PayPal bails on North Carolina

[TitanTiger 20,499]

If it is only about restrooms, locker rooms, etc, why did the state of North Carolina override a Charlotte non-discrimination ordinance and make it illegal in the state for a local area to provide for non-discrimination?

Because the primary thing the Charlotte law did that they wanted to stop was the permitting of letting people use the private spaces of the opposite sex on nothing more than a self-proclamation of transgenderism.

But I'm not really defending the specific NC law so much as defending the core idea that it is ludicrous to mandate that we throw open these space to whoever claims a right to use them and that is isn't fear mongering or bigotry to be able to see the bleeding obvious - that it makes it even easier for creeps to gain access to place they have no business in.

[telling tiger 156]

While it is included, by no means is it the primary purpose. You can sell that all day, won't be buying.

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nondiscrimination/Pages/default.aspx

[TitanTiger 20,499]

While it is included, by no means is it the primary purpose. You can sell that all day, won't be buying.

http://charmeck.org/...es/default.aspx

I stand corrected on that aspect. As I said, I'm not necessarily defending the specific situation in NC and how it was done. But I am defending the core idea that this headlong rush into everyone having to affirm someone's "felt gender" is ridiculous and dangerous. I honestly don't care if some dude wants to walk around in women's clothes, call himself Charmaine and whatnot. But as is becoming a typical pattern, people no longer want to simply be left alone to whatever predilections they have, they want coerced affirmation and forcing the entire world to reorient itself to accept their "reality." And in this case, it's unfair and unsafe for women.

[telling tiger 156]

With all those fine and exercised uber-conservative minds in the North Carolina house and they couldn't manage to write a bill that addressed only your concern and the part that drives the social southern conservative concerns?

That original bill even had to spell out in public accommodations that a taxi driver, could not refuse service to someone they deemed, GLBT........housing, employment and city vendors. It might come as a shock, but most mid major and major southern cities have some form of a similar law.

If Christians were identified the same way, denied housing, could be fired for simply being a Christian......the cry would be deafening....they have as much right to exist in peace and freedom as anyone else......

Sick to death of bigoted backwoods bull**** in this country and in the south, particularly.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

1. This isn't just about bathrooms.

2. Try 0.3%

3. This is more about people posing as transgender that transgenders.

4. 0.3% of the population should not dictate policy for the rest. Especially when we're basing it entirely on self-proclaimed feelings rather than any sort of actual diagnosis by a professional. People, and especially women and girls who are a disproportionate number of sexual assault victims, have a right to an expectation of privacy and safety in areas such as locker rooms, showers and restrooms.

If you want to push for more unisex restrooms to be available, fine. At least people know what they're dealing with. But "I feel" is not sufficient to disregard private spaces for men and women.

Yes. My mistake, I left out the . before 3%. And certainly people may pose as transgender, but perverts sneaking into the ladies room is nothing new. I'm not convinced that those numbers will rise because of transgender bathroom policies. I agree with you that females of any age should have a right to be safe, but considering that 82% of sexual assaults are committed by a non-stranger and 90% percent of child sexual abuse is committed by non-strangers I don't think that public restrooms pose any larger threat than before. I have two girls and they were not allowed to go to public bathrooms alone until they were at a suitable age and still don't go alone in a place if I feel its unsafe. Certainly predators can take advantage of this but I think people will be more vigilant in regards to public bathrooms therefore making it a dangerous place for would be predators. Unfortunately, the paranoia this creates may be more dangerous.

[homersapien 11,391]

If it is only about restrooms, locker rooms, etc, why did the state of North Carolina override a Charlotte non-discrimination ordinance and make it illegal in the state for a local area to provide for non-discrimination?

Because the primary thing the Charlotte law did that they wanted to stop was the permitting of letting people use the private spaces of the opposite sex on nothing more than a self-proclamation of transgenderism.

But I'm not really defending the specific NC law so much as defending the core idea that it is ludicrous to mandate that we throw open these space to whoever claims a right to use them and that is isn't fear mongering or bigotry to be able to see the bleeding obvious - that it makes it even easier for creeps to gain access to place they have no business in.

But the issue here is a new state law that is targeted at the behavior of transexuals. Behavior that has not suddenly changed. This is not a problem that needs to be addressed.

The state law was a poltical over-reaction to a problem that has not presented itself.

The only thing that has changed are the city-specific laws of Charlotte which codifies the freedom of transexuals to use the bathroom of their choice. I do not know if that was a reaction to a problem or not.

The hypothesis is the Charlotte law will grant cover to any all sexual predators to declare open season on women in restrooms, thus increasing the number of incidents or arrests. Your language assumes this hypothesis is true but there is little reason to think so for the reasons which have already been mentioned.

I say, let's find out. Or more accurately, let Charlottetons (?) find out. It was an ordnance passed by the city. The city is a representative democracy and can make their laws accordingly. Let them find out if this law does what you think it will.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The hypothesis is the Charlotte law will grant cover to any all sexual predators to declare open season on women in restrooms, thus increasing the number of incidents or arrests. Your language assumes this hypothesis is true but there is little reason to think so for the reasons which have already been mentioned.

Because it does. If some were brave enough to attempt it without a plausible legal cover handed to them, it is certainly going to be taken advantage of more now that they can depend on the skittishness of people to confront them and the fact that you don't have to actually prove you're transgender in any way. Just assert it and everyone has to reorder the universe to orient around your stated feelings.

I say, let's find out. Or more accurately, let Charlottetons (?) find out. It was an ordnance passed by the city. The city is a representative democracy and can make their laws accordingly. Let them find out if this law does what you think it will.

You act like we're just trying out different brands of paint on a board outside to see which one stands up to the weather better. We're talking about young girls and women here. It's not a science project.

[MDM4AU 332]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

1. This isn't just about bathrooms.

2. Try 0.3%

3. This is more about people posing as transgender that transgenders.

4. 0.3% of the population should not dictate policy for the rest. Especially when we're basing it entirely on self-proclaimed feelings rather than any sort of actual diagnosis by a professional. People, and especially women and girls who are a disproportionate number of sexual assault victims, have a right to an expectation of privacy and safety in areas such as locker rooms, showers and restrooms.

If you want to push for more unisex restrooms to be available, fine. At least people know what they're dealing with. But "I feel" is not sufficient to disregard private spaces for men and women.

Yes. My mistake, I left out the . before 3%. And certainly people may pose as transgender, but perverts sneaking into the ladies room is nothing new. I'm not convinced that those numbers will rise because of transgender bathroom policies. I agree with you that females of any age should have a right to be safe, but considering that 82% of sexual assaults are committed by a non-stranger and 90% percent of child sexual abuse is committed by non-strangers I don't think that public restrooms pose any larger threat than before. I have two girls and they were not allowed to go to public bathrooms alone until they were at a suitable age and still don't go alone in a place if I feel its unsafe. Certainly predators can take advantage of this but I think people will be more vigilant in regards to public bathrooms therefore making it a dangerous place for would be predators. Unfortunately, the paranoia this creates may be more dangerous.

Would you agree that access to the victim is the common theme with those stats?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

1. This isn't just about bathrooms.

2. Try 0.3%

3. This is more about people posing as transgender that transgenders.

4. 0.3% of the population should not dictate policy for the rest. Especially when we're basing it entirely on self-proclaimed feelings rather than any sort of actual diagnosis by a professional. People, and especially women and girls who are a disproportionate number of sexual assault victims, have a right to an expectation of privacy and safety in areas such as locker rooms, showers and restrooms.

If you want to push for more unisex restrooms to be available, fine. At least people know what they're dealing with. But "I feel" is not sufficient to disregard private spaces for men and women.

Yes. My mistake, I left out the . before 3%. And certainly people may pose as transgender, but perverts sneaking into the ladies room is nothing new. I'm not convinced that those numbers will rise because of transgender bathroom policies. I agree with you that females of any age should have a right to be safe, but considering that 82% of sexual assaults are committed by a non-stranger and 90% percent of child sexual abuse is committed by non-strangers I don't think that public restrooms pose any larger threat than before. I have two girls and they were not allowed to go to public bathrooms alone until they were at a suitable age and still don't go alone in a place if I feel its unsafe. Certainly predators can take advantage of this but I think people will be more vigilant in regards to public bathrooms therefore making it a dangerous place for would be predators. Unfortunately, the paranoia this creates may be more dangerous.

Would you agree that access to the victim is the common theme with those stats?

Ah, painted myself into a corner. Yes. So point taken. However I still don't think that public restrooms, showers and locker rooms are going to become the new breeding ground for sexual predators, anymore than it already has been.

[alexava 6,973]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

I would be curious to know how these folks would worry about their kids in a Catholic Church(or any church for that matter)? Up until 2002 4% of Priests had molested a child. that is a whole 4% FOUR no decimal.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

I would be curious to know how these folks would worry about their kids in a Catholic Church(or any church for that matter)? Up until 2002 4% of Priests had molested a child. that is a whole 4% FOUR no decimal.

lets compare the numbers 4% of catholic priests in us ~16,400 and then there is this

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) reports that the number of registered sex offenders in the United States has increased by nearly a quarter in the last five years. The total in the most recent survey was 747,408, up from 606,816 in 2006, the first year NCMEC did a count.Jan 23, 2012...so also the #of transgender .3% of us is still many more than # of priests...so many of these predators (747,408) could in the theory could call themselves transgender and hit on unsuspecting young girls....

Changing or adding restrooms is extremely costly. If new restrooms were to have stalls to the floor and went up almost to the ceiling then there would be more privacy but still costly. So are we willing to bend to the will of .3% of the population or one can assume that probably 10% or more of the population are opposed to this...the number is unknown at this time on how many oppose this...

I know this, if I had girls that were of an age that they had to use the restroom by themselves but not old enough i.e. teen age then I would be worried if people presenting themselves as transgender were to follow them in...maybe it is just me but I have been too many places in this world where weird things happen and you always have to be on guard.... the same can be said if I was a women and had young boys....

[alexava 6,973]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

I would be curious to know how these folks would worry about their kids in a Catholic Church(or any church for that matter)? Up until 2002 4% of Priests had molested a child. that is a whole 4% FOUR no decimal.

lets compare the numbers 4% of catholic priests in us ~16,400 and then there is this

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) reports that the number of registered sex offenders in the United States has increased by nearly a quarter in the last five years. The total in the most recent survey was 747,408, up from 606,816 in 2006, the first year NCMEC did a count.Jan 23, 2012...so also the #of transgender .3% of us is still many more than # of priests...so many of these predators (747,408) could in the theory could call themselves transgender and hit on unsuspecting young girls....

Changing or adding restrooms is extremely costly. If new restrooms were to have stalls to the floor and went up almost to the ceiling then there would be more privacy but still costly. So are we willing to bend to the will of .3% of the population or one can assume that probably 10% or more of the population are opposed to this...the number is unknown at this time on how many oppose this...

I know this, if I had girls that were of an age that they had to use the restroom by themselves but not old enough i.e. teen age then I would be worried if people presenting themselves as transgender were to follow them in...maybe it is just me but I have been too many places in this world where weird things happen and you always have to be on guard.... the same can be said if I was a women and had young boys....

i am sure your numbers are correct but in a every church there is at least one priest and more, depending on the size of the church, associate or aspiring priests. do you(not you personally) let your kids go to these places and leave your sight?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

I would be curious to know how these folks would worry about their kids in a Catholic Church(or any church for that matter)? Up until 2002 4% of Priests had molested a child. that is a whole 4% FOUR no decimal.

I think you're confusing statistics here. No one is claiming that the 0.3% of people who truly believe they are transgender are the danger here. So the comparison between the two groups (transgenders v. priests) doesn't really make sense.

I could just as easily ask the same question about public school teachers who had much higher incidents of sexual misconduct than Catholic priests, but would be a much more apt analogy.

But the common thread there as MDM stated is access, which begets opportunity.

That said, in wake of such situations both in and out of church, most churches have instituted a lot more checks and precautions with child volunteers and workers. I go to a rather small church comparatively speaking, but we have yearly training on sexual predators, refreshers on church policy and those policies include rules like adults not being alone with children (there must always be at least one other adult present). These laws that allow anyone that states "feelings" to use whatever facility they want lack accountability and increase access. The exact opposite of what you should be doing.

[homersapien 11,391]

The hypothesis is the Charlotte law will grant cover to any all sexual predators to declare open season on women in restrooms, thus increasing the number of incidents or arrests. Your language assumes this hypothesis is true but there is little reason to think so for the reasons which have already been mentioned.

Because it does. If some were brave enough to attempt it without a plausible legal cover handed to them, it is certainly going to be taken advantage of more now that they can depend on the skittishness of people to confront them and the fact that you don't have to actually prove you're transgender in any way. Just assert it and everyone has to reorder the universe to orient around your stated feelings.

I say, let's find out. Or more accurately, let Charlottetons (?) find out. It was an ordnance passed by the city. The city is a representative democracy and can make their laws accordingly. Let them find out if this law does what you think it will.

You act like we're just trying out different brands of paint on a board outside to see which one stands up to the weather better. We're talking about young girls and women here. It's not a science project.

Sorry, but you can't support a claim of "it does" with pure speculation.

And the law simply addresses discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is no reason to think it will do what you imagine it will, as there is no evidence it will. This is one of the exact same arguments made against integration - it will subject our women to sexual advances by black men.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Sorry, but you can't support a claim of "it does" with pure speculation.

It's not pure speculation. It's basic logic. There's a correlation between assaults and opportunity. There is also a correlation between access and opportunity. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that making access easier increases opportunity which will then increase actions.

And the law simply addresses discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is no reason to think it will do what you imagine it will, as there is no evidence it will. This is one of the exact same arguments made against integration - it will subject our women to sexual advances by black men.

No, it's not the exact same thing. Were I proposing that doing this would subject our women to sexual advances by transgenders, your analogy would work. But I'm not, so this analogy is lazy.

[homersapien 11,391]

Illicit acts in public restrooms is nothing new. Remember Larry Craig? But I'm afraid that every instance now will be linked to the transgender population and the bathroom policies enacted by Target. I for one am tired of hearing this. Only 3% of American's identify as transgender. So chances of sharing a restroom with them are very slim. Don't agree with these laws? Then don't use public restrooms. Have young children to protect? Don't ever allow them to go to a public restroom alone.

1. This isn't just about bathrooms.

2. Try 0.3%

3. This is more about people posing as transgender that transgenders.

4. 0.3% of the population should not dictate policy for the rest. Especially when we're basing it entirely on self-proclaimed feelings rather than any sort of actual diagnosis by a professional. People, and especially women and girls who are a disproportionate number of sexual assault victims, have a right to an expectation of privacy and safety in areas such as locker rooms, showers and restrooms.

If you want to push for more unisex restrooms to be available, fine. At least people know what they're dealing with. But "I feel" is not sufficient to disregard private spaces for men and women.

Yes. My mistake, I left out the . before 3%. And certainly people may pose as transgender, but perverts sneaking into the ladies room is nothing new. I'm not convinced that those numbers will rise because of transgender bathroom policies. I agree with you that females of any age should have a right to be safe, but considering that 82% of sexual assaults are committed by a non-stranger and 90% percent of child sexual abuse is committed by non-strangers I don't think that public restrooms pose any larger threat than before. I have two girls and they were not allowed to go to public bathrooms alone until they were at a suitable age and still don't go alone in a place if I feel its unsafe. Certainly predators can take advantage of this but I think people will be more vigilant in regards to public bathrooms therefore making it a dangerous place for would be predators. Unfortunately, the paranoia this creates may be more dangerous.

Would you agree that access to the victim is the common theme with those stats?

Ah, painted myself into a corner. Yes. So point taken. However I still don't think that public restrooms, showers and locker rooms are going to become the new breeding ground for sexual predators, anymore than it already has been.

No you haven't. "Access" on a daily basis in private, family settings by a family member is hardly the same as random, fleeting "access" to a strange child in a public setting.

It's an absurd stretch to equate the situations. In the case of sexual molestation, the perpetrator likely has either permanent or at least temporary custody of the child as a babysitter. Presumably a child will always be escorted in a public situation.

[homersapien 11,391]

Sorry, but you can't support a claim of "it does" with pure speculation.

It's not pure speculation. It's basic logic. There's a correlation between assaults and opportunity. There is also a correlation between access and opportunity. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that making access easier increases opportunity which will then increase actions.

And the law simply addresses discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is no reason to think it will do what you imagine it will, as there is no evidence it will. This is one of the exact same arguments made against integration - it will subject our women to sexual advances by black men.

No, it's not the exact same thing. Were I proposing that doing this would subject our women to sexual advances by transgenders, your analogy would work. But I'm not, so this analogy is lazy.

The people who claimed that black men represented a sexual threat to white women were convinced they were using "basic logic" as well.

And opposing legislation specifically directed toward the interests of transexuals as being equivalent to enabling child molesters is intellectually dishonest, especially considering the contempt that has been expressed for true transexuals. ("feelings")

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The people who claimed that black men represented a sexual threat to white women were convinced they were using "basic logic" as well.

This "guilt by association" tactic where you don't deal with the actual logic but rather try to score points by comparing it to segregation isn't an actual argument.

And opposing legislation specifically directed toward the interests of transexuals as being equivalent to enabling child molesters is intellectually dishonest, especially considering the contempt that has been expressed for true transexuals. ("feelings")

I'm not making an equivalency. I'm pointing out unintended consequences of a blanket law that is literally based on someone's declared feelings.

And I don't really care what you think of my belief level on transsexualism. It isn't relevant to the problem I'm pointing out. But yes, the basis of this law is just on "feelings." I put the quotes around it because there will be those who declare such "feelings" not because they are true (i.e. they are not transgendered), but because they are an outstanding legal cover to be in spaces they shouldn't be in.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Sorry, but you can't support a claim of "it does" with pure speculation.

It's not pure speculation. It's basic logic. There's a correlation between assaults and opportunity. There is also a correlation between access and opportunity. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that making access easier increases opportunity which will then increase actions.

And the law simply addresses discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is no reason to think it will do what you imagine it will, as there is no evidence it will. This is one of the exact same arguments made against integration - it will subject our women to sexual advances by black men.

No, it's not the exact same thing. Were I proposing that doing this would subject our women to sexual advances by transgenders, your analogy would work. But I'm not, so this analogy is lazy.

"It's not pure speculation. It's basic logic. There's a correlation between assaults and opportunity. There is also a correlation between access and opportunity. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that making access easier increases opportunity which will then increase actions."

I cannot figure out why this is not getting through to some people. It's like I say something similar and then the other side says something completely irrelevant like "transsexuals are not aggressive."

[TheBlueVue 177]

........"I'm pointing out unintended consequences of a blanket law that is literally based on someone's declared feelings."

This is the pivotal issue for me. I do not understand why it is incumbent upon me to accept anyone's beliefs and/or feelings that can be immediately proven false. There was a time when democrats claimed to be the party of science. Well, I guess science doesn't apply to chromosomal sexual determination. Anybody with a package that claims to be a woman has that prerogative but I sure as hell don't have to believe it and don't. People are getting crazier and crazier but I'm not sure whose the craziest of all....the transgenders or the ones who insist that these men are "really" women and consequently have to have access women's bathrooms and showers. Its utterly ridiculous on its face!

[Grumps 3,704]

It seems that multi-user restrooms will soon be extinct. No business will want to be exposed to lawsuits from a transgender (and the corresponding lobby) with hurt feelings OR be exposed to lawsuits from females injured by a biological male in a women's restroom. I don't look forward to waiting in a line just to pee.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I wonder how long before someone claims to be a transgender woman, but also identifies as a lesbian, and wishes to dress as a "butchy" woman (in other words, pretty much dressed like a guy) and is granted access to the women's locker room and showers?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

It seems that multi-user restrooms will soon be extinct. No business will want to be exposed to lawsuits from a transgender (and the corresponding lobby) with hurt feelings OR be exposed to lawsuits from females injured by a biological male in a women's restroom. I don't look forward to waiting in a line just to pee.

The restroom thing will likely end up going to closed stalls and no urinals. It's not ideal and wholly unnecessary, but as you say, businesses are going to take the path of least resistance to shield them from civil suits.

The locker room, shower, dressing room, sauna, whirlpool, etc end of things will be harder to implement and preserve privacy and safety for women. But I'm sure that if we browbeat people long enough and tell them to just get over it, everything will be fine.

[alexava 6,973]

Wow some folks who support this law based on some such far fetched low frequency of occurrences of perversion will go batshit flipping crazy when a law is proposed to prevent mentally ill people from accessing guns.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Wow some folks who support this law based on some such far fetched low frequency of occurrences of perversion will go batshit flipping crazy when a law is proposed to prevent mentally ill people from accessing guns.

Im all for that law. Even if it bans vets with diagnosable PTSD from buying weapons. The only drawback is that vets will be less likely to admit ptsd to the doctors.