AG Lynch: G Identity More Important Than Sexual Privacy, Opponents Are Like Racists

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/09/lynch-on-gender-vs-privacy3823046/

My, my....Obama's black AG invoking Jim Crow laws as a comparison in this is really "F"ed up. We're talking about boys & girls, male and female using bathrooms & showers based on their natural gender instead of their imagined/fake identity............there's nothing in that even approaching the nature of Jim Crow laws, NOTHING!

Gesus, this is so wrong for so many reasons.................but...here we are...

 

Another one of conservative, "Much ado about nothing ..." problems facing America. Given the number of Transgender in America, the odds of anyone
actually having to share a bathroom with one is in the hundreds of millions to one. And given the looks of some of the transgendered wondering
around Miami - even if you were, you probably wouldn't notice.

It's like the screaming that has occurred about Christians having to serve same sex marriages, with over 30,000 same sex marriages and lawsuits in
less than 6 cases - that's a "problem" that has occurred in less than a .002% of said weddings.

That's not a "problem". It's a statistical blip. The same goes for the whole "bathroom ordeal," that conservatives now are wailing and gnashing their teeth over.

It's like some conservative posters here think they are up for Best Melodrama in a Thread Award for the Internet Oscars ...

 

Loretta lynch and Donald trump are right on this

 

I warned people to not be to happy Holder was out......

 

Hardly i remember a situation at the Mohegan Sun back in 2002. Bob decided he was Jane ( I changed the names ). "Jane" kept using the mens room until "Jane" complained to HR. Jane was told to use the Womens room.. Well after a few days of this there was LINES of women spending there breaks trying to get into HR to complain.. This was in a Casino with many young employees in the Liberal La la land of Connecticut..

Why you ask? Because a man is a man it doesnt matter if tommorrow he decides or "feels" like a woman he is still a man.

 

I'm wondering if the Courts will get into defining Transgender. The science isn't near conclusive. This lack of a "bright shining line", the ability to definitively say something is or isn't, may be where this falls apart. Especially, since others "rights" are involved, the court may find that the hazy and vague "self identification" standard doesn't rise to or merit a compelling state interest in offering or protecting rights of something subjective vs objective.

The same might be said for homosexuality but identifying as homosexual doesn't effect another's rights therefor protecting homosexual's civil rights creates no real dilemma for the court. In this there is no balancing of rights.

Transgender's on the other hand seek special "rights" that infringe on other citizens "rights" in a very personal way, all based upon "because I say I am".

I don't see it working.

Cheers
Labour

 

And I'll counter - my wife works at a major airline with a number of transgendered flight attendants. Everyone knows who they are and that they use the ladies room. Hasn't
been any incidences. No lines to complain. And that's in Texas - land of conservatives.

So I just presented as much evidence as you on this subject (probably more, since there are more than one transgendered flight attendant - and if
you fly, there is a good chance you've met some and never known it).

Again - is this a real problem in the universe of things that are?

 

Yet my post is factual no clue on yours. And this was back in 2002 way before SJW's could tie their own shoes.

 

Honestly? You resort to the old BS line, "lines of women ..." and then claim your post is factual? Please.


Next.

 

LOL! " G Identity More Important Than Sexual Privacy..."

But, of course, she said absolutely nothing of the sort.

How odd that Breitbart would lie about something.

Knock me over with a feather!

 

If, as you allude to, it's no big deal, then why would AG lynch compare it to something as discriminatory as Jim Crows laws & refer to her response to NC as another "historical moment"? If it's no big deal why are liberal's boycotting NC & why is lynch stretching her rhetoric in an attempt to slander the law's supporters as equals to "racist"? Why sue the State over this law if it's "no big deal"? Go for it....

- - - Updated - - -

She said it....you just don't want to hear it.

 

Right. A "number of transgendered flight attendants". I'm sure.

Like Ammo Grlll said on Powerline. Probably some people have peed next to a tranny and never knew it. This only became an issue when some lefty pervert pushers decided that we all not only had to know about it, we have to accept a hairy man coming into the ladies room because he "feels" feminine at that particular time.

 

Holder would have done the same thing. They're both cut from same radical cloth.

 

Because conservatives MADE it a big deal when they started passing laws that were in response to a wailing and gnashing of teeth by some conservatives ... not because
it is a problem in the first place.

It's a shinny penny to get out the base to vote. It has nothing to do with the odds of being accosted by transgendered people in restrooms - of which there seems
to be no evidence of.

 

It's not that this was ever a big picture problem, most are mature enough to live and let live understanding and accepting the varieties of the human being.

The problem is codification into law. This aspect was started by the current administration and now muddied by various bathroom laws. It's too early and science hasn't been able to definitively state that transgender has biological roots or is behavior, nor has it created a conclusive test. We are left to rely on an individuals claim of identity, that's not enough IMO and fought with legal dangers if allowed to expand to other areas of human interaction.

For the record, I feel there is a biological component in some with gender diaspora, but I also feel that others that self identify have a behavioral base.

Cheers
Labour

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

 

No, I read the whole thing. You can stomp your feet and clench your tiny fists white in impotent rage all you'd like, but it won't change reality: she simply didn't say that.

 

Personally I think neither the federal government has no business getting involved in this issue. I would prefer that even the state not get involved other than to back up and enforce whatever policy the local community or individual entity adopted for use of public restrooms. Those who have no problem with unisex bathrooms should have those. Those who have no problem with transgendered men using the ladies' room should have that policy. And those who want people born with a penis to use the men's room and those born without to use the women's rom should be able to have that policy too.

Just don't base the policy on the 'feelings' of transgendered people or the fact there are so few of them.

The feelings of the transgendered people should not trump the feelings of the mother or father who sends her little girl alone into the bathroom and feels more secure knowing that only women will be in there. Not guys who feel like women. Not guys pretending to feel like women so they can oogle or prey on little girls.

And I as a women would like to be able to adjust a bra strap or make other adjustments without a guy looking on. Such privacy is important to me so why should his 'feelings' trump mine?

 

No, the time line shows government, especially the federal government, getting into the issue through Department of Education in mandating transgender use of identified gender restrooms and showers in schools.

Cheers
Labour

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

 

It the truth isnt it???? These so called people passing these stupid laws try to use "protecting children" as the basis even though not one transgendered person has ever been accussed or convicted of sexual abusing a child in a public bathroom. Much like theses people use the bible as a justification to pass religous freedom laws.
Naturally it the party of small government that wants these laws. Just like the Nazis the blame and scare the hell out of simple minded idiots by blaming others for their problems.
The AG is right and the 14 amendment was put in place to stop stupid bigotted (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s from making these laws.
It is not a state issue either.
The states that are doing this oddly enough are doing it in an election year as well.
Republicans are very sick people. I do not understand why they are so involved in other people lives.

Plus they have Hasert in their group as the true evil which they asked the court to go easy on him.

 

you said it, much ado about nothing and certainly does not affect them

 

Funny how it a state issue like Jim Crow laws!!! Boy talk about double talk. So you are saying the 14 amendment should have never passed. Or are you saying transgender people have no rights. So by that measure they are not citizens so they shouldnt have to pay taxes???

- - - Updated - - -

Ummm link please lol.

 

I'm not arguing that sexual predators should be allowed in the ladies room. I'm arguing that the issue has become far larger than the actual problem. Would
you know if a "true" transgendered person were there?

http://scribol.com/pop-culture/celebrities/beautiful-transgender-women/

And there have been weird sexual predators sneaking into women's restrooms long before any transgendered accommodation laws.

 

I don't understand the problem. First of all, you never see men dressed in drag using the men's room, so obviously transgenders have always been using the bathroom of the sex they identify with. Furthermore, you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual laws on the books forbidding men from entering women's bathrooms prior to the last year or so, yet we've never seen an epidemic of men sneaking into women's bathrooms to abuse people.

How did all this happen? I've looked at blogs from transgenders who write that they've always used the bathroom of the sex they identified with for years, and nobody cared. Likely someone complained somewhere about a transgender using the ladies' room, and so that person was told to leave, which naturally sparked a backlash, resulting in laws forcing people to allow transgenders to use the bathroom of the sex they identify with. Everything seemed to be fine for years, and now this.

Conservatives are going to lose on this issue. If not from this lawsuit, than sooner or later up the road, when some poor ugly woman is dragged out of a ladies' room because she looked too manly. These laws are unenforceable without sooner or later infringing on someone's civil rights.

 

Phil Anselmo of Pantera said it best:

"Is there no standard anymore?
Be yourself, by yourself, stay away from me..."

 

Basically, as you have pointed out, without having a bathroom monitor to check birth certificates or some type of tattoo - it will be an unenforceable law.

Again - proof.

http://scribol.com/pop-culture/celebrities/beautiful-transgender-women/