Why is Trump a candidate?

[Red Cat]

2. The whole bathroom debate is one of the issues that should be dealt with the state and not taken to a federal level. Since picking sides to the bathroom debate (which includes locker rooms and showers) doesn't violate the first nine amendments, it should be a state thing. However, Obama failed to respect that and forced all 50 states to side with him on the bathroom debate for grade schools. It's not even a civil right.

There are 27 amendments, not 9. Bathroom bills specifically violate the 14th amendment.

Spoiler: Here's the text:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The first section specifically says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which means no state can pass laws restricting public restroom access to people based on their gender because that would mean denying a person equal protection of the laws. Once the cases get to the Supreme Court, they will likely strike down any laws restricting bathroom access (especially after Clinton gets to appoint a justice if she wins).

Let's see how bad Trump is compared to Obama if he takes office.

I'd rather just imagine what his presidency would look like hypothetically and elect Clinton instead.

 

[-Apples-]

There are 27 amendments, not 9. Bathroom bills specifically violate the 14th amendment.

The first section specifically says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which means no state can pass laws restricting public restroom access to people based on their gender because that would mean denying a person equal protection of the laws. Once the cases get to the Supreme Court, they will likely strike down any laws restricting bathroom access (especially after Clinton gets to appoint a justice if she wins).

I'd rather just imagine what his presidency would look like hypothetically and elect Clinton instead.

I support separation of sexes in bathrooms mainly to prevent sex crimes happening in commercial bathrooms. Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes. I'm more for the right to privacy.

 

[zoetrope]

I support separation of sexes in bathrooms mainly to prevent sex crimes happening in commercial bathrooms. Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes. I'm more for the right to privacy.

Sorry to be 'that person' again, but can you back that up? I mean, do you REALLY think a lot of people will go out of their way to act transgender in order to assault someone? I hate to break it to you, but if someone wants to assault someone in a bathroom I really don't think they care whether they're allowed in there or not.

 

[-Apples-]

Sorry to be 'that person' again, but can you back that up? I mean, do you REALLY think a lot of people will go out of their way to act transgender in order to assault someone? I hate to break it to you, but if someone wants to assault someone in a bathroom I really don't think they care whether they're allowed in there or not.

This time, I'm not going to argue. You can't get me to change my political beliefs. When I side conservative on one issue, I'm set in stone. Yeah, I would use the 14th Amendment to prevent racial discrimination, but I wouldn't use that same amendment to remove sex restrictions in restrooms. Of course I wouldn't hate transgenders, but it's not even the transgenders I want to keep out.

But I can say this much. Rape isn't the only sex crime out there.

 

[LambdaDelta]

Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes.

last I checked there has been absolutely no proof of this, and has just been literal transsexual fear mongering

plus if you say that, then shouldn't cisgendered homosexuals have to use the opposite gender restrooms so they don't assault people of the same gender in their normal restrooms? what about bisexuals? by this logic they should be considered a danger to anyone in any restroom. not to mention if the person is trans-gay/bi

 

[-Apples-]

last I checked there has been absolutely no proof of this, and has just been literal transsexual fear mongering

plus if you say that, then shouldn't cisgendered homosexuals have to use the opposite gender restrooms so they don't assault people of the same gender in their normal restrooms? what about bisexuals? by this logic they should be considered a danger to anyone in any restroom. not to mention if the person is trans-gay/bi

I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.

I may agree with many civil rights, but the right for transgenders to use opposite sex restrooms, that's one civil right I have to disagree with. I don't get why people started this debate when this is something that should stay out of politics.

 

[amanda1983]

honestly, no

this is such a "basic human rights" issue, that having it vary on a state-by-state basis, especially when passing or not would be purely based on how overly transphobic or not that state is, is complete ****ing bull****

This. I just can't even grasp how "bathroom privilege" like this can NOT be a human rights issue. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but if it's not up to dealing with this stuff then y'all might want to look into that.. and catch up with 2016.

Yikes.

 

[-Apples-]

This. I just can't even grasp how "bathroom privilege" like this can NOT be a human rights issue. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but if it's not up to dealing with this stuff then y'all might want to look into that.. and catch up with 2016.

Yikes.

It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.

 

[LambdaDelta]

I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.

wow

uh

hold on

I'm trying to wrap my head around that this is an actual serious post

I just

Spoiler

 

[Liamslash]

I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.

I may agree with many civil rights, but the right for transgenders to use opposite sex restrooms, that's one civil right I have to disagree with. I don't get why people started this debate when this is something that should stay out of politics.

If someone feels like they are male/female let them use whatever bathroom they want. Transgender people don't even fancy the same gender. If they are born female and are transgender, more often then not they don't even fancy males. They fancy females as they identify as male.

 

[visibleghost]

I support separation of sexes in bathrooms mainly to prevent sex crimes happening in commercial bathrooms. Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes. I'm more for the right to privacy.

yeah because all trans people are sex offenders obviously and letting them into the right bathroom would make you normal cis people victims ... /s

- - - Post Merge - - -

If someone feels like they are male/female let them use whatever bathroom they want. Transgender people don't even fancy the same gender. If they are born female and are transgender, more often then not they don't even fancy males. They fancy females as they identify as male.

trans ppl can be gay lmao

and what's up with your attitude that makes it sound like gay people are more "dangerous" in that sense than straight ppl.....

 

[Iwaseleanor]

He uses something called Populism. Appealing to the average American-The Christian white male.

 

[visibleghost]

It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.

trans women arent men pls leave

 

[LambdaDelta]

HOT TAKE: gendered restrooms are a dated relic that need to go away

 

[Fleshy]

It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.

First of all, trans women are women, not men. Nobody agrees with letting men in woman only spaces, nobody is advocating that. Nobody is violating anyone's right to privacy, people generally go into public bathrooms to do their business, wash their hands, and leave, why on earth is this such an issue?

I really dislike how trans people are so often brought up in discussion and argument in this manner, as if their rights are just a discussion point.

Sorry to be 'that person' again, but can you back that up? I mean, do you REALLY think a lot of people will go out of their way to act transgender in order to assault someone? I hate to break it to you, but if someone wants to assault someone in a bathroom I really don't think they care whether they're allowed in there or not.

Also this. Sadly, people who are willing to break the law to assault someone are not going to stop just because a law states that they are not legally allowed in a certain bathroom anymore. It's awful, honestly, but it really has nothing at all to do with trans people, I'm pretty sure trans women aren't the ones assaulting people, they just want to take a piss.

 

[Liamslash]

yeah because all trans people are sex offenders obviously and letting them into the right bathroom would make you normal cis people victims ... /s

- - - Post Merge - - -



trans ppl can be gay lmao

and what's up with your attitude that makes it sound like gay people are more "dangerous" in that sense than straight ppl.....

more often then not

Lol what do you mean? I'm sticking up for LGBT people what do you mean

 

[-Apples-]

wow

uh

hold on

I'm trying to wrap my head around that this is an actual serious post

I just

Spoiler

I'm always serious when it comes to online political discussions. I don't even joke around. I'm also not simple-minded, drunk, high, mentally ill, or anything like that. I'm serious. I'm not even going to change my political opinions.

Anyway, let's anti-derail the thread and move back to why we elected Trump as the Republican nominee. Basically, he got in because of those who were angry at the Obama Administration. Of course, he did get help from racists and islamaphobes, but he also got help from the right-wingers that are tired of lies and hypocricies from the federal government, Republicans that hate Ted Cruz, and a couple of people that hate Hillary.

 

[amanda1983]

I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.

I may agree with many civil rights, but the right for transgenders to use opposite sex restrooms, that's one civil right I have to disagree with. I don't get why people started this debate when this is something that should stay out of politics.

*fear mongering conservatives are correct in your opinion, if you please.



I am lucky to live in an area that respects the rights of all people to use whatever bathroom they find most appropriate. There have been some murmors of "what about.." from the local fear-mongering crowd (religious extremists, who'd have thunk it..) since the hoo-ha in the US hit the news.. but so far they've been quashed by sheer overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all fear claims. There is literally NO reliable evidence of increased negative outcomes as a result of allowing transgender etc people to use whatever bathroom they please, to me knowledge. Even the religious crowd around here acknowledges this, and I've seen stuff coming out of the US that indicates it's similar at least in some parts of the US.

Personally I'm still just cynically amused that so many people just *now* decided to take issue with which bathroom someone else uses.. what do y'all think people have been doing for as long as we've had bathrooms? Transgender people were being born and raised long before surgery and hormone injections became available to help physically transition.. the sky didn't fall, the world didn't end. It won't now either, even now that so many more people know that being trangender is a thing. Well, the sky won't fall unless the nutters (fear mongers) cause it to.

I have many friends who are transgender, gender fluid, or otherwise on the spectrum (as are we all but that's perhaps best left for another day). One friend was, when I met them, an absolutely gorgeous young woman. About my height so a bit above average for a woman, lovely to look at and and even lovelier personality. This person has now completed their transition and is, to any casual onlooker, male. With the hormone therapy they have a physical appearance that is still aesthetically pleasing - but I assure you, I would be surprised and possibily even scared (depending on their demeanor) to see someone who looks like them come into the female bathroom with the intent of using female facilities... this person could not currently pass as female if they tried - and they're not. Which is why I'd be surprised, as it would be very unlikely for a female-to-male transgender person to just waltz into the ladies loo. So either they've failed to notice, or something else is going on. And whatever gender they are, I'm calling for help as fast and as loud as I can and trying to keep myself safe.

For those that are concerned with "what's in their pants" and "what parts they were born with", I can only shake my head in confusion. I don't get it. That first concern is relevant when considering initmate relationships, and the latter *may* be relevant in certain circumstances .. but outside of those personal, private matters ... who the **** cares what genitals any individual has now, or had in the past? That's frankly the most concerning part about this whole thing to me. It's indicative of a fascination with other people's genitals I find unwholesome at best. I find it sickening to even think about "deciding" who can have access to which able-bodied bathroom, it's just.. so inappropriate I can't really fathom it.

Kinda like banning my black aboriginal family members from a caf? because they're black.. it's wrong, the kind of wrong I can't and won't accept.

 

[-Apples-]

He uses something called Populism. Appealing to the average American-The Christian white male.

You got it. But I personally believe everyone (no matter who they are) should have the same human rights and not additional rights for specific people. I don't believe in promotion of hatred or bigotry. Nobody should be treated as second-class citizens.

- - - Post Merge - - -

*fear mongering conservatives are correct in your opinion, if you please.



I am lucky to live in an area that respects the rights of all people to use whatever bathroom they find most appropriate. There have been some murmors of "what about.." from the local fear-mongering crowd (religious extremists, who'd have thunk it..) since the hoo-ha in the US hit the news.. but so far they've been quashed by sheer overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all fear claims. There is literally NO reliable evidence of increased negative outcomes as a result of allowing transgender etc people to use whatever bathroom they please, to me knowledge. Even the religious crowd around here acknowledges this, and I've seen stuff coming out of the US that indicates it's similar at least in some parts of the US.

Personally I'm still just cynically amused that so many people just *now* decided to take issue with which bathroom someone else uses.. what do y'all think people have been doing for as long as we've had bathrooms? Transgender people were being born and raised long before surgery and hormone injections became available to help physically transition.. the sky didn't fall, the world didn't end. It won't now either, even now that so many more people know that being trangender is a thing. Well, the sky won't fall unless the nutters (fear mongers) cause it to.

I have many friends who are transgender, gender fluid, or otherwise on the spectrum (as are we all but that's perhaps best left for another day). One friend was, when I met them, an absolutely gorgeous young woman. About my height so a bit above average for a woman, lovely to look at and and even lovelier personality. This person has now completed their transition and is, to any casual onlooker, male. With the hormone therapy they have a physical appearance that is still aesthetically pleasing - but I assure you, I would be surprised and possibily even scared (depending on their demeanor) to see someone who looks like them come into the female bathroom with the intent of using female facilities... this person could not currently pass as female if they tried - and they're not. Which is why I'd be surprised, as it would be very unlikely for a female-to-male transgender person to just waltz into the ladies loo. So either they've failed to notice, or something else is going on. And whatever gender they are, I'm calling for help as fast and as loud as I can and trying to keep myself safe.

For those that are concerned with "what's in their pants" and "what parts they were born with", I can only shake my head in confusion. I don't get it. That first concern is relevant when considering initmate relationships, and the latter *may* be relevant in certain circumstances .. but outside of those personal, private matters ... who the **** cares what genitals any individual has now, or had in the past? That's frankly the most concerning part about this whole thing to me. It's indicative of a fascination with other people's genitals I find unwholesome at best. I find it sickening to even think about "deciding" who can have access to which able-bodied bathroom, it's just.. so inappropriate I can't really fathom it.

Kinda like banning my black aboriginal family members from a caf? because they're black.. it's wrong, the kind of wrong I can't and won't accept.

I may have some beliefs you find crazy, but I'm not a hostile person in general. Personality-wise, I am a very nice person, but politically, I'm far-right by TBT's standards.

 

[amanda1983]

It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.

As a 32 year old woman I've see plenty of women's restrooms. Also seen a fair few men in those areas for various reasons ranging from stupid to potentially dangerous. I'm not counting male cleaners, either, or other staff who occasionally need to enter tjose areas.

.. Or the dads. My own included, many a time, as he needed to escort his daughters just as our mum did when required, he couldn't just take us to the men's, and parent/family facilities weren't around back then. Still aren't everywhere today, either.

Dads and female bathrooms has to be one of the most angst-filled topics I deal with as an early childhood educator. Little girls who've transitioned out of nappies can't always wait til a family facility is found. And I haven't met any families happy to have their daughter in the men's restroom, however careful dad/whomever may be.. that's just not appropriate. So I've actually spent a lot of time professionally considering all the angles in this exact vein. It's one of the most frequently asked questions I get working with toddlers, and these are not questions that should be shrugged off or treated lightly.

This is complex stuff. I'm just very confused as to why almost NONE of the (actual, RL) debate is dealing with any of the heavy stuff here. Instead it's all scare-mongering and fact checking. There's a lot of feelings and thoughts being shared.. but it just seems like the things that matter get ignored for the sensational or the stupendously wtf.

- - - Post Merge - - -

*when I work with toddlers, which I've done for several years, but I also work with kinder aged children, and babies. Just to clarify. Toileting concerns are naturally a big part of the job when working with toddlers. When I do, dads and female restrooms is a dilemma we take very seriously whenever it comes up (so, basically every family with a daughter or who knows a female child they might have care of during an outing etc)