Amazon.com Widgets
  • More government is always bad

    More government involvement is always bad. The schools should be able to decide for themselves. The government should not stop forcing its values and political correctness on everyone who does not want to. At least this is only in public schools. Soon the gov will spread it to PRIVATE institutions and organizations which should be able to decide for themselves.

  • This ignores the functional purposes of the segregations

    Take sports for example. Identifying as a girl doesn't reduce your physical strength. Why not remain the teams "Physically Male" and "Physically Female"? Then we're not denying anyone's gender identity, we're just saying that in that case the segregation has nothing to do with one's gender identity but with physiology.
    As for bathrooms honestly I'd be fine with just all unisex bathrooms. People are sometimes gay or bisexual so you may get checked out anyways and sexual harassment in the bathrooms is illegal anyways. But as long as we have segregated bathrooms the purpose isn't to segregate people's identities it's about body types. If you've gone through the whole surgery then we should let you into the other bathroom because you look like the other gender now. You just enjoy wearing the opposite sex's clothing and identify as one of them go in the bathroom of your physical sex. Your physical sex is still the same.
    I'm not going to deny the validity of gender identity. Obviously if you want to call yourself "male" or "female" or a "banana" and deck yourself out accordingly even get body modifications have at it. That's your life. But don't whine like a baby and ask for a bunch of changes to be made over things like sports teams and bathrooms. If we base the segregation on physiology then we're not denying your gender identity we're just saying that we're not segregating on the basis of gender identity in the first place, but on physical sex or for bathrooms one's nude gender appearance.

  • Over-simplistic solution to a complex problem.

    I could understand if California had mandated a third bathroom that could be used by anyone who isn't concerned about the risks of sharing a restroom with the opposite sex and I would be supportive of that, but I strongly feel the single-sex restroom needs to be maintained. No one should be forced to use a restroom with the opposite sex.

    I see lots of people comparing single-sex restrooms to separate black/white bathrooms from the Jim Crow days and I don't think it's is a legitimate comparison, since there's no innate issue when it comes to race. Sexuality however IS innate and DOES affect behavior, and the bathroom situation presents potential sexual and moral dilemmas that people really shouldn't have to be subject to.

    In addition, separation of genders in restrooms, locker rooms and other similar facilities, is different than the race issue because it's not about hate or bigotry. We don't separate the genders because one gender feels themselves superior to the other or because men and women don't get along. We just want our privacy respected.

  • Genders exist. Both are different. Equal, but different.

    Here is the cold real truth: Women can do things men can't and men can do things women can't. Body types exist, look at the hip bone, for example. Men have different hips then women. Men don't bleed once a month. Men are usually taller, women shorter. And, if you want to generalize, women can typically multitask and plan better than men, plus, ahem, hygiene in men is usually lower on the totem pole.

    Men on the other hand can typically do hard physical labor better. If you are going to start freaking out then I will say right now that if you look at athletic world records or gender percentages in, say, construction, you will find a foundation to my claims.

    Stop trying to form one gender. It doesn't work. We are naturally different and to fight that is only going to end in frustration in one way or another.

  • Pedophiles RAPISTS abusing the law

    Anybody can simply pretend to be a transgender and it can be a serious issue especially for women and kids, it would be safer to make a whole separate bathroom for transgenders or simply use the correct bathroom with the parts you were born with and not ask for special treatment

  • Americans are nuts!

    Like really nuts!..I think you are going too far with this liberal stuff.I am from Africa and believe me we admire all the freedom you have and envy you because of the oppression we suffer here but i think this is going a tad too far.This is so so wrong.

  • Is it bad? Duh.

    I don't care if you identify as a man and woman or a dog. A bathroom should be a safe place where you can take care of the most private of problems without making it public to the opposite sex. All this law will lead to is a bunch of boys deciding they 'identify as girls' so they can watch them change or eventually rape them.

  • Opens the door (figuratively and literally) for potential perverts and also won't effectively reduce bullying.

    First of all, I would like to clarify a myth: this law does not mention transgendered people, nor is it specific to them. It allows people to use bathrooms, showers, and join sports teams that fit their gender identity. Gender identity is defined as "a person's inner sense of being male or female, usually developed during early childhood as a result of parental rearing practices and societal influences and strengthened during puberty by hormonal changes." As an inner sense, it is very hard to disprove it. Legally, it doesn't matter if you are transgendered or not, only your gender identity matters. Thus, it is extremely possible and very likely that it would be taken advantage of. Also, if you let people with gender identities differing from their gender who are out of the closet into places or things that are for the other gender, it would most likely increase bullying. If you have people with gender identities differing from their gender not out of the closet, and this causes them to come out of the closet, they will start to be bullied. Current laws in California outlaw discrimination based on gender, so they made an existing problem larger.

  • It's a terrible

    I'm liberal but this has got to be the dumbest law ever. Gender Identity Disorder is what the media euphemize as "transgendered." It is a mental disorder and these people with it should not be coddled and given special rights because they are unwilling to face their medical problems. Women reflexively fear men in their bathrooms AND RIGHTLY SO. This is another case of the left throwing the majority under the bus by means of deception.

  • Of course its bad

    Let's ask the kids that aren't transgendered if they will feel uncomfortable with the opposite sex in their bathrooms. Not only this, but what about the kids parents? They don't even need a note from the parents to say they truly think in this mindset. Thinking your the opposite gender is a serious mental disorder that should be handled in counseling.

  • Expand your narrow-minded reasoning.

    This shouldn't even be a partisan issue that exists in the liberal v. Conservative paradigm, it's an issue of human rights. Transgendered people are citizens that have, under extenuating psychological circumstances, undergone sexual reassignment surgeries after thorough legal and medical counseling. The law that has just been signed into law respects the concept of gender identity and aims to undercut segregation and oppression in all of its forms. Your physical sex is wholly superficial. The detractors of this law make it seem as if men will try to manipulate the legislation to catch a peek in the women's restroom. This reasoning is egregiously immature and intellectually asinine. This archaic manner of thinking is exactly why we run into social segregation in the public realm in the first place.

  • Tradition is no guide when it's a tradition of oppression.

    Western culture has for 2000 years denied the very existence, or at least the legitimacy, of natural diversity in gender and sexuality. Surely, the proper question is whether granting such people their equal rights would unduly infringe on the rights of others, or damage some legitimate interest of the state. Those who oppose equal rights argue that they would be offended - that is unfortunate, but no one has a right, per se, not to be offended. The evidence from other countries is that accepting transexuals would not undermine society or the family. Both Iran and Oman, strict traditional Muslim countries, have accepted transexuals without problems for many years (In Oman, for at least hundreds of years). In forty years Thailand, still an incredibly traditional society, has gone from the western position to having 1% transexuals without much difficulty. The same is going to happen happen in the US, whether we like it or not . The true number of transexuals in surveys in the US is about 1.5% (!!); these people currently live their whole lives in despair and account for a large proportion of all suicides. As any family that has had a son or daughter commit suicide knows, it is massively damaging to them and wider society. For understandable historic reasons, much of US society places great value on strength, aggression, and militarism: I think this has lead to an unjustified hostility to femininity in men. Recognizing male-to-female transexuals will not make other men seem less masculine! In fact the opposite might be true. Native Americans were renown for expecting bravery from their young men, but recognised transgendered individuals without prejudice against them. What I say to the 'real men' is this: wouldn't you rather that everyone could see which men are totally feminine, rather than have people always wondering? I think that some of those who object to such laws simply want to tell others how to live their lives - to those people I say, wise up, the Constitution does not give you that right.

  • The Law Is Meant to Protect

    The California transgender law creates protective legislature for youth who are at risk of unequal treatment in schools so that they may feel free to participate wherever sexual identity is used as a sorting tool. Any concerns that are directed towards this issue in a biological, moral, or other quasi-intellectual talk must first understand that the purpose of it is to establish a rule of fair treatment to prevent possible bullying, teasing, or other behavior as a result of transgender individuals being under this law's jurisdiction. It's not the responsibility of the law to interpret itself nor think of all the possible repercussions that may come as a result because those incidents must be looked at on a case to case basis as with the violation of any law.

  • Segregation? Remind you of something else in America's history?

    It isn't fair to treat transgender children as we do simply because of who they are! Imagine if you were a transgender child; it would be a confusing and isolating time for you. Does that need to be worsened by your own school, your own teachers turning against you and telling you that who you are is WRONG?
    People always talk about 'it's what's on the inside that matters' and it is! Transgender children have just been put in the wrong body, they deserve as normal a life as possible, the same right as anybody else. A child who is transgender and is really a girl on the inside should be allowed, by all means, to fit in with other girls and play sports with other girls and use the same facilities as other girls. The same applies for transgender children who are boys.
    Schools are creating the next generation, how can we have an equal and fair society which is free from prejudices, discrimination and abuse unless the values of equality and freedom are instilled in generations at an early age.

  • Say no to thoughtcrime

    1 out every 2,000 babies are born with ambiguous gender, genitalia that could be ascribed to either sex. Given this fact, I find it entirely likely that some people are naturally born with the physical attributes of one gender and the personality attributes of the other gender. The resolution of this dichotomy is an entirely personal matter, to be governed by the parents until maturity and then entirely within the purview of the individual. In what basis do public institutions acquire the authority to contradict personal identity? So long as a person's conduct does not invade the privacy of others, on what objective basis does the public feel compelled to adjust an individual's identity? California's law can't be correctly defined as Govt. Intrusion. Rather, it prevents public institutions from meddling in the most private parts of citizens: identity, belief, and soul. Telling a girl that the Govt. Thinks she's a boy and forcing her to behave like a boy is thoughtcrime in the most Orwellian sense.

  • No its not bad

    Okay all of you people keep saying 'how would your kids feel if they were in the same bathroom as the opposite sex' When in reality trans gender kids are not the opposite gender. They are male or female no matter what their body type is. For the physical strength one you are basing it off percentages. If you have an over-weight boy who isn't as strong as the other boys are you going to put him with the girls then? Locker rooms for you to fix it is have stalls. Whether they are bathroom or simply changing stalls you need to have them. SO BY FREAKING JESUS LET THEM PEE IN PEACE

  • No its not bad

    Okay all of you people keep saying 'how would your kids feel if they were in the same bathroom as the opposite sex' When in reality trans gender kids are not the opposite gender. They are male or female no matter what their body type is. For the physical strength one you are basing it off percentages. If you have an over-weight boy who isn't as strong as the other boys are you going to put him with the girls then? Locker rooms for you to fix it is have stalls. Whether they are bathroom or simply changing stalls you need to have them. SO BY FREAKING JESUS LET THEM PEE IN PEACE

  • Why Does It Bother You?

    Most people would agree that if they were forced to go into a bathroom that they did not identify with, they would feel uncomfortable and go into the one that they can identify with. Would it bother me if I walked into the girl's bathroom, and saw a guy standing at the sink? I would probably ask him why (s)he was in this bathroom, but if (s)he told me that they identified as female, I would carry on with my business. If a person truly feels that they identify as the gender opposing their reproductive organs, then they should be able to use the facilities that correspond with that. Yes, there are people who might use this as a chance to sneak into the opposite bathrooms when they aren't supposed to, but those people would likely go in there anyway, and it would be rather apparent they they do not, in fact, identify that way. Gender identification varies from person to person, as does their hair color, skin color, and their specific personalities. We just need to learn to accept people the way that they are.

  • Yes actually it is.

    I think one of the people on the Yes side just copied someone elses post to make it look like there were more votes for yes, which seems unfair, so I'm voting no. But honestly I don't support this law. If you really identify as transgender, you can get a sex change operation, but just being able to declare it like that makes it very likely some pervert will claim it just to get to go into the opposite gender bathroom without consequence

  • I actually should have said yes.

    Yeah, I actually do think there's something wrong with this law, but either Nemat or UnapologeticTruth seems to have copied and pasted another person's argument in order to make the "yes" side seem like it has more support than it does without offering any real opinion. So I'm just voting no to balance that out a bit. But yeah, I think theres plenty of potential for abuse for this law, and its poorly thought out.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.