New NCAA legislation

[Hump4Hoops]

I don't get the projection of trans people as being predators.

Trans people are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of violence. They probably just want to go pee in peace.

A trans female, especially one that presents very convincingly as a female, is going to fit in with no issues in a women's bathroom, especially in the privacy of a stall. Imagine the harassment and violence someone like that is likely to encounter in a crowded men's room.

Same goes for a convincing trans male. Some of them have impressive beards and muscles. Would you rather this person be forced to use the ladies room, and not only be personally shamed, but freak out most every female in there?

 

[121Josey]

Clear this up for me and I am dead serious. If I feel that a person born with male genitals is a man and should use the men`s restroom regardless of what`s floating around in his mind....does that make me a bigot ?

edited to add: and still has said genitals

Does it? You clear it up for me. You seem to be implying that it does. I can't tell if you are dead serious or deadly serious. I get confused when people ask questions instead of making a declarations.

Let me be clear. Labeling people bigots, hypocrites, liars, haters, etc. is a tool of those who have either male genitalia or female genitalia or both (and don't let me overlook those person who enjoy stimulation with like genitalia or those persons who have no preference for types of genitalia nor restrooms reserved for that genitalia.

 

[os62]

That would be Junction Jenner**

+1

 

[thatsbaseball]

No we didn`t need the law. I`m just asking a straight up question. Am I a bigot for preferring that men and women use their designated restrooms.

 

[thatsbaseball]

See my response to Pat above. Definitely not a trick question.

 

[John Lorry]

I can't speak to the accuracy of this but:

In 2011, the NCAA’s Office of Inclusion, “to provide guidance to NCAA athletic programs about how to ensure transgender student-athletes fair, respectful, and legal access to collegiate sports teams based on current medical and legal knowledge,” provided best practices and policy recommendations for member institutions, as well as guidance for implementing those policies.
Any transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatment related to gender transition may participate in sex-separated sports activities in accordance with his or her assigned birth gender.

• A trans male (FTM) student-athlete who is not taking testosterone related to gender transition may participate on a men’s or women’s team.
• A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.

The participation of FTM and MTF student-athletes who are currently undergoing hormone treatments is treated differently.

• A FTM student-athlete who has received a medical exception for treatment with testosterone for diagnosed Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism may compete on a men’s team, but is no longer eligible to compete on a women’s team without changing the team status to a mixed team. A mixed team is only eligible to compete for men’s championships.
• A MTF student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism may continue to compete on a men’s team, but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of documented testosterone-suppression treatment.

The use of banned substances, like testosterone, by student-athletes further complicates the issues for FTM and MTF student-athletes. Specifically, NCAA Bylaw 31.2.3 identifies testosterone as a banned substance, and provides for a medical exception review for demonstrated need for use of a banned medication. It is the responsibility of the NCAA institution to submit the request for a medical exception for testosterone treatment prior to the student-athlete competing while undergoing treatment. In the case of testosterone suppression, the institution must submit written documentation to the NCAA of the year of treatment and ongoing monitoring of testosterone suppression.

Link

If this was ultimately approved or adopted by the NCAA, it seems like the policy for MTF student athletes is problematic from the NCAA's official non-discrimination policy.

 

[KurtRambis4]

We can do away with

Title IX, and finally, Polk wins!

 

[mcdawg22]

be enforced, too. Also, it applies to baseball.

From Dave Worlock, NCAA Director of Media Coordination, "Sites must report how they will provide an environment that is safe, healthy, and free of discrimination, plus safeguards the dignity of everyone involved in the event."

Where do you draw the line on people being "discriminated?"

What do you do with LSU fans though. They have to have a separate bathroom right?

 

[ckDOG]

Amen, Pat.

nm

 

[121Josey]

See my response to Pat above. Definitely not a trick question.

I'm serious - not deadly serious (nor dead serious) - I don't give a 17. But feel free to answer your own question or keep it a rhetorical question.

You're not understanding my argument because I am not arguing what Pat is arguing. But that doesn't surprise me.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

No we didn`t need the law. I`m just asking a straight up question. Am I a bigot for preferring that men and women use their designated restrooms.

No not a bigot. But I do wonder why you and others suddenly care about something that's gone on your while life without you ever noticing or causing any problems. (This is the identical argument that presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump made.)

 

[BossDawg78]

How did the people this supposedly affects get by in the decades past? They hold it till they get home? You mean to tell me that after thousands of years that only now people can piss where they feel "comfortable"?

That's what I've been wondering this whole time. Why is this just now an issue? The "system" seemed to work fine in the past, until now. All of these people suddenly feeling "unsafe" and "oppressed" is making me feel unsafe and oppressed. What about my rights?

 

[johnson86-1]

Trans people are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of violence. They probably just want to go pee in peace.

A trans female, especially one that presents very convincingly as a female, is going to fit in with no issues in a women's bathroom, especially in the privacy of a stall. Imagine the harassment and violence someone like that is likely to encounter in a crowded men's room.

Same goes for a convincing trans male. Some of them have impressive beards and muscles. Would you rather this person be forced to use the ladies room, and not only be personally shamed, but freak out most every female in there?

You're not understanding the argument at all. Nobody (or very few people) are worried about people that are actually trans being predators. But currently, people are more or less limited to going to the opposite sex's bathroom if they can pass. A male predator can't just put on a wig and walk into a female's bathroom without a fairly significant risk of being arrested for a sex crime. If private entities are prohibited from having single sex bathrooms, then a male doesn't even have to bother with the wig. Just walk on in there and any private business that tries to stop him runs the risk of a lawsuit.

 

[Junction John]

The locker rooms are going to be interesting.

 

[johnson86-1]

They went to the bathroom of the sex they supposedly converted to and no one even noticed. Like Mississippi, North Carolina has passed a law that solves a problem that didn't even exist.

This is wrong. The entire point of the North Carolina Law was that Charlotte had passed an ordinance that allowed men to choose to use women's facilities and vice versa, even in bathrooms of private businesses. The North Carolina law prohibited Charlotte's city government from dictating bathroom policies to private entities and also provided that for government entities, single sex bathrooms are the default.

Mississippi's law primarily addresses a currently non-existent local ordinance making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals when providing wedding services, or prohibiting religious organizations from exercising freedom of association in their employment decisions. It was pretty unnecessary, but North Carolina's was not.

 

[Junction John]

I saw that Lou's Full Serv in Jackson has a "1" and a "2" on the restroom doors, although I'm not clear on which I am.

So I took the liberty of leaving a big ol' deuce in the #2 room. It just felt right.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

That's what I've been wondering this whole time. Why is this just now an issue? The "system" seemed to work fine in the past, until now. All of these people suddenly feeling "unsafe" and "oppressed" is making me feel unsafe and oppressed. What about my rights?

Conservative Christians are the ones crying oppression over the bathroom issue! For decades they never knew or cared that there were trans people in there, until recently they learned and decided they were offended.

Right wing political correctness are all these new laws are.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Again, this is a solution to an imaginary problem.

Using the 'wrong' bathroom is not currently breaking a law. The owners could ask you to leave if you're being a creep, but no one is arresting anyone for walking into the ladies room.

If you're going to sexually assault someone, that is already against the law, period. Homosexual rapists and child molesters exist and no one seems to think that makes current bathrooms an issue.

This shames a small minority, helps no one, and makes the lawmakers' ultra conservative base feel better about themselves. If I'm wrong, show me where public restroom sexual assault cases have gone up in places where trans friendly bathroom rules/laws have been enacted.

 

[patdog]

This shames a small minority, helps no one,

It's actually going to cause problems if trans people follow the law. Women are going to be a lot more freaked out by a trans woman-to-man going into the women's bathroom than they were by a trans man-to-woman.

 

[thatsbaseball]

I must have lived a sheltered life cause I truly didn`t know it was going on and you`re right it has never caused me any problem what so ever.

 

[Will James]

No not a bigot. But I do wonder why you and others suddenly care about something that's gone on your while life without you ever noticing or causing any problems. (This is the identical argument that presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump made.)

because now everyone is saying that it's normal and promoting it.

 

[121Josey]

Conservative Christians are the ones crying oppression over the bathroom issue! For decades they never knew or cared that there were trans people in there, until recently they learned and decided they were offended.

Right wing political correctness are all these new laws are.

My conservative Muslim friend says that if you don't want to have to sit down to piss for the rest of your life, keep your dick out of the women's restrooms. Laws or no laws. Speaking on behalf of a friend.**

 

[willi13]

A figure wearing a plaid lumberjack shirt

 

[thatsbaseball]

My concern is for the girls/children. Not about them being sexually assaulted or anything like that but for being exposed to an adult situation they really shouldn`t have to deal with at too young of an age. I guess kind of like movie ratings by age group.

 

[johnson86-1]

It's not a solution to an imaginary problem. The entire reason North Carolina passed the law is that Charlotte had tried to mandate how private businesses handled their bathrooms. Charlotte passed a law to combat an imaginary problem and created a new one. The existing system where people used the bathroom they could pass for worked fine. By changing it, they put private businesses in an untenable position where they could be sued for trying to prevent men from entering the ladies bathroom or locker room, but they could also be sued for failing to prevent a predator from entering the ladies bathroom or locker room.

Using the 'wrong' bathroom is not currently breaking a law. The owners could ask you to leave if you're being a creep, but no one is arresting anyone for walking into the ladies room.

If you're going to sexually assault someone, that is already against the law, period. Homosexual rapists and child molesters exist and no one seems to think that makes current bathrooms an issue.

And you are still being too dense to understand the argument. Right now, it is feasible for businesses to protect the privacy of individuals in the bathroom. Extremely committed perverts could still get into bathrooms to film or just peek at the opposite sex, but an obviously male person couldn't just freely camp out in the ladies restroom, and if they did, the business would be free to eject them. People aren't worried about obvious men using the women's restroom (although some women are obviously uncomfortable with that) as much as they are worried about the fact that ordinance's like Charlotte's would make it impossible to provide women privacy with anything bathroom arrangement other than one toilet, one sink per lockable room.

This shames a small minority, helps no one, and makes the lawmakers' ultra conservative base feel better about themselves. If I'm wrong, show me where public restroom sexual assault cases have gone up in places where trans friendly bathroom rules/laws have been enacted.

Sure, it's the "ultra conservative base" trying to feel better about themselves. Not the completely, middle of the road liberals trying to legislate away completely functional social norms that have worked pretty well the past hundred and some odd years (not to mention the question of why it should be their business to dictate a private entity's bathroom policy, rather than letting it be worked out between the entity and its employees and customers).

 

[johnson86-1]

It's actually going to cause problems if trans people follow the law. Women are going to be a lot more freaked out by a trans woman-to-man going into the women's bathroom than they were by a trans man-to-woman.

What law are you referring to?
Is there a law out there mandating that transgendered use a certain restroom. There are going to be some government facilities in North Carolina that are limited in how they provide bathroom arrangements, but outside of that, is there a law mandating that they go to a particular bathroom?

 

[johnson86-1]

Conservative Christians are the ones crying oppression over the bathroom issue! For decades they never knew or cared that there were trans people in there, until recently they learned and decided they were offended.

Right wing political correctness are all these new laws are.

Or maybe it was the whole idea of trying to make it illegal to have single sex bathrooms? In fairness, that seems kind of new doesn't it? You think it's possible that maybe the people that are being unreasonable about the whole bathroom thing are the people trying to do away with the status quo that resulted in people that looked like ladies using the ladies restroom, and people that looked like men using the men's restroom? After all, wasn't that working fine in the past?

And hell, even ignoring what worked in the past, does it really sound reasonable for somebody to say "it's oppressive to make me use a bathroom with other people with penises, but if people without penises don't want to use the same bathroom as me and my penis, they're bigots."?? Does nothing about that strike you as the least bit odd?

 

[BossDawg78]

THIS IS SUCH A BLESSING IN DISGUISE!

We won't have any more "men's" and "women's" sports. Just the sport itself. Solves the issue with having women playing sports.

Then people will start bitching about women getting their teeth knocked out and how they keep getting carted off the field. Full circle.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

There's your imaginary problem.

ordinance's like Charlotte's would make it impossible to provide women privacy

What guys were using that ordinance to just hang out in women's restrooms for nefarious purposes? Theoretical ones?

 

[johnson86-1]

What guys were using that ordinance to just hang out in women's restrooms for nefarious purposes? Theoretical ones?

Right, because we have to be completely ignorant of human nature when we pass laws. Geeeesh, the stupid things people can convince themselves of when they're trying to pat themselves on teh back for right think. But, if you just know you are right thinking,

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-bathrooms-voyeurism_n_8253970.html
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html
http://linkis.com/www.lifesitenews.com/12D80
http://theavtimes.com/2013/05/14/palmdale-man-arrested-for-videotaping-in-womens-bathroom/

http://www.king5.com/news/man-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/65533111

ETA: And keep in mind, these are just a few examples of people being blatant enough to get caught. All the events where guys creep on women obviously enough to make them uncomfortable and leave the rest room don't get reported.

 

[Big Sheep81]

and sensible shoes*

 

[horshack.sixpack]

The people that you describe have likely been using their preferred bathroom since they decided to make whatever change(s) they made. I think that the negative reaction is mostly:

1) fear that sexually depraved will use it as a hunting ground

2) Competing beliefs about what makes a person become transgender and the necessity of change: Some believe that it is just one of many sexually deviant behaviors and have a fear of allowing sexual deviants proximity to vulnerable people in a vulnerable situation while other believe that it is somehow genetically wired and "normal"(although the same crowd seemingly dismisses science when it comes to gender, so that's confusing), while others still accept psychiatry that equates the inability to recognize of accept one's gender as a very similar mental illness to those who suffer anorexia and still see a fat person in the mirror while everyone else can see they are starving.

3) general fear of the known and being tired of being told that there is actually no right or wrong in the world and that all that matters is each individuals feelings (all 7 billion of them) and having a world that must cater to 7 billion independent opinions/feelings or be called intolerant is pretty much doomed as that is a recipe for anarchy and when taken to its logical conclusion is untenable.

4) a genuine feeling by those who believe in the proven scientific genetics of gender that the nation has collectively had its brain fall out

Admittedly it couldn't make less sense to me if the argument were written in sanskrit (no offense to Indians - the Eastern kind; not the native American of which I am one - you can actually offend us as much as you like it turns out). I personally am ready because dudes public restrooms are nasty, so as soon as this thing hits for good I'm probably never taking a dump in a Men's public restroom again (or will all restrooms now be equally nasty?)...

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Well, if nothing else, QuaoarsKing has made an argument for less government and Hump4Hoops has basically made the argument against further gun control laws (albeit on a tangential topic) in another response to you, so there is that.

 

[DerHntr]

I can't speak to the accuracy of this but:



Link

If this was ultimately approved or adopted by the NCAA, it seems like the policy for MTF student athletes is problematic from the NCAA's official non-discrimination policy.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Agreed. It is very problematic since, as usual, the NCAA is not consistent. They are discriminating against MTF blatantly. You don't get to be wishy washy on this subject in today's current environment. Either the man who thinks he is a woman is truly a woman in your eyes, or he is in fact still a man. Pick one NCAA and run with it.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Zero of those are example of results of a law like Charlotte's.

Most occurred in placed without any type of ordinance, and would be happening anyway. Cross dressing to be a pervert is not new. Gender neutral bathrooms are unrelated.

 

[3000lbchicken]

Most occurred in placed without any type of ordinance, and would be happening anyway. Cross dressing to be a pervert is not new. Gender neutral bathrooms are unrelated.

So, let's open up the bathrooms and make it completely impossible to be able to stop someone who might be a predator. What happens when you spot a perv and you try to stop him and you can't prove it? Or worse they try to sue you in return?

This whole thing is stupid though. Why are people fighting to get in a public bathroom that other people use? You might as well be begging to re-use their toilet paper.

Get your own private less trafficked bathroom and be ******* happy instead of a sulking head case. Not my problem. No men in the womens restroom! No means NO!

 

[Hump4Hoops]

It's sad that this propaganda won out in MS.

No men in the womens restroom!

It's basically stating that transgender people do/should not exist. When you think of it that way, who wouldn't get on board with keeping men out of women's restrooms?

 

[3000lbchicken]

Soft-play it all you want. I don't need propoganda to know what's right. I have kids, two girls, and a wife. It's their right to privacy and safety that I worry about.

You want unknown males waltzing in the bathroom with yours? I don't even go in the bathroom with mine. You may not have kids now but I think most fathers would feel the same way I do, especially if they have little girls.

And another thing, I have gay friends/family and I do care they exist. Don't assume you know something about everyone just because of their stance on something. It is ok to disagree. Sometimes you have to accept no as an answer too.

 

[johnson86-1]

Most occurred in placed without any type of ordinance, and would be happening anyway. Cross dressing to be a pervert is not new. Gender neutral bathrooms are unrelated.

It must cause you physical pain to admit you are wrong to prefer to type a response like that.

Zero of those are example of results of a law like Charlotte's in the sense that none of them are city ordinances passed by Charlotte.

But the rule from the Washington Human Rights Commission that dictates the same thing as the Charlotte ordinance seems sort of "like" the Charlotte Ordinance, right? Granted, it's a ruling from a state agency applicable to the whole state rather than a city ordinance applicable to just the city, but since it's otherwise functionally equivalent, don't you think anybody not already dug into their position would say that's sort of "like" the Charlotte ordinance?

And the law from Ontario (granted that's not only not a city, but not even in the U.S.), which provided people rights based on their "gender identity" rather than their sex, you don't think that's sort of like Charlotte's ordinance that extended rights to people based on their gender identify rather than their sex? You can't see how somebody would think the situation where a women's shelter having to let a person with a penis in because of a law might be seen as "like" a situation where a gym had to let a person with a penis into a women's locker room?

And the example regarding the University of Toronto, which voluntarily implemented a policy where people could choose the bathroom they felt aligned with their gender, don't you think that sort of creates a situation "like" that created by the Charlotte ordinance? In both instances, people were allowed to use the showers that they felt corresponded with their gender identity, and the University of Toronto had to back-off of their policy because some people (presumably not transgendered people) used the opportunity for voyeurism, because have the right to be inside the bathroom made it much easier to pull off.

I mean, it's a 17ing message board. It's ok to be gloriously wrong sometimes. Everybody pretty much talks out of their *** at some point on a message board. It should be particularly easy for you to admit to, since you don't even have to change your position on whether Charlotte's ordinance is a good idea. You just have to recognize that when you talked about NC's law addressing a non-existent problem, you were completely unaware of the facts (and I guess of human nature, as you really shouldn't have needed examples to know that it would be a problem). Or you can keep digging in. Doesn't really matters either way on a message board. I'd probably go with the admitting I made a mistake in the real world though.