Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
BREAKING: NCAA says state of North Carolina will again be considered for championship hosting....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Whiskey_Clear" data-source="post: 302994" data-attributes="member: 735"><p>One issue is this. The Charlotte law was initially enacted to "protect" the rights of transgender people. I'm a bit dubious as to the necessity of this ordinance and political motivation of those enacting it. I don't recall instances of transgender people being denied access to a bathroom of their choice prior to the ordinance. Doesn't mean it never happened but I'm certainly unfamiliar and suspect such instances are extremely rare. Even If it were to occur our courts are fairly capable of adjudicating any such instance. If the courts were to "fail" to adjudicate it "properly" due to an omission in local, state, or federal laws....then a legislative body could act to correct the omission. </p><p></p><p>That is how it should typically play out in a reasonable society. I don't believe that was the circumstance in Charlotte. </p><p></p><p>Most who opposed the ordinance due to safety concerns for their daughters were not in fear of transgender sexual assaults on innocents. I don't know anyone who thinks transgender individuals are a threat in this regard. Most IMO were against it due to the loophole it could create for non-transgender sexual predators. Yes the loophole won't prevent a determined rapist. The loophole would likely prevent the successful prosecution of a sexual predator who entered said facility with the intent to commit a sex crime.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Whiskey_Clear, post: 302994, member: 735"] One issue is this. The Charlotte law was initially enacted to "protect" the rights of transgender people. I'm a bit dubious as to the necessity of this ordinance and political motivation of those enacting it. I don't recall instances of transgender people being denied access to a bathroom of their choice prior to the ordinance. Doesn't mean it never happened but I'm certainly unfamiliar and suspect such instances are extremely rare. Even If it were to occur our courts are fairly capable of adjudicating any such instance. If the courts were to "fail" to adjudicate it "properly" due to an omission in local, state, or federal laws....then a legislative body could act to correct the omission. That is how it should typically play out in a reasonable society. I don't believe that was the circumstance in Charlotte. Most who opposed the ordinance due to safety concerns for their daughters were not in fear of transgender sexual assaults on innocents. I don't know anyone who thinks transgender individuals are a threat in this regard. Most IMO were against it due to the loophole it could create for non-transgender sexual predators. Yes the loophole won't prevent a determined rapist. The loophole would likely prevent the successful prosecution of a sexual predator who entered said facility with the intent to commit a sex crime. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
BREAKING: NCAA says state of North Carolina will again be considered for championship hosting....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top