Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question about the NC Bathroom Law [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)17. "If this is not a problem, please explain why."
How often in your life has it been a problem?
I have come to the conclusion that there are quite a few people with an inordinate degree of concern about birth certificates and bathrooms.
The North Carolina law requires that you have your birth certificate in order to pee somewhere. That is insanity. Of course since your birth certificate does not establish that you are the holder of it, you will need a photo ID with a matching name. If you have changed your name since birth, then you will of course need an appropriate paper trail from your birth certificate to the name on your current photo ID.
To pee.
To say that the NC law is batshit insane does not require one to have a solution to the general class of problem of "creepy people doing things in bathrooms they shouldn't". The NC law has no relationship to, for example, the problem posed by male pedophiles in male facilities, such as Dennis Hastert and Jerry Sandusky. It has no relationship to closeted men who engage in inappropriate bathroom behavior, such as Senator Widestance. The NC law bears no relationship to behavior that is socially inappropriate and already illegal.
This is a situation that did not arise as a response to some rash of "creepy people hanging out in bathrooms". It was specifically targeted at transgendered people to require this woman:
to use the men's bathroom.
That is wrong. It is that simple.
To say that is wrong - and it is clearly wrong - does not require some grand solution to every conceivable form of social pathology that is cooked up as a "justification" for something that is clearly wrong.
You do not solve some hypothetical threat by doing wrong to a class of people.
There will be on the order of 20,000 people shot to death in this country this year. Because 14 of them will have been shot by a Muslim man who was born in Chicago, a sizeable portion of the electorate thinks the "solution" to violence is to ban Muslims from entering the country. To say "well, that's kind of stupid" is to invite the question of "Well, how do you stop Muslims from shooting people?" which of course ignores the larger picture of "how do you stop ANYONE in this country from shooting people" as if Muslims are somehow special in that regard.
This is the same sort of distraction from a plainly discriminatory statute by posing an unrelated hypothetical. The "logic" of your hypothetical boils down to "we're going to have to treat a entire class of people like shit because of some potential inappropriate behavior by people who are not members of that class in the first place."
In the meantime, the vast majority of perpetrators of child sexual assault will continue to be their own parents, relatives or caretakers. So if your concern is child sexual assault, why not take the more statistically effective approach of removing all children from their parents, relatives and caretakers, and placing them with total strangers, so they will be safer.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sorry but it is a straw man. A pre-op or non-op trans woman is not going to use the women's
MillennialDem
May 2016
#1
"Single parents brought their opposite-sexed children to open swim all the time."
jberryhill
May 2016
#53
If this is really a concern, alter the law to allow legitimate trans protections. By legitimate I
MillennialDem
May 2016
#7
The argument you are using is based on a false premise--one that is promoted by ignorant people--
mnhtnbb
May 2016
#22
Actually, a straight-presenting man did that in a gym here in Washington, and pointed to our law
pnwmom
May 2016
#66
Here is how I see it - Do you look at other people when you go to a public restroom?
liberal N proud
May 2016
#3
Well, public bathrooms are far more common than public showers. And generally public
MillennialDem
May 2016
#14
I doubt the government wants cross sex showering (or even bathroom use) for NOT OK reasons -
MillennialDem
May 2016
#20
"But neither do I want people with penises in the shower with me or my children"
cleanhippie
May 2016
#27
it's been a problem for me--I've had guys hang around entrance to bathrooms to hit on me
zazen
May 2016
#62
no, i am saying that the law is written in a bigoted ways. if the object was to stop cisgender men
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2016
#37
For you or others: 'Cis' and 'Trans' are prefixes from Latin, 'Cis' means 'on this side of' and
Bluenorthwest
May 2016
#73
Trans is crossing gender, cis is staying on the same side of gender. Change vs staying the same.
LostOne4Ever
May 2016
#84
Calling HB2 the bathroom law does little to foster an honest conversation
littlemissmartypants
May 2016
#38
Someone causing offense and alarm in a public shower is engaging in disorderly conduct
jberryhill
May 2016
#52
Do you want to arrest mothers who take their young sons into the women's shower? yes or no?
jberryhill
May 2016
#60