Saturday, April 30, 2016

The "Bathroom Bill"


For John, BLUFI would be interested in your take.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



"Controversial transgender bill headed for vote in House, Senate" By Joshua Miller GLOBE STAFF APRIL 29, 2016
A controversial transgender anti-discrimination bill that has long languished on Beacon Hill appears poised to become law after a series of rapid-fire developments at the State House Friday, including the strongest indication yet from Governor Charlie Baker that he would not veto the legislation should it reach his desk.
Frankly, I wonder if this is not a tempest in a tea pot.  I assume that since Christine Jorgensen transgendered people have been using the bathroom most associated with their current sexual configurations and their dress.  Because no one made a point of it, I didn't care.  And still don't.

Having said that, there is the question of this is restricted to the bathroom or if it goes, or will go, further, to locker rooms and communal showers.  There we might have a problem, as some might be offended to see someone who appears to be of the opposite sex in their shower or locker room, changing.  If that becomes permissible then the whole question of differentiation of such facilities by sex becomes ridiculous.  If Joe, transitioning to Jane, used the women's shower, why shouldn't his identical twin Jim?  To the observer there is no difference, until there is reassignment surgery.  And once there is reassignment surgery all we see is Jane.

The question is unanswered in Reporter Miller's article, aside from the mention of concern by Mr Andrew Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute regarding locker rooms.

The other thing that leaves one to wonder is that it appears the bill is a skeleton, to be fleshed out later by the Massachusetts Attorney General, Ms Maura Healey, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, which the new House version of the bill would mandate make rules and regulations protecting transgender people from discrimination in public accommodations.  That is to say, the legislating process is passes from our elected representatives to some bureaucrats.  It is like living in the EU.

I am awaiting further details.

Regards  —  Cliff

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

There we might have a problem, as some might be offended to see someone who appears to be of the opposite sex in their shower or locker room, changing.

I want you to ponder this quote a little more. As you do, some images of Buck Angel might help. This "woman" (born a woman) would be in your little right-wing problem-solving nonsense hack scenario, changing and pee in ladies bath/locker rooms. https://www.google.com/search?q=buck+angel&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtnr7B-NjMAhXRQD4KHYKaBHcQ_AUIBygB&biw=1309&bih=802

would your daughter sister wife mother feel comfortable disrobing in front of buck? that result is what NC is mandating by law. So.... it's clear you have not educated yourself on this issue outside your echo chamber, that you haven't thought it through logically (i.e. transwomen look LIKE WOMEN and transmen look LIKE MEN and if you start putting transmen into women's restrooms there are gonna be some uncomfortable fucking women and rightly so)... so you havent thought it thru (even a little, really) but the demagogery and smears continue without evidence of the evil your and your partisan hacks want to cure...

This blog in 1923 would literally be something like: I'm not saying Jews aren't Americans. But take one look at a semite and you can see he is not of christian stock. and america is a christian county.

I mean, import your attitude and willful ignorance historically to any other set of conditions and it's obviously defunct. so why do you literally have a blog to demogogue and reiterate the bigotry of the closet cases in your party? you know and i know that you are not a closet case. in fact, that you are bascially an IDGAF social liberal on this. but this water HAS to be carried? by you? i just dont get it.


smh