NC Civil Rights

[kermit]

3 hours ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

I cannot believe this is even an argument. So sick of the liberal media firing someone who has a different opinion. Makes me SOOO angry.

ESPN is the liberal media now? The home of NASCAR, NFL (where they briefly employed Rush Limbaugh) and lumberjack competitions -- This cracks me up!

[HopHead]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

ESPN is the liberal media now? The home of NASCAR, NFL (where they briefly employed Rush Limbaugh) and lumberjack competitions -- This cracks me up!

And lets not forget college football either... A large part of ESPN's coverage is in the SEC (who has their own network affiliated with ESPN). I believe they have schools in Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi among other places. Huge liberal hotbeds there too. 

[Deleted.]

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/usa/local-laws-and-customs

The UK Government is warning against anti-LGBT laws, specifically mentioning North Carolina in their foreign travel advice for the USA.

[tusculan]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

ESPN is the liberal media now? The home of NASCAR, NFL (where they briefly employed Rush Limbaugh) and lumberjack competitions -- This cracks me up!

If you don't think ESPN is in favor of the same ideas that comprise the democratic party then you haven't been paying attention.  They clearly have supported gay marriage, transgender athletes, etc....just because they are in the business of making money from Republicans doesn't mean they aren't socially liberal.

[kermit]

2 minutes ago, tusculan said:

just because they are in the business of making money from Republicans doesn't mean they aren't socially liberal.

I''l just save this for posterity.

[R.Talbott]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

ESPN is the liberal media now? The home of NASCAR, NFL (where they briefly employed Rush Limbaugh) and lumberjack competitions -- This cracks me up!

You couldn't be more wrong.  

[kermit]

1 hour ago, tusculan said:

If you don't think ESPN is in favor of the same ideas that comprise the democratic party then you haven't been paying attention.  They clearly have supported gay marriage, transgender athletes, etc....

You are right, I have not been paying attention to the political viewpoints espoused on ESPN. In my defense, it never occurred to me that I would want to gather my political news from sportscasters and athletes. Honestly I am a little horrified to discover that some people do.

1 hour ago, tusculan said:

just because they are in the business of making money from Republicans doesn't mean they aren't socially liberal.

So in addition to providing goods and services that republicans pay money for businesses also need to pass some type of ideological purity test?

[Silicon Dogwoods]

6 hours ago, Piedmont767 said:

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/usa/local-laws-and-customs

The UK Government is warning against anti-LGBT laws, specifically mentioning North Carolina in their foreign travel advice for the USA.

So humiliating.

Maybe it's time to pack up and head west.

[tusculan]

4 hours ago, kermit said:

You are right, I have not been paying attention to the political viewpoints espoused on ESPN. In my defense, it never occurred to me that I would want to gather my political news from sportscasters and athletes. Honestly I am a little horrified to discover that some people do.

So in addition to providing goods and services that republicans pay money for businesses also need to pass some type of ideological purity test?

Actually, liberals tend to favor ideological purity tests more than conservatives. Conservatives are more content with having a disconnect, but allowing the market to work it out. Liberals tend to favor governmental action that penalizes to achieve a kind of purity.

If you don't believe me ...look at the bakeries that have been sued and put out of business for refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding. They don't refuse service to homosexuals, but don't wish to participate in this kind of action - some have even referred them to a different bakery. There is no parallel for conservatives, whereby they frequent a private business precisely to provoke a response and then litigate the business into closing. There aren't pro-lifers who try to make private companies make pro-life pamphlets and then sue them into closing if they refuse. It doesn't happen....because the republicans simply take their business elsewhere. Now there are cases when Republicans try to impose morality via law....(because that's what law does)...but they do so via the legislature.

There is an interesting piece on FiveThirtyEight today (ESPN subsidiary) about how Trump supporters aren't really any more intolerant than any other candidate's base. It's just that Trump supporters tend to be intolerant of ideas/people that are different than the status quo idea of what/who we should be intolerant of. Republicans think pro-choicers/gay marriage advocates....democrats think pro-lifers/ KKK members....Trump thinks muslims/immigrants.  

The big take-away: those who often shout tolerance are just as intolerant as the people they denounce. The key question is what should we tolerate....and what does that tolerance look like - is it allowing businesses to make choices about their own bathrooms or about baking what the heck kind of cake they want?

[tusculan]

46 minutes ago, Silicon Dogwoods said:

So humiliating.

Maybe it's time to pack up and head west.

I don't understand how it is humiliating. Lots of people pass laws that I disagree with --- that I think are fundamentally moronic, and misunderstand what it means to be a person. I don't get humiliated or embarrassed by that. I dunno, maybe its coming from South Carolina - yeah, we've got some crazy messed up people that have lived in our state... isn't it awesome? People are dumb; people are selfish. Myself included. History is broad, and we are more than our ideas....and if you get humiliated by having dumb ideas.... well then I don't think you analyze or challenge your own ideas very often. I have had dumb ideas, lots of them,  but I realized they were dumb, I changed them and moved on.

There are lots of things to be humiliated about, but to be humiliated by what politicians think ------------ because they did something stupid? A politician? Welcome to life. Join everyone who ever lived, and don't bother with being embarrassed.

[QCxpat]

From The New York Times, Friday, April 22, 2016 - By Ashley Parker

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/

 

Donald Trump Says Transgender People Should Use the Bathroom They Want

Photo

Donald J. Trump, right, appeared with family members on NBC’s “Today” show in Manhattan on Thursday.Credit Richard Drew/Associated Press

Updated, 8:37 p.m. | Donald J. Trump said Thursday that transgender people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they feel most comfortable with — including at Trump Tower in New York.

And in response to a follow-up question, he said that if Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and want to use a bathroom, he would be comfortable with her choosing any bathroom she wanted. “That is correct,” Mr. Trump said.

 

[tusculan]

On 4/20/2016 at 8:29 AM, QCxpat said:

From The New York Times, Wednesday, April 20, 2016 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/us/appeals-court-favors-transgender-student-in-virginia-restroom-case.html?_r=0

Appeals Court Favors Transgender Student in Virginia Restroom Case

By RICHARD FAUSSETAPRIL 19, 2016

 

• Photo

 

The court ruling in favor of Gavin Grimm comes amid escalating fights nationwide over transgender people and the bathrooms they should be allowed to use. CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times

Excerpts:  "... a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled on Tuesday in favor of a transgender student who was born female and wishes to use the boys' restroom at his rural Virginia high school."  ...  ".. it is the first time that a federal appellate court has ruled that Title IX protects the rights of such (transgendered) students to use the bathroom that coresponds with their gender identity."

"As a result of the ruling, those advocates say, that portion of the North Carolina law that applies to public schools now clearly violates Title IX - the federal law that prohibits gender discrimination in schools."

"Our expectation is that the North Carolina schools reverse course immediately, as in tomorrow," Sarah Warbelow, the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, an L.G.B.T. rights group, said Tuesday night."

So with Gender Identity a protected class under title IX, just to be clear, there will no longer be girl's sports at our schools that are limited to those who are anatomically and hormonally girls, but instead by those who are willing to identify as girls. Even boys with normal testosterone levels and muscle mass. I don't think it will be common because of social pressure....but if athletic scholarships are tied to performance at state events, regardless of gender, and you can't afford college, then it is conceivable that as a high school boy you could identify as a girl to win state tournaments and thus win a scholarship to a university. Did I follow that? 

So in athletic events, where Title IX was created to support women as much as men, the number of biological girls who will receive support will by some metric (.1 percent or higher) will be lessened by this decision. So this decision in an important way is categorically opposed to the nature of the Title IX statutes. Gotcha

[grodney]

11 minutes ago, tusculan said:

So with Gender Identity a protected class under title IX, just to be clear, there will no longer be girl's sports at our schools that are limited to those who are anatomically and hormonally girls, but instead by those who are willing to identify as girls. Even boys with normal testosterone levels and muscle mass. I don't think it will be common because of social pressure....but if athletic scholarships are tied to performance at state events, regardless of gender, and you can't afford college, then it is conceivable that as a high school boy you could identify as a girl to win state tournaments and thus win a scholarship to a university. Did I follow that? 

So in athletic events, where Title IX was created to support women as much as men, the number of biological girls who will receive support will by some metric (.1 percent or higher) will be lessened by this decision. So this decision in an important way is categorically opposed to the nature of the Title IX statutes. Gotcha

Here's an educational article about transgenders in sports, and some of the issues: http://www.si.com/vault/2012/05/28/106195901/the-transgender-athlete

As to your post, I imagine most schools (school systems, governing bodies, etc.) use something similar to the Stockholm Consensus, but I don't know.

[tusculan]

6 minutes ago, grodney said:

Here's an educational article about transgenders in sports, and some of the issues: http://www.si.com/vault/2012/05/28/106195901/the-transgender-athlete

As to your post, I imagine most schools use something similar to the Stockholm Consensus, but I don't know.

So, the SI post just points out that trans-men will also be competing for scholarships, as well as trans-women. True enough. But I think it seems reasonable that given muscle mass and other factors boys transitioning to girls will have an easier time.....5'4'' girls-boys will have a harder time playing basketball than 6' boys-girls....for the most part.

As to the Stockholm consensus two points: a) this involves the olympics and thus adults. Do we really want to have to require children to receive hormone injections and or surgery? b) there is no way that will stand up in court. I don't see how the govt will rule that we have to support trans people to be equal to everyone, but only if they take on the onerous task of hormone therapy... there's no way that will hold up because it singles them out as a class of people who have to do something in order to get their rights recognized.

[grodney]

On 4/20/2016 at 7:20 AM, grodney said:

RaleighHeelsFan said:

How, specifically, does the Charlotte bathroom ordinance make your daughter less safe than she is today?

Before you answer, please recognize that even today any perv/rapist can dress up as a woman and go into a ladies bathroom and commit whatever assault they want.

p.s. I have two young daughters of my own, so I'm considering this issue, and your answer, through that lens.

RaleighHellsFan, you haven't answered this yet.

Also, in answering, could you be clear on where the threat is coming from?  Are you concerned with standard hetero/pedophile pervs/rapists under the guise of transgender entering a ladies room?  Or are you concerned with transgenders themselves, i.e. you think transgenders are inherently pervs/rapists?  Your post stating you believe nobody with a man "part" should go in a ladies room seems to indicate the latter.

I appreciate your answer....I'm really trying to understand the opposition to the Charlotte bathroom ordinance, and McCrory won't answer my e-mails.

[kermit]

RaleighHeelsFan, I too am a parent of a daughter and would appreciate hearing your perspective on grodney's question.

[tusculan]

Also, in answering, could you be clear on where the threat is coming from?  Are you concerned with standard hetero/pedophile pervs/rapists under the guiseof transgender entering a ladies room?  Or are you concerned with transgenders themselves, i.e. you think transgenders are inherently pervs/rapists?  Your post stating you believe nobody with a man "part" should go in a ladies room seems to indicate the latter.

I appreciate your answer....I'm really trying to understand the opposition to the Charlotte bathroom ordinance, and McCrory won't answer my e-mails.

 

I don't know RHF's argument. But I would think it goes something like this. I am not worried about transgender people, but I am concerned that people will use our desire to be welcoming and our desire to follow the law against us. Right now people can break the law and assault people....but if seen, they will be prosecuted. Under the new law, the wannabe perpetrator can only be charged after the assault. 

The law is educative, it teaches us how we should view people and circumstances. Under this law, it will be made normal to see people entering restrooms. Even if those people don't commit crimes, it makes it more difficult to fight those who are willing to exploit the law.

[QCxpat]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/22/475295225/obama-north-carolinas-bathroom-law-should-be-overturned

Breaking News from NPR by Laura Wagner, April 22, 2016

Obama: North Carolina's Bathroom Law 'Should Be Overturned'

•  

April 22, 2016  5:44 PM ET

LAURA AGNER

Twitter

President Obama and Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron in London on Friday.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

During a news conference in London Friday, President Obama criticized the North Carolina law that requires transgender people to use public bathrooms that correspond their gender designation at birth.

Obama said he thinks the North Carolina law and similar measures in other states, including Mississippi, "are wrong and should be overturned."

[kermit]

7 hours ago, tusculan said:

I don't know RHF's argument. But I would think it goes something like this. I am not worried about transgender people, but I am concerned that people will use our desire to be welcoming and our desire to follow the law against us. Right now people can break the law and assault people....but if seen, they will be prosecuted. Under the new law, the wannabe perpetrator can only be charged after the assault. 

The law is educative, it teaches us how we should view people and circumstances. Under this law, it will be made normal to see people entering restrooms. Even if those people don't commit crimes, it makes it more difficult to fight those who are willing to exploit the law.

Yea, I can acknowledge that as valid logic and I appreciate your perspective.

However, its hard to take this risk seriously when a) there is absolutely no evidence of this occurring in places where similar bathroom laws exist and b) when the legislature does not feel like it is a significant enough risk to require businesses to adhere to the same restrictive bathroom policy.

While HB2 might have reduced this empirically insignificant risk it has certainly made it more likely that trans people who are now legally required to use bathrooms that appear to observers to be inappropriate will be assaulted. Given this trade off its hard for me to see how HB2 has made North Carolinians (as a group) any safer.    

[tusculan]

18 hours ago, kermit said:

Yea, I can acknowledge that as valid logic and I appreciate your perspective.

However, its hard to take this risk seriously when a) there is absolutely no evidence of this occurring in places where similar bathroom laws exist and b) when the legislature does not feel like it is a significant enough risk to require businesses to adhere to the same restrictive bathroom policy.

While HB2 might have reduced this empirically insignificant risk it has certainly made it more likely that trans people who are now legally required to use bathrooms that appear to observers to be inappropriate will be assaulted. Given this trade off its hard for me to see how HB2 has made North Carolinians (as a group) any safer.    

You are correct. There is little evidence of an increase in assaults because of the change in the law. Sure there are anecdotes, but that little evidence isn't even worth linking to. And to your second point, its true that if this was so dangerous, then the government would be violating its duty by allowing businesses to opt out of the legislation. 

Thus, there must be more going on here. I would argue that there are two secondary arguments, that should be put forward more: 1. Lets say there are 5 more assaults on kids due to the Charlotte city ordinance. While you claim there is little evidence of an increase in violence against kids, the same argument could be rejoined - that there is no obvious violence against transgendered people. 

Secondly, and importantly, while being transgendered may or may not be a choice - I am willing to be ambiguous here - how you choose to dress is a choice. Thus, while violence to transsexuals is lamentable.....the conservative vision is that ultimately it was their choices to engage in certain behaviors. A little kid who goes to the bathroom doesn't have a choice about facilities, about being confronted with transgendered people in school locker rooms etc. But the transgendered person does have the ability to choose how to present themselves to the world. 

To put it bluntly, the idea is one of where is our priority - should the vast majority of the population change laws, ordinances, etc to construct new facilities to accommodate the preferences of a small minority? If so, why not make all delis be Hallal or Kosher? If the bathroom choice is merely a preference (which I have a hard time seeing how its not), as you can urinate just as well in either one, then that preference shouldn't be accommodated. 

[kermit]

12 minutes ago, tusculan said:

Thus, there must be more going on here. I would argue that there are two secondary arguments, that should be put forward more: 1. Lets say there are 5 more assaults on kids due to the Charlotte city ordinance. While you claim there is little evidence of an increase in violence against kids, the same argument could be rejoined - that there is no obvious violence against transgendered people.

I do take your point that there is no evidence of increased violence against transgendered people in the context of bathroom segregation. However, there is a bit of a fallacy here. The data we have on there being no increased risk of assaults on children is based on the existence of laws similar to Charlotte's that have been on the books for multiple years (admittedly I do not know the history of these laws). We have zero data on increased violence against transgendered people associated with the advent of bathroom segregation because NC's law was the first to make this policy overt (as far as I am aware). Given this, the lack of evidence of increased assaults against children is not the logical equivalent of our lack of evidence of assaults against transgendered people. 

While we are certainly free to speculate on the possibility of "5 more assaults on kids due to the Charlotte ordinance" there is absolutely no empirically supported reason to do so. To act on this supposition is to be driven by fear rather than reason.

20 minutes ago, tusculan said:

To put it bluntly, the idea is one of where is our priority - should the vast majority of the population change laws, ordinances, etc to construct new facilities to accommodate the preferences of a small minority?

I am not going to weigh in on the choice argument. I will say that my opinion is that when the needs of a minority (no matter how small) can be accommodated without creating significant hardship for the majority, then yes I think it is appropriate to accommodate the minority. We currently live in a world where there is no evidence of hardship created by laws similar to the Charlotte ordnance, so what do we really gain by denying the right of gender determination to a small portion of the community?

[cltbwimob]

^^^Heres what we gain-reduction in jobs because companies no longer want to move here, reduction in revenues for local businesses and governments because big time shows and sporting events are cancelling, and we gain national and international scorn.  So we really gain a lot of bad baggage.

BTW, excellent post Kermit.

[tusculan]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

I do take your point that there is no evidence of increased violence against transgendered people in the context of bathroom segregation. However, there is a bit of a fallacy here. The data we have on there being no increased risk of assaults on children is based on the existence of laws similar to Charlotte's that have been on the books for multiple years (admittedly I do not know the history of these laws). We have zero data on increased violence against transgendered people associated with the advent of bathroom segregation because NC's law was the first to make this policy overt (as far as I am aware). Given this, the lack of evidence of increased assaults against children is not the logical equivalent of our lack of evidence of assaults against transgendered people. 

While we are certainly free to speculate on the possibility of "5 more assaults on kids due to the Charlotte ordinance" there is absolutely no empirically supported reason to do so. To act on this supposition is to be driven by fear rather than reason.

I am not going to weigh in on the choice argument. I will say that my opinion is that when the needs of a minority (no matter how small) can be accommodated without creating significant hardship for the majority, then yes I think it is appropriate to accommodate the minority. We currently live in a world where there is no evidence of hardship created by laws similar to the Charlotte ordnance, so what do we really gain by denying the right of gender determination to a small portion of the community?

I would want to make one correction, we are not denying the right to gender determination....but instead arguing that there is instead a limit to that expression. That may seem trivial but it is an important distinction relative to the comparable option of religious preference. The law needs to accommodate gender determination, like religious determination....but every protection is not extended to every expression of that determination.

So if businesses must all accommodate transgender people....why not serve only kosher meat to accommodate people. How would that hurt the community to extend rights to others? Isn't serving non-kosher meat an affront to Jewish patrons? Very clearly there is a distinction to keep in mind - (Jewish) people need to be accommodated, but every preference of a person does not.

Importantly it wouldn't hurt the community in this narrow limit. But fundamentally here, there is the background issue that making businesses accommodate preferences is a legal precedent that is very dangerous. What if my preference is not about which bathroom to go in...but whether I want to eat vegetarian regardless of this being a BBQ restaurant. Must they accommodate my preference? Or are businesses free to accommodate my preference if they like, or free to reject it if they like?  Again, being transgendered is probably not a preference...but how one demands which restroom to go in is clearly a preference as the facilities can serve people of any sex.

[kermit]

2 hours ago, tusculan said:

So if businesses must all accommodate transgender people....why not serve only kosher meat to accommodate people. How would that hurt the community to extend rights to others? Isn't serving non-kosher meat an affront to Jewish patrons? Very clearly there is a distinction to keep in mind - (Jewish) people need to be accommodated, but every preference of a person does not.

Importantly it wouldn't hurt the community in this narrow limit. But fundamentally here, there is the background issue that making businesses accommodate preferences is a legal precedent that is very dangerous. What if my preference is not about which bathroom to go in...but whether I want to eat vegetarian regardless of this being a BBQ restaurant. Must they accommodate my preference? Or are businesses free to accommodate my preference if they like, or free to reject it if they like? 

I just can't see the Kosher food example as equivalent to the bathroom issue. Businesses are not forced to provide Kosher or Halal meals because that would create a new financial cost on those businesses. When new policy creates new financial burdens there should be serious discussion (between the public and policy makers) about weather that new policy merits its cost. The analogy fails (IMO) because the Charlotte ordinance did not impose any financial costs on businesses (or the public) nor did it increase any risks to the public (based on data from places where similar laws exists and the decision of the legislature not to impose 'birth certificate bathrooms' on business). Charlotte's ordinance clearly made some folks uncomfortable, but I have not yet been convinced that a vague sense of discomfort justifies preventing 'the expression' of gender. (but debate about this would have gone a long way towards assuaging the pushback against HB2)

I would actually argue (as cltbwinmod points out) that there was a significant positive economic return to the Charlotte ordinance (and there has clearly been a huge financial cost triggered by HB2). I would conservatively estimate that HB2 has cost Charlotte at least $100 million in future wages, sales and hotel taxes, business revenue and future job growth (about $100 bucks per Charlotte resident) and these losses are growing everyday. How much is that preventing that rare sense of discomfort worth to you? More importantly, why wasn't this financial impact part of the 'debate' about implementing HB2? 

[tusculan]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

I just can't see the Kosher food example as equivalent to the bathroom issue. Businesses are not forced to provide Kosher or Halal meals because that would create a new financial cost on those businesses. When new policy creates new financial burdens there should be serious discussion (between the public and policy makers) about weather that new policy merits its cost. The analogy fails (IMO) because the Charlotte ordinance did not impose any financial costs on businesses (or the public) nor did it increase any risks to the public (based on data from places where similar laws exists and the decision of the legislature not to impose 'birth certificate bathrooms' on business). Charlotte's ordinance clearly made some folks uncomfortable, but I have not yet been convinced that a vague sense of discomfort justifies preventing 'the expression' of gender. (but debate about this would have gone a long way towards assuaging the pushback against HB2)

I would actually argue (as cltbwinmod points out) that there was a significant positive economic return to the Charlotte ordinance (and there has clearly been a huge financial cost triggered by HB2). I would conservatively estimate that HB2 has cost Charlotte at least $100 million in future wages, sales and hotel taxes, business revenue and future job growth (about $100 bucks per Charlotte resident) and these losses are growing everyday. How much is that preventing that rare sense of discomfort worth to you? More importantly, why wasn't this financial impact part of the 'debate' about implementing HB2? 

Whether this preference causes the business owner to shell out more money or not is utterly irrelevant. I should not be able to go into a restaurant and demand that they meet what I want, regardless of cost. Whether it has made people vaguely uncomfortable or not is also irrelevant. The business is there to provide a service and thus must accommodate every patron, but they don't have to accommodate the desires of the patron. I might even claim to save the restaurant money by having them turn off the Air conditioning because its too cold....but the money saved or the inconvenience created is irrelevant to the issue of rights. No one's rights have been taken away, only their preferences have been denied.

As to the business money leaving the state --- I couldn't care less. No one cared about anti-segregation fighters driving money from the state by staging a sit in. I find it humorous that who often makes these claims are the people who want the issue to pass......closing coal plants costs jobs....but its worth it.....(democrat argument) losing paypal costs jobs....but its worth it  (republican argument) It 's a lame argument and always will be. So the state loses millions or billions of dollars....other companies will move in, or people will move out. There is no law forcing people to live in North Carolina. There are and always will be more important principles than money and I find the democratic pitch of money first about as off-putting as when Republicans clamor for 'think of the children' nonsense.