No one has demonstrated the issue is to that that extent. A black person could NEVER use a white bathroom.
Obviously. I don't mean that the situation transgender people face is the same as the situation faced by black people in the 1960s. I only mean that we're still at a point where there is a social stigma about transgender people in bathrooms, and many people would say they feel uncomfortable with transgender people in using the same bathroom as them.
Yes it does, seeing how you somehow did not read the last one, sex. You can not be discriminated against becasue of sex (except in some limited circumstances).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
The N. Carolina law is going to be struck down by the courts and a transgender can sue any institution that prevents them from using the bathroom on the basis of their sex.
I would say not allowing a student to use the bathroom at school is a major problem, and the courts will fix that based upon existing laws that protect everyone. With that said, this person is not being prevented from using the bathroom.
As you can see if you read that article, the suit is a title IX suit. Title IX is, in short, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
You might notice that this only applies to education, and only to programs which receive federal funding. You cannot file a title IX suit because you've been kept out of the bathroom at Arby's. The portion of the law that applies to Arby's is Title II (I think I typed too many I's in my previous post), which says:
ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
You might notice that sex is not in that list, nor is being transgender. Would you support adding gender to that list as it applies to bathroom usage, since you seem to have mistakenly believed it was already there?
The law which prevents segregated bathroom is Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While that does protect transgender people against discrimination on the basis of their "race, color, religion, or national origin," it does not protect them from discrimination based on being transgender.
Yes it does, seeing how you somehow did not read the last one, sex. You can not be discriminated against becasue of sex (except in some limited circumstances).
Sex is not gender. The difference is how transgender means anything- transgender being someone whose gender (identity) does not match their (biological) sex.
In this way, this law does not cover trans people.
The law which prevents segregated bathroom is Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While that does protect transgender people against discrimination on the basis of their "race, color, religion, or national origin," it does not protect them from discrimination based on being transgender.
Yes it does, seeing how you somehow did not read the last one, sex. You can not be discriminated against becasue of sex (except in some limited circumstances).
Sex is not gender. The difference is how transgender means anything- transgender being someone whose gender (identity) does not match their (biological) sex.
In this way, this law does not cover trans people.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are male"
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements. Irrelevant of what kind of picture is on the door of the bathroom.
The law which prevents segregated bathroom is Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While that does protect transgender people against discrimination on the basis of their "race, color, religion, or national origin," it does not protect them from discrimination based on being transgender.
Yes it does, seeing how you somehow did not read the last one, sex. You can not be discriminated against becasue of sex (except in some limited circumstances).
Sex is not gender. The difference is how transgender means anything- transgender being someone whose gender (identity) does not match their (biological) sex.
In this way, this law does not cover trans people.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are male"
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements. Irrelevant of what kind of picture is on the door of the bathroom.
I still stand by the fact, the N. Carolina law does not exist if the ordnance in Charlotte is not passed.
This article actually supports the statement that the civil rights act only protects transgender people if they are using a federal institution bathroom... The writer may not have explicitly stated that, but the information is there in how the quotes are worded.
I also notice that you totally ignored that argument in favor of picking apart the weaker one. Great job!
The law which prevents segregated bathroom is Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While that does protect transgender people against discrimination on the basis of their "race, color, religion, or national origin," it does not protect them from discrimination based on being transgender.
Yes it does, seeing how you somehow did not read the last one, sex. You can not be discriminated against becasue of sex (except in some limited circumstances).
Sex is not gender. The difference is how transgender means anything- transgender being someone whose gender (identity) does not match their (biological) sex.
In this way, this law does not cover trans people.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are male"
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements. Irrelevant of what kind of picture is on the door of the bathroom.
I still stand by the fact, the N. Carolina law does not exist if the ordnance in Charlotte is not passed.
This article actually supports the statement that the civil rights act only protects transgender people if they are using a federal institution bathroom... The writer may not have explicitly stated that, but the information is there in how the quotes are worded.
I also notice that you totally ignored that argument in favor of picking apart the weaker one. Great job!
I'm sorry, I was not aware so many people erroneously think it is legal to discriminate based upon sex. That is not my problem.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are male"
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements. Irrelevant of what kind of picture is on the door of the bathroom.
You can not limit, restrict or regulate a man or woman from something simply because they are a man or woman, except for extraordinarily limited circumstances. The persons gender identity is irrelevant. The justification for limiting a person from using a bathroom is solely based on their sex, not their gender identity. I, as a male born male, can not be legally prevented from using a female bathroom.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements.
So you're taking the position in favor of gender-neutral bathrooms, then?
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements.
So you're taking the position in favor of gender-neutral bathrooms, then?
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements.
So you're taking the position in favor of gender-neutral bathrooms, then?
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
I'll take that as a "yes".
And you would miss the point. Gender neutral or female bathrooms are labels and entirely socially constructed. It's identity politics. You have no label for the bathroom, you have no problem, the bathroom becomes what it's supposed to be, a utility, not something to fight over. The fact you want to fight so hard to get me to identify or label it shows me that is what your main interest is in....to take sides or align with some cause.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements.
So you're taking the position in favor of gender-neutral bathrooms, then?
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
Did you miss the part where someone explained the difference between title 7 and title 2?
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements.
So you're taking the position in favor of gender-neutral bathrooms, then?
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
Did you miss the part where someone explained the difference between title 7 and title 2?
Did you quote the wrong post? I digress, I guess most here believe the N. Carolina law to be constitutional, or it to be legal to discriminate based on sex.
The Justice Department complaint against the NC law is not that it's unconstitutional, it's that it violates Title VII of the civil rights act. Title VII is about employment, and the justice department is saying that it's unlawful to deny appropriate restroom usage to state employees.
The Justice Department complaint against the NC law is not that it's unconstitutional, it's that it violates Title VII of the civil rights act. Title VII is about employment, and the justice department is saying that it's unlawful to deny appropriate restroom usage to state employees.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements.
So you're taking the position in favor of gender-neutral bathrooms, then?
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
Did you miss the part where someone explained the difference between title 7 and title 2?
Did you quote the wrong post? I digress, I guess most here believe the N. Carolina law to be constitutional, or it to be legal to discriminate based on sex.
I did not. You seem to be under the impression that the civil rights act protects people according to their sex in private and public establishments, ie, institutions that do not recieve government funding, and those that do. This is not the case. The civil rights act only protects lgbt folks in government funded institutions. A business like Wal-Mart has no obligation, on the federal level, to allow lgbt folks to do anything. The utility company, on the other hand, has to(should) serve and employ these people with equal opportunity.
So yes, I do think it's legal to discriminate based on sex, so long as you're not paid by the government. Not right, but legal.
You seem to be under the impression that the civil rights act protects people according to their sex in private and public establishments, ie, institutions that do not recieve government funding, and those that do.
That is the correct impression to be under. Title II of the Act outlaws discrimination in any place of "public accommodation", which does not include all private businesses, but does include a lot of them.
I stand corrected about the CRA and my guess that will be remedied. The CRA should protect all people from discrimination. With that said no one has has yet presented compelling evidence people are having a major problem using the bathroom. I also do not think we shouuld be picking and choosing whose discomfort we should respect.
You seem to be under the impression that the civil rights act protects people according to their sex in private and public establishments, ie, institutions that do not recieve government funding, and those that do.
That is the correct impression to be under. Title II of the Act outlaws discrimination in any place of "public accommodation", which does not include all private businesses, but does include a lot of them.
The civil rights act only protects lgbt folks in government funded institutions.
The Act also does not protect L, G, or B folks at all, and whether it protects T folks is an... interesting question.
Title 2 actually does not include "sex" in it's words. And you're really right, the civil rights act doesn't protect lgb folks, but, personally, I think an argument for sex to be a term that applies to transgender people would be good.
@Gusto I see it more like if when describing Black People and White People if you always referred to them as Black People and People, that'd be weird.
I'll consider my language, but I'm probably not changing it.
I think it has something to do with the "cis" label being imposed upon them. Minorities get labeled against their will by the majority all the time, but this is an unusual reversal. Historically there hasn't been a word for cis people because they're just such a huge majority, and then the trans community comes along and slaps this label on them. Feels bad for the same reasons getting labeled always feels bad.
Or look at at this way. I believe there are -- to within the same ballpark estimate -- about as many trans people as there are achondroplastic dwarfs. Wouldn't it be kind of weird if "giant", as the opposite of "dwarf", suddenly became a regular part of everyday discourse to identify people as being among the 99.99% (number not exaggerated) of the population that is of average height? Does it make sense to have a label for every medical condition you don't have?
(Also, "cis" sounds like "sissy".)
Exactly this!
I do not understand why the most prevalent form has to have an extra name. It really seems to be pointless except for SJWs to have a word of the week.
Exactly this!
I do not understand why the most prevalent form has to have an extra name. It really seems to be pointless except for SJWs to have a word of the week.
Generally we have words for things to make it easier to discuss them. It's a bit clunky to say 'person whose gender identity matches their biological sex', don't you think?
Generally we have words for things to make it easier to discuss them. It's a bit clunky to say 'person whose gender identity matches their biological sex', don't you think?
If your only point to say is "not trans", then just say so. Unless it is really important or adds useful information, using "cis" is just obnoxious. Also, apparently there are other forms too, so by saying "cis" you exclude all of them too.
Also, apparently there are other forms too, so by saying "cis" you exclude all of them too.
That's actually an argument against ditching "cis". Sometimes you want to talk about everybody who isn't trans, then you can say "not trans". But sometimes you do want to talk specifically about that majority group, and not the-majority-group-plus-all-the-other-minorities-that-aren't-trans.
It's like how sometimes you want to talk about all "nonblack" people, and sometimes you want to talk about "white" people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If your only point to say is "not trans", then just say so. Unless it is really important or adds useful information, using "cis" is just obnoxious. Also, apparently there are other forms too, so by saying "cis" you exclude all of them too.
Right, so when you say "cisgendered", you mean "person whose gender identity matches their biological sex", which, as you point out, is not the same thing as "not transgendered".
Also, apparently there are other forms too, so by saying "cis" you exclude all of them too.
That's actually an argument against ditching "cis". Sometimes you want to talk about everybody who isn't trans, then you can say "not trans". But sometimes you do want to talk specifically about that majority group, and not the-majority-group-plus-all-the-other-minorities-that-aren't-trans.
It's like how sometimes you want to talk about all "nonblack" people, and sometimes you want to talk about "white" people.
See, this is actually a good argument for me to use cis- less often in the topic, and no-one had to be called sjw for it to make sense.
Like, I can't believe I forgot about intersex people until now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
How about a human being who just wants to choose where they go to the bathroom? The persons gender, sex, identity, race, ethnic back ground should be irrelevant, but you are finding ways to make it relevant by putting some label on someone who is not like you, or like you. The toilet does not know any difference. Shouldn't we promote the same attitude as the toilet? Until we get to that point as a society, we will continue to hit our heads against the wall with discrimination.
Obviously. I don't mean that the situation transgender people face is the same as the situation faced by black people in the 1960s. I only mean that we're still at a point where there is a social stigma about transgender people in bathrooms, and many people would say they feel uncomfortable with transgender people in using the same bathroom as them.
As you can see if you read that article, the suit is a title IX suit. Title IX is, in short, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
You might notice that this only applies to education, and only to programs which receive federal funding. You cannot file a title IX suit because you've been kept out of the bathroom at Arby's. The portion of the law that applies to Arby's is Title II (I think I typed too many I's in my previous post), which says:
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/civil_rights_act.html
You might notice that sex is not in that list, nor is being transgender. Would you support adding gender to that list as it applies to bathroom usage, since you seem to have mistakenly believed it was already there?
Sex is not gender. The difference is how transgender means anything- transgender being someone whose gender (identity) does not match their (biological) sex.
In this way, this law does not cover trans people.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"You cant use this bathroom because you are male"
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements. Irrelevant of what kind of picture is on the door of the bathroom.
I encourage you to read this:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/120219/20160506/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-law-hb2-violates-the-civil-rights-act-in-these-four-ways.htm
I still stand by the fact, the N. Carolina law does not exist if the ordnance in Charlotte is not passed.
This article actually supports the statement that the civil rights act only protects transgender people if they are using a federal institution bathroom... The writer may not have explicitly stated that, but the information is there in how the quotes are worded.
I also notice that you totally ignored that argument in favor of picking apart the weaker one. Great job!
I'm sorry, I was not aware so many people erroneously think it is legal to discriminate based upon sex. That is not my problem.
"You cant use this bathroom because you are male"
"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements. Irrelevant of what kind of picture is on the door of the bathroom.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/gender-discrimination-applicable-laws.html
You can not limit, restrict or regulate a man or woman from something simply because they are a man or woman, except for extraordinarily limited circumstances. The persons gender identity is irrelevant. The justification for limiting a person from using a bathroom is solely based on their sex, not their gender identity. I, as a male born male, can not be legally prevented from using a female bathroom.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
And you would miss the point. Gender neutral or female bathrooms are labels and entirely socially constructed. It's identity politics. You have no label for the bathroom, you have no problem, the bathroom becomes what it's supposed to be, a utility, not something to fight over. The fact you want to fight so hard to get me to identify or label it shows me that is what your main interest is in....to take sides or align with some cause.
Did you miss the part where someone explained the difference between title 7 and title 2?
Did you quote the wrong post? I digress, I guess most here believe the N. Carolina law to be constitutional, or it to be legal to discriminate based on sex.
My bad, meant to say against the law.
I did not. You seem to be under the impression that the civil rights act protects people according to their sex in private and public establishments, ie, institutions that do not recieve government funding, and those that do. This is not the case. The civil rights act only protects lgbt folks in government funded institutions. A business like Wal-Mart has no obligation, on the federal level, to allow lgbt folks to do anything. The utility company, on the other hand, has to(should) serve and employ these people with equal opportunity.
So yes, I do think it's legal to discriminate based on sex, so long as you're not paid by the government. Not right, but legal.
The Act also does not protect L, G, or B folks at all, and whether it protects T folks is an... interesting question.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Title 2 actually does not include "sex" in it's words. And you're really right, the civil rights act doesn't protect lgb folks, but, personally, I think an argument for sex to be a term that applies to transgender people would be good.
Exactly this!
I do not understand why the most prevalent form has to have an extra name. It really seems to be pointless except for SJWs to have a word of the week.
Generally we have words for things to make it easier to discuss them. It's a bit clunky to say 'person whose gender identity matches their biological sex', don't you think?
If your only point to say is "not trans", then just say so. Unless it is really important or adds useful information, using "cis" is just obnoxious. Also, apparently there are other forms too, so by saying "cis" you exclude all of them too.
It's like how sometimes you want to talk about all "nonblack" people, and sometimes you want to talk about "white" people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Right, so when you say "cisgendered", you mean "person whose gender identity matches their biological sex", which, as you point out, is not the same thing as "not transgendered".
Like, I can't believe I forgot about intersex people until now.
Art is life itself.