categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

Wrong is Wrong

And this bill is wrong.

 

Let me start by saying I really don’t grok gender identity changes, homosexuality, etc, but I do support an individual’s right to choose to be whomever they want to be, however they want to be.  The only caveat is that they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights while doing so.

 

This bill is wrong on a number of levels.

First and foremost it’s none of the government’s business what bathroom someone uses based on personal identity.  How do they intend to enforce this, setup some DPS folks outside of bathrooms? Ah right, no way to enforce it, just another law on the books to throw at someone when the opportunity arises.

Second, the Republicans (you know, the “party of limited government”) are just further showing how great they are at being for small government unless it involves being in someone’s pants.  Then, the Rs think the government should be as involved as possible.  What could possibly go wrong?

Third, we have bigger fish to fry.  If this is something worth considering, there shouldn’t be any other problems in AZ, right?

Fourth, I am TOTALLY opposed to the idea of “strike everything” amendments to bills.  A bill shouldn’t just be a delivery vehicle for whatever you want, easily replaced at the last minute.  If you want to address this issue, Dr. K, you need to file your own bill directly addressing the matter.

 

Anyone that claims to be for liberty, for personal freedom, and for self-ownership should probably be opposed to this bill.  If you claim yourself a liberty activist and support such a bill, please do elaborate in the comments.  I would love to hear how that works out.

This post brought to you by:

14 comments to Wrong is Wrong

  • Matt in FL

    “Strike everything” bills are apparently a fairly common legislative tool that I was completely unaware of prior to the recent explosion of gun-related legislation. I completely agree with you that they’re a seemingly underhanded way to get things done that should be done away with.

  • Pyrotek85

    “Third, we have bigger fish to fry. If this is something worth considering, there shouldn’t be any other problems in AZ, right?”

    This was my first thought. Is there a sudden surge of transgender and transsexual people using the ‘wrong’ bathrooms? If they’re not actually doing something to people (like sexual assault) then who cares?

  • @Matt – I’m finding that out more and more. When I find time (hehehe, yeahhh), I’m hoping to add that to my agenda for AZ alongside a jury nullification notification bill (a la NH).

    @Pyrotek85 – I believe this was triggered by this (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/phoenix-city-council-considers-anti-bias-measure), where the PHX city council voted to extend anti-discrimination policies to the LGBT community. I’m not a member of that community, but certainly feel they deserve equal protection under the law.

    All that said, if there were a law to give their community special privileges, I’d be wholly opposed to it.

  • Squirrel

    I have to disagree here when the scope includes private property. If a trans-what have you doesnt like the business practice, they can go elsewhere or use the restroom assigned for their specific gender. If they really dont like the businesses practice, they can boycott and picket.

    They do however deserve equal protection under the law if it is a government facility or a facility subsidized by any form of government.

    Lastly, I know a man who feels more comfortable as a woman, but still is only attracted to women. He also has had issues with peeping and stalking in the past. Should he be allowed equal protection?

    To expand this even further there have been numerous instabnces of late where a transgendered man wants to compete in women’s sports should they be allowed even though due to testosterone (which in case of women’s sports could be a performance enhancing drug)they likely would have a natural physical advantage?

    Where is the line drawn? Should it be drawn?

  • @Squirrel – I believe private property owners should have that right, but this bill does nothing to change that. I think *private* owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they choose (even if it would generally be considered foolish).

    From the bill:
    “PROVISIONS
    · States a person commits disorderly conduct if they intentionally enter a public restroom, bathroom, shower, bath, dressing room or locker room, and a sign indicates that the room is exclusively for the use of one sex, and that person is not legally classified as a member of that sex on their birth certificate.

    · Classifies the disorderly conduct violation as a Class 1 misdemeanor (6 months/$2,500).

    · Provides an exemption from the violation for persons that:
    Ø Enter as part of their job responsibilities,
    Ø Enter to give aid or assistance to another,
    Ø Is a child in need of assistance, or
    Ø Are physically disabled.”

    Your example should be afforded equal protection. If they got into legal trouble for peeping/stalking in the past, they should either be past those problems, or still under some form of legal care (prison, house arrest, whatever is most appropriate for their crimes).

    The athlete example is interesting. Are they government sponsored sports? If so, equal protection. If it’s entirely private, it’s up to the organization running the event. Personally, I’d be fine with them competing. Should we have height requirements, weight requirements (for sports outside of fighting sports), “race” requirements? All of those could give natural physical advantages.

    For me the line is drawn with public/private. I’d prefer the private businesses/individuals provide equal protection to everyone, but I don’t believe they should be forced to do so.

  • Squirrel

    So men should be able to compete in women’s Olympic games?

  • On the one hand, I firmly oppose this stupid-assed, unenforceable bill – idiocy like that only serves to weaken all other laws by association.

    On the other hand, I completely understand parents’ uncomfortableness with a physical male using the female bathroom with their those parents’ teenage girls.

    Not sure what a good solution is, but this legislation ain’t it.

  • Squirrel – If there is already a separate division for their them, that’s one thing.

    If there was no male event for that man to compete in? Sure, he should be able to compete in the women’s sport.

    If he identifies as a female, it’s obviously a bit of a gray area, but it’s my understanding that there is quite a bit of hormone therapy involved…not sure exactly how things play out with testosterone levels when that happens, but I’m not opposed to her competing with other women.

  • Archer

    No, no, no, and NO!

    Here’s my question: Will they consider it an “affirmative defense” for a physically-apparent male (but biologically female, as listed on the birth certificate) getting detained for indecent exposure when “he” walks into the women’s restroom? (That’s the kind of thing could get a regular guy on the sex offender registry!) Will “he” have to carry around a copy of the BC to prove it? Will “he” be arrested for falsifying government records if the driver’s licence says “male” but the BC says “female”?

    I’ve always identified myself as a true conservative, and added that ironically, that means I agree with “liberals” on a lot of topics. This is one of them. Barring a compelling, measurable, and provable “public good” interest (and good luck finding one for this), the government has no business engaging in the monitoring of a person’s private … er … “business”.

  • Either they need a 3rd bathroom with ? on it or One bathroom for everyone and tough luck.
    Actually, there’s no ‘black’ bathrooms and ‘white’ bathrooms. No ‘gay’ bathrooms and ‘straight’ bathrooms. The answer has to be one communal (french style)hole in the ground for everyone.
    Who the f thinks this shit up to waste time on?

  • Derek D.

    Will be contacting my reps about this bill. It needs to die.

    The ghost of Barry Goldwater needs to rise from the grave and whup the sponsor’s butt.

  • […] Skas, I’m a guy. Warts and all, I wouldn’t know how to be anything but a guy and I’ve […]

  • One partial solution is to install unisex restrooms in all future public facilities. Each toilet is in its own room, and everyone shares the sinks. It requires more walls, but less floor space than two separate restrooms. YouTube HQ has these.

  • @James – I haven’t seen a setup like that, but it sure seems like it could work. Some of the prudes in our nation would need to get over themselves, but that seems to be happening over time anyways.