State's rights?

As I never said that, constantly claiming I did is typical moronic gibberish.
But lie away. It seems to make you happy. I suppose it's better than playing with sharp objects.
Let me pose a question to you? Do you feel comfortable with a feminine male homosexual showering next to you in a locker? Should he be banned because some people are uncomfortable? How about Jews? Some people don't like them? Ban them?
America is a great country because we protect the rights of the few. I'm truly sorry you don't understand that.
Only by protecting the few are all of us protected.

This is an interesting question.

DonDiego was supposing that the solution proposed, f'rinstance in New York City, . . .
"Use the bathroom or locker room most consistent with their gender identity and/or expression without being required to show 'proof' of gender"
. . . would mean that those who were something other than male or female would simply use the restroom they preferred that day, a men's room or a ladies' room.

But, again using NYC as an example, the Big Apple recognizes 31 different "genders", at least ! [A NYC spokesperson stated that the list was not necessarily exhaustive.]

BI-GENDERED
CROSS-DRESSER
DRAG KING
DRAG QUEEN
FEMME QUEEN
FEMALE-TO-MALE
FTM
GENDER BENDER
GENDERQUEER
MALE-TO-FEMALE
MTF
NON-OP
HIJRA
PANGENDER
TRANSEXUAL/TRANSSEXUAL
TRANS PERSON
WOMAN
MAN
BUTCH
TWO-SPIRIT
TRANS
AGENDER
THIRD SEX
GENDER FLUID
NON-BINARY TRANSGENDER
ANDROGYNE
GENDER GIFTED
GENDER BLENDER
FEMME
PERSON OF TRANSGENDER EXPERIENCE
ANDROGYNOUS

Ref: NYC Government

It seems to simple old DonDiego that it all just means anyone may call oneself whatever one chooses, and request others apply one's preferred pronoun when informed of it, and use whatever restroom one chooses. But it might mean that some one or more of those 31-and-growing "genders" demand a separate restroom for themselves.

n.b
For the record poor old DonDiego
i. hasn't been in a locker room in decades and
ii. usually uses a stall when in public restroom
. . . so he's not generally too bothered by all this nonsense personally.


But apparently there's more to it than that.

"The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.]

This is the government as sovereign, threatening 'civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct' if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak."
Ref: The Washington Post

Here's an example of sorta normal personal pronouns including some preferred by other than simple old-fashioned males and females.



However, The Washington Post article suggests the NYC Law may go lots farther. By making it illegal to employ a pronoun other than that which the object of that pronoun chooses, . . . subject to fines or civil actions, . . . and not limiting the choices at all, . . . many windows of opportunity open to those in a mood to sue, . . . like someone who chooses to be called "thee" because he's a Quaker, . . . . or someone who wants to be called "Milord" just because he prefers it, . . . . or someone who wants to be called "glugga", just because he can.

DonDiego plans on staying out of New York City, . . . just in case.

Now I'm curious. What parts of the "Constitioun" do you disagree with?

Bob, that stuff happens. I mean, you're parent's left one of the O's out of your first name, right?

Let's see- parts of the second, fifth and twelfth, women having the right to vote, strongly disagree with the 22nd and have since it took effect, there are others. Then there is the entire preamble. Just what is " a more perfect" anything.

No Bruce. Roberto was never a consideration.

Not very specific, but that wasn't unexpected.

It's quite simple. If you have a "dick", you enter one room. If you have a "vagina", you enter another room. There's zero discrimination, only whiners.

Did Billy not argue that rights of those who are "uncomfortable" with a tranny in the locker room not be considered? Are you really going to deny this and make me spend the time to dig through your rants and find it?

Billy, very clearly, argued that the "comfort" of the LGB.............whatever it is, should be of concern, yet the "comfort" of others should not. You very clearly argue that their rights should not be relevant in this argument.

I'll dig for it if you want me to, but I'd rather not.

Brad Paisley: Sit by Your Man

"Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman, especially when you are born a man.

In North Carolina they are checking for vaginas, if you want to use the can,

I say sit by your man. We are all just human beings.

He’s just a human peeing, in the stall right next to you.

Sit by your man. Why is this such a big deal? Hike up your dress and take a stand.

And sit by your man.”