In Houston nondiscrimination is on the line (beheadings to follow)

[maxpower1227]

Currently, it's not acceptable for men to go into women's dressing rooms. If this law passes, then any man can self identify as a woman, and if he enters the women's restroom, and someone tries to stop him, that person is subject to a $10K fine for discrimination/harassment.

Allegedly this law was already in effect for 3 months in Houston, with zero incidents of perverts using the law as an excuse to enter women's restrooms. Similar protections have also been in place in other cities, and there has never been an incident in any of those places, either. This is all bigoted fear-mongering.

 

[Brainster]

ETA: This is a woman according opponents of trans gendered restrooms.

And according to proponents as well, as long as she identified as a woman.

 

[Ladewig]

Someone clarify for me:

Are you supposed to be using the restroom of the gender you were assigned at birth? If you have had a gender reassignment surgery FTM and you are using the Women's locker room, mightn't someone theoretically see your appended male appendage? If you are MTF and still using the Men's locker room, wouldn't you be displaying a female-appearing body?

I think previous ordinances protected transsexuals but not transgenders.

 

[Trebuchet]

This is why I say all public restrooms should require genital inspection before entry.

I'm pretty sure the TSA is up for the challenge. They've got groping down pat.

 

[xjx388]

Yes, it's a stupid fear based on unfounded assumptions and delicate sensibilities. We have a lot of laws based on such stupid fears, though:

Drugs prohibition
Public nudity prohibition
Sex offender registries
Blue laws
Gun restrictions
Gambling prohibitions
Etc etc ad nauseum

Local laws should reflect local sensibilities in these matters.

In any case, the best thing the trans community can do is Rosa Parks that ****. Use the restroom they feel comfortable with and if they are arrested, fight it all the way to the top. Let the public see a real face to illustrate the problem. Dispel the stereotypes with reality.

 

[C_Felix]

"We can't have the LGBT community have equal rights, so, no legal ramifications for a restaurant saying, "We're not going to serve you because you are black" - Houston, Texas

"We can't have the LGBT community have equal rights, so, no legal protections for pregnant women. A woman can lose her job because she’s pregnant, " - Houston, Texas

"We can't have the LGBT community have equal rights, so, veterans of the US military don't get protections." - Houston, Texas

 

[xjx388]

"We can't have the LGBT community have equal rights, so, no legal ramifications for a restaurant saying, "We're not going to serve you because you are black" - Houston, Texas

"We can't have the LGBT community have equal rights, so, no legal protections for pregnant women. A woman can lose her job because she’s pregnant, " - Houston, Texas

"We can't have the LGBT community have equal rights, so, veterans of the US military don't get protections." - Houston, Texas

Actually no. Those are protected classes under State and Federal law.

 

[Travis]

Actually no. Those are protected classes under State and Federal law.

And a "protected class" is a construct we created. So there is no reason not to include transgendered people in it.

 

[xjx388]

And a "protected class" is a construct we created. So there is no reason not to include transgendered people in it.

Absolutely. Many jurisdictions have done just that. Others have chosen not to. That's the way it should be.

 

[fishbob]

I disagree with the entire protected class concept.

The "liberty and justice for all" that everybody mouths without thinking in proper legalese would be the simple way to drive a stake through the heart of the locally mandated inequality.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Hmmm...

Hypothetical scenario: I'm a cisgendered male who happens to be a pervert. I want to get my jollies off in a Houston area ladies' room. Had HERO passed I would've had to go out of my way to present myself as a woman in order to do so. Since it didn't pass all I have to do is walk into the ladies' room as is (male) and say that I'm FTM and therefore using the legally prescribed restroom?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm pretty sure the TSA is up for the challenge. They've got groping down pat.

And yet they can't distinguish between a bomb and a bottle of breastmilk, or between a functioning gun and a piece of jewelry, or an internationally-wanted terrorist and a toddler. As I pointed out to a gentleman in a bar once, the ability to grope somebody isn't evidence of particular skills or expertise.

 

[Travis]

Hmmm...

Hypothetical scenario: I'm a cisgendered male who happens to be a pervert. I want to get my jollies off in a Houston area ladies' room. Had HERO passed I would've had to go out of my way to present myself as a woman in order to do so. Since it didn't pass all I have to do is walk into the ladies' room as is (male) and say that I'm FTM and therefore using the legally prescribed restroom?

Unless you use the restroom like Butters I don't think there is much opportunity to present anything to anyone.

 

[applecorped]

Yep.

evidence?

 

[quadraginta]

This is the way it's supposed to work. I am a big advocate of local government as it's more representative of the people. Thus we have legal MJ, less restrictive abortion laws and homosexuals as protected classes in various jurisdictions as their people see fit. Overarching federal jurisdiction doesn't work for everything.

How far would you envision going with this?

Segregated schools, buses,and water fountains? Segregated bathrooms were common in many local jurisdictions through the early Sixties.

Limiting public office?

There are also times when equal rights and equal treatment will only actually be equal if federal jurisdiction is applied. This has been demonstrated over and over again. Local interests are notorious for fighting to keep their peculiar privileges and prejudices until they are forced to reform.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Brainster]

Allegedly this law was already in effect for 3 months in Houston, with zero incidents of perverts using the law as an excuse to enter women's restrooms. Similar protections have also been in place in other cities, and there has never been an incident in any of those places, either. This is all bigoted fear-mongering.

Obvious question: How many incidents were there prior to the law being in effect of transwomen or men being thrown out of their chosen restroom?

 

[Ladewig]

Hmmm...

Hypothetical scenario: I'm a cisgendered male who happens to be a pervert. I want to get my jollies off in a Houston area ladies' room. Had HERO passed I would've had to go out of my way to present myself as a woman in order to do so. Since it didn't pass all I have to do is walk into the ladies' room as is (male) and say that I'm FTM and therefore using the legally prescribed restroom?

I think you may have the wrong take on it, but I am having a difficult time determining the exact laws related to transsexual rights in Houston. I think that people who have had surgery to change their genitals do have the right to use restrooms associated with their new body. The proposed ordinance would have allowed others who did not have the surgery to use restrooms not associated with their current anatomy.

In any case your hypothetical doesn't work because you would not have medical records to back up your assertion that you are a transitioned FTM person.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Where do you draw the line?

White, straight, men. As long as white, straight, men are not discriminated against, it's all good.

 

[The Don]

White, straight, men. As long as white, straight, men are not discriminated against, it's all good.

Or, looking at some of the GOP faithful like Marcus Bachmann (allegedly) white, closeted, men

 

[mikegriffith1]

In other words, liberals are upset that hateful gays can't get Christian bakers, florists, or photographers in Houston fined or jailed for not wanting to service a ceremony that they find morally offensive. Liberals are especially upset that some states have adopted religious freedom laws that prevent militant gays from persecuting Christian vendors for daring to decline to service gay weddings.

In America, the government is not supposed to be able to punish you for declining to service a ceremony that you find offensive. This is not even close to the same thing as refusing to serve someone a meal in your restaurant or refusing to rent someone a room in your hotel. This is about your constitutional right as a person of faith not to be forced to service a ceremony that you find objectionable on religious grounds.

Question: Why oh why would you want to force anyone to bake your wedding cake, provide flowers for your wedding, or photograph your wedding if you knew they found it offensive, regardless of the reason they found it offensive? Who does that?

Normal, tolerant people would simply go find a different baker, florist, or photographer. For example, if I went to a print shop to get some handbills printed for a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality, and if I found out that the print shop owner was gay and that he would find it offensive to print the handbills, I wouldn't sue him nor try to get him fined or jailed--I'd just thank him for his time and go find a different print shop. That's called tolerance and respecting other people's beliefs and feelings.