simply call this a fear or a mild fear. Now the real question then, is there a logical or rational basis behind this fear.

We can go back in time and recall how whites were "uncomfortable" in using the same restrooms as blacks. Good example or not?

 

[Scott C.]

Can you leave it even more open ended as to how to cater to the masses? People get "uncomfortable" to all sorts of things. Let's just simply call this a fear or a mild fear. Now the real question then, is there a logical or rational basis behind this fear.

We can go back in time and recall how whites were "uncomfortable" in using the same restrooms as blacks. Good example or not?

The discomfort with blacks was based I suppose on thinking one race was superior, or cleaner, or more decent than the other. That belief deserved to be debunked and blacks deserve to be and are equals. Gender differentiation is not based on any of those. It's based on a sense of propriety regarding separation of the sexes in intimate personal matters. I believe that separation is culturally acceptable and healthy. It's not an old fashioned notion without merit which needs to be debunked. Having said that, I'm one of the last people on earth who would try to make fun of or make anyone feel uncomfortable because of any personal gender identification issues. I certainly would not sue someone for using what I considered to be the wrong restroom.

 

[fantome profane]

Suppose we waived our hands and all public restrooms were now open to anyone, period, without making any new physical accommodations to those restrooms. So, the urinals stay in place and the men are standing there doing their business. A woman walks in, has to walk past the men, hopes she doesn't see anything and goes to her stall. She feels uncomfortable and embarrassed that she had to walk past the men. Now, she's further uncomfortable that she's sitting on the toilet doing her business, with men standing around outside. This is reasonable discomfort and a woman should be able to use a restroom for women only. That's just one example. There are other scenarios. So, it depends.

The fact is that this is the way it is in most states, and as far as I know everywhere in Canada (I am Canadian btw), and in most western countries. Until recent years there has never been a law on the books stating who can pee in which washroom. Those little signs on the door have been enforced only by social convention and nothing else. And that has always worked pretty well until a bunch of politicians started rousing up hysteria for their own political gain.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

No, i would just use other bathroom 200m away.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes. I'll sue myself. How dare I.

 

[Onyx]

There should be a single bathroom for everyone. Who cares.

 

[fantome profane]

No, i would just use other bathroom 200m away.

Without inspecting the person's birth certificate and their genitalia, how would you even know?

 

[suncowiam]

The discomfort with blacks was based I suppose on thinking one race was superior, or cleaner, or more decent than the other. That belief deserved to be debunked and blacks deserve to be and are equals. Gender differentiation is not based on any of those. It's based on a sense of propriety regarding separation of the sexes in intimate personal matters. I believe that separation is culturally acceptable and healthy. It's not an old fashioned notion without merit which needs to be debunked. Having said that, I'm one of the last people on earth who would try to make fun of or make anyone feel uncomfortable because of any personal gender identification issues. I certainly would not sue someone for using what I considered to be the wrong restroom.

Replace all mention of sex with race in your comment and I'm sure some white person said what you said a long time ago.

Theoretically, you can have gay deviants using the bathroom legally but for perverted use. Not that I implying homosexuals are perverted deviants. I'm just saying there's a loophole with all these sex physicality laws that do not protect the public from its intended target. How unfair is that to the transgendered community?

 

[suncowiam]

No, i would just use other bathroom 200m away.

Do you hate it when people make assumptions of Muslims?

 

[esmith]

This is a cultural manifestation accompanied by generational issues in some instance.
Not picking on the Muslim religion but more readily presented. Would a devote Muslim male accept a female into a public restroom with him. This issue could be applied to many different upbringings, religious beliefs, or hostility.
Now to the generational issue. I suspect the older generation is more adverse to this idea than the younger generation, unless they have be exposed to cultures that accept the idea of gender neutral facilities. However I have been informed that in a certain country that gender neutral bathrooms are not exactly like they used to be. In other words if you are a male and dressed as a female yet obviously are a male you can be in legal trouble if you attempt to go into a facility that is designated as female. Not exactly sure about a female dressed as a male but obviously a female going into a facility designated as male but I would hazard to speculate the same problem would exist. They do have gender neutral designated facilities along with priority/family designated facilities. Still this still could be a generational issue.

 

[fantome profane]

This is a cultural manifestation accompanied by generational issues in some instance.
Not picking on the Muslim religion but more readily presented. Would a devote Muslim male accept a female into a public restroom with him. This issue could be applied to many different upbringings, religious beliefs, or hostility.
Now to the generational issue. I suspect the older generation is more adverse to this idea than the younger generation, unless they have be exposed to cultures that accept the idea of gender neutral facilities. However I have been informed that in a certain country that gender neutral bathrooms are not exactly like they used to be. In other words if you are a male and dressed as a female yet obviously are a male you can be in legal trouble if you attempt to go into a facility that is designated as female. Not exactly sure about a female dressed as a male but obviously a female going into a facility designated as male but I would hazard to speculate the same problem would exist. They do have gender neutral designated facilities along with priority/family designated facilities. Still this still could be a generational issue.

I disagree. I think it is political manifestation.

This may feel new, but when you were a kid transgender people were using public washrooms.

 

[Scott C.]

Replace all mention of sex with race in your comment and I'm sure some white person said what you said a long time ago.

Theoretically, you can have gay deviants using the bathroom legally but for perverted use. Not that I implying homosexuals are perverted deviants. I'm just saying there's a loophole with all these sex physicality laws that do not protect the public from its intended target. How unfair is that to the transgendered community?

If someone had sex reassignment surgery, I don't have a problem with them using the restroom that matches their current gender.

But I disagree with your assessment of sex and race. Regardless of the reasons people gave to separate the races in the past, those reasons were based on perceptions of superiority. Maybe that wasn't always the case, but it seems clear that it usually was. The origination and perpetuation of restrooms by gender has nothing to do with that. I can't imagine there are many men or women who support restroom segregation by gender, and who do so because somewhere deep down they just don't want to be near "those kind of people", meaning the other gender.

 

[suncowiam]

If someone had sex reassignment surgery, I don't have a problem with them using the restroom that matches their current gender.

But I disagree with your assessment of sex and race. Regardless of the reasons people gave to separate the races in the past, those reasons were based on perceptions of superiority. Maybe that wasn't always the case, but it seems clear that it usually was. The origination and perpetuation of restrooms by gender has nothing to do with that. I can't imagine there are many men or women who support restroom segregation by gender, and who do some because somewhere deep down they just don't want to be near "those kind of people", meaning the other gender.

People are taught to be ashamed of their bodies and their sexuality. Nude beaches and colonies are a perfect example of how human beings can coexist without little to no form of perversion. Sure, there's always going to be a bad apple. Anyhows, these folks unlearned their biases to be able perceive each other normally in their birthday suits.

What you're claiming is just what you've been taught. Again, is there really a logic or rationale behind it other than traditional thinking?