House Bill 2 - North Carolina

[Tank]

Uh, Citation needed? From what I know, one of the main reasons the Articles where thrown out was due to the instabilities in the system as exposed by Shay's Rebellion, as well as the lack of a stable economy due to an abundance of different currencies in circulation, not to mention the requirement of all states to make a decision meant little was actually accomplished. I'm aware this would be changed in the system you propose, however I can still consider many of these issues still being a present.

Shay's Rebellion was a failure on the part of Maryland (I believe) to suppress the rebellion; at which point the federal government stepped in a stopped it from escalating. The system worked as it should have. It was resolved slowly because it was the 1700s but it was taken care of in due course. In today's time, with modern police and military forces possessed by states and the federal government it would be hard for something similar to Shay's rebellion to occur again. The economy would have sorted itself out. The main issue back then was finding people who knew what they were doing and didn't print off money like idiots and cause inflation. With the population we have now in each state we wouldn't have issues finding competent people who can effectively run a state, the issue is getting them elected. (But that's an issue for any elected form of government. I think the 2/3 system (used during either continental congress or later under the confederacy) is fine. And the states only come together to vote on federal government powers and a 2/3 majority is a fine system.

@Tank ok the reason they needed money was to be actually able to run a government, like a military, build roads and other stuff that required federal government to do something. It wasn't working because with no way to collect taxes the government couldn't really run. It wasn't about oh the government needs money because it wants it but because it does actually need it to run.

Federal government doesn't need to do much. It needs to be able to raise an army, declare war, collect tariffs, and formulate foreign pollicy. Roads are a state issue. Social issues (outreach programs like headstart) are a state issue. Education is a state issue. Taxes are a state issue. I would allow the federal government to take a portion of states' collected taxes to help pay for the above federal government duties; but there cannot be a federal tax on an individual. You are correct, a government does to collect taxes to run; but that government should be a state government not a federal government.

I'm headed to bed guys and wont be able to reply for nearly 18 hours (work you know); so don't take silence as abandoning the thread. Though, truth be told, if there are a million replies in those 18 hours I may not reply. :P If you want to be sure I respond you can PM me. I enjoyed our conversation, glad it stayed mostly civil and hope to continue it tomorrow.

 

[Prudence]

Can you say to me with complete certainty that this won't directly cause more hate crimes against transgendered people based on people's own irrational fears?.

Yes. Because if there are people that are "women" coming into the women's room looking like men, I am CERTAIN that there will be more hate crimes than there are now. So yes. I can.

 

[Richie B.]

@Tank Social issues are federal issues sorry man because when one state focus a program or act on one group it affects that group from that one state and the neighboring states and so on. Social issues should be dealt by federal government because it has a better track record, as history has shown, Education is also a federal issue because when students move from state to state, if the education is different it can negatively affect said student.

Taxes is the main federal issue since that's what cause the need for bigger federal government when the change in government happened in America.

 

[Prudence]

@Benvenu7 @Johnnysaurus Rex @Relent @Outlander

Are you telling me, that if you were in Public Ed (as I know Outlander is) or yoou were in college (as I think the others may be) and were entirely, or partially, reliant on Student Loans that you would be 100% okay with your education being cut, or your loans being taken away because somewhere a guy can't use the girl's room?

 

[Richie B.]

@Prudence I am not okay with the federal government doing it but I am also not okay with what the governor is doing, since if I read your argument correctly hate crimes is the reason not to do this?

Than when we did the right thing by making blacks and whites be in the same school we shouldn't have because it would raise the number of hate crimes, that is what I believe you are saying. Which I do feel is really wrong, besides federal funding for education does not mean loans actually just they would not help pay for schools, which many states like but are actually capable of handling by themselves since they also collect taxes.

 

[Outlander]

No, I wouldn't. But that's not the fault of the transgendered people. That's the fault of the state government for attempting to suppress the rights of a minority.

@Benvenu7 @Johnnysaurus Rex @Relent @Outlander

Are you telling me, that if you were in Public Ed (as I know Outlander is) or yoou were in college (as I think the others may be) and were entirely, or partially, reliant on Student Loans that you would be 100% okay with your education being cut, or your loans being taken away because somewhere a guy can't use the girl's room?

 

[Proleptic]

All right. So I also have not read this entire thing. That would be rather a lot of work, and not something I am doing at this time. :) Anyways, I would just like to throw my two cents in as well.

Politically speaking, this is a problem that I have no issues sorting out mentally. The discriminatory properties of this bill are undeniable, and are against the Civil Rights Act of 1962. This is because it infringes on the prohibition of discrimination, of almost any form, regarding employment. The federal government's right is without question, though it is definitely not a wise course of action to threaten a drawback in educational funds. That is just silly, in my opinion. That is completely ridiculous, and entirely counter productive, especially seeing as the North Carolina public school system, at least that of the levels under college and post-high school education, are some of the lowest in the entire country. That is a really bad thing to do to your already suffering education system.

This is a problem that, excluding the political side of it, falls into a very difficult area for me. I am religious(Mormon, for anyone who cares), and the religious side of me is massively in conflict with the non-religious side. Everything about the non-religious side says that there is nothing wrong with being transgender, and as such there is no reason for this bill. The religious side objects strongly to that, throwing into question everything about transgender people. While I would NEVER treat a transgender person any differently, I cannot help that lingering doubt in my mind about both the appropriateness, and the legitimacy of transgender situations. This isn't what matters however, it is actions, and therefore I am only at a mental standstill as to where I am on this bill.

I can't help but want this to be burned in fire. I hate discrimination, and I will never take part in it so far as it is in my power. Beyond that though, I have that religious side of me saying: "Hey you! Vote yes!" The pull from that side is understandably strong, but the pull from the logical side of me is equally so. It makes coming to conclusions on this very difficult, and makes it something that I have serious difficulty discussing and articulating.

For me it boils down to these specifics:

1. It is against federal ruling.
2. It is morally grey, at best, and is closest to morally incorrect.
3. It is only something that can lead to political problems, with very little positive resolution, considering the methods of handling it.
4. It is passed with the expectation and knowledge that the majority of the population is in accordance with it.
5. As harsh as it sounds, the desires of the majority of the population must be observed most considerately.
6. The employment aspect is entirely incorrect.
​

My verdict is that this law is something that I cannot help but agree with, though the discrimination about EMPLOYMENT is entirely incorrect and wrong. I cannot help but agree with the rest of it, however, though perhaps not for all the same reasons as are given. Be that as it may, the law is not justifiable within the eyes of the federal government due to the employment aspects.

Should that article be removed, I would be in accordance with this law as well.

That is all. :) Apologies for any offense. :(

 

[Prudence]

Okay, I'll break down my opinions for you.

Black People = Every Other Type of People: They belong in the same school/restroom/seat as anyone else does. They are literally the same except for color.

Transsexual people: Just the same as someone else, but I do not believe in the right to choose your own gender identity. It is fundamentally against my religion. This is not about trying to keep them from changing their gender, however. Despite my opinion I agree with HB2 on these grounds, and I'll use my girlfriend for an example.

She goes to a school in a really rural southern part of our state. VERY poor, with shitty administration that really couldn't care less about the students (IE all NC schools). She also goes to school with a lot of perverted horny guys, one of which attempted to force her to have sex with him after a prom before we were together, we'll call him Mike. Mike has tried to do this with all her friends, and has no cares about the age of the girl or her consent. I wouldn't be slightly surprised to hear that Mike went into the women's restroom, were it legal, and peeked between the door and saw my girlfriend's lady parts as she uses the restroom, and proceeds to masturbate to it. Or worse, barge in and force her to have sex / commit sexual acts with her.

Now, with HB2 in place, it is fundamentally illegal for Mike to be in this room. Thus, no masturbation to the lady bits of my girlfriend will occur, and no opportunity for him to assault her while she is in a state of undress.

Now, you might say, that Mike could still go in there with HB2. And yes, he could. But all the girls inside would have to do is scream "omfg Mike is in here!" and the administration and security would pull Mike's ass out of that restroom, and probably punish him / turn him over to law enforcement. Thus, Mike has to be very bold to go in there, with tons of risk.

Without HB2, her school administration is told that "ya its okay for boys to be in there. don't do anything to stop it." at this point the administration, who I formerly said weren't paid enough to give a shit, are like "ah yes okay Mike's in there and yeah I'm pretty sure he isn't transsexual but I can't really prove it and that's out of my paygrade."

but but but the bathroom isn't a sexual place

and you're right. It isn't. But you can still see things if you try, and its still a vulnerable private place.

But the locker room doesn't have nearly as many stalls / any at all. Let's say Mike decides to say he's a girl and go into the girl's locker room while she's changing. Even worse.

Now I'm not saying Mike is a legitimate Trans. Mike is a horny teenage guy that, without HB2, would be able to claim to be part of a group that requires no further authentication than "yeah I'm a woman, ignore the physical features."

These arguments are not based on my religious beliefs, although they're in line with them. These arguments are the logical fact that, yes, there may be a lesbian in there, and that we can't stop. We can't pull the lesbians that would rape out. But why say: "Oh well there's already one potential threat in there lol let's let all the potential threats in there."

If we're going to do this gender identity thing, and I don't think we should for personal reasons, make it as difficult as legally changing your name. That way you can really tell the posers from the legitimate transsexuals.

No, I wouldn't. But that's not the fault of the transgendered people. That's the fault of the state government for attempting to suppress the rights of a minority.

Yes, it is the fault of the state government (and by fault I don't mean they're wrong, I just mean that this was their doing) but it is also not the fault of the millions of school kids.

 

[Outlander]

All right. So I also have not read this entire thing. That would be rather a lot of work, and not something I am doing at this time. :) Anyways, I would just like to throw my two cents in as well.

Politically speaking, this is a problem that I have no issues sorting out mentally. The discriminatory properties of this bill are undeniable, and are against the Civil Rights Act of 1962. This is because it infringes on the prohibition of discrimination, of almost any form, regarding employment. The federal government's right is without question, though it is definitely not a wise course of action to threaten a drawback in educational funds. That is just silly, in my opinion. That is completely ridiculous, and entirely counter productive, especially seeing as the North Carolina public school system, at least that of the levels under college and post-high school education, are some of the lowest in the entire country. That is a really bad thing to do to your already suffering education system.

This is a problem that, excluding the political side of it, falls into a very difficult area for me. I am religious(Mormon, for anyone who cares), and the religious side of me is massively in conflict with the non-religious side. Everything about the non-religious side says that there is nothing wrong with being transgender, and as such there is no reason for this bill. The religious side objects strongly to that, throwing into question everything about transgender people. While I would NEVER treat a transgender person any differently, I cannot help that lingering doubt in my mind about both the appropriateness, and the legitimacy of transgender situations. This isn't what matters however, it is actions, and therefore I am only at a mental standstill as to where I am on this bill.

I can't help but want this to be burned in fire. I hate discrimination, and I will never take part in it so far as it is in my power. Beyond that though, I have that religious side of me saying: "Hey you! Vote yes!" The pull from that side is understandably strong, but the pull from the logical side of me is equally so. It makes coming to conclusions on this very difficult, and makes it something that I have serious difficulty discussing and articulating.

For me it boils down to these specifics:

1. It is against federal ruling.
2. It is morally grey, at best, and is closest to morally incorrect.
3. It is only something that can lead to political problems, with very little positive resolution, considering the methods of handling it.
4. It is passed with the expectation and knowledge that the majority of the population is in accordance with it.
5. As harsh as it sounds, the desires of the majority of the population must be observed most considerately.
6. The employment aspect is entirely incorrect.
​

My verdict is that this law is something that I cannot help but agree with, though the discrimination about EMPLOYMENT is entirely incorrect and wrong. I cannot help but agree with the rest of it, however, though perhaps not for all the same reasons as are given. Be that as it may, the law is not justifiable within the eyes of the federal government due to the employment aspects.

Should that article be removed, I would be in accordance with this law as well.

That is all. :) Apologies for any offense. :(

Never let religion interfere with your morals. That's basically my entire view of religion.

 

[Outlander]

Okay, I'll break down my opinions for you.

Black People = Every Other Type of People: They belong in the same school/restroom/seat as anyone else does. They are literally the same except for color.

Transsexual people: Just the same as someone else, but I do not believe in the right to choose your own gender identity. It is fundamentally against my religion. This is not about trying to keep them from changing their gender, however. Despite my opinion I agree with HB2 on these grounds, and I'll use my girlfriend for an example.

She goes to a school in a really rural southern part of our state. VERY poor, with shitty administration that really couldn't care less about the students (IE all NC schools). She also goes to school with a lot of perverted horny guys, one of which attempted to force her to have sex with him after a prom before we were together, we'll call him Mike. Mike has tried to do this with all her friends, and has no cares about the age of the girl or her consent. I wouldn't be slightly surprised to hear that Mike went into the women's restroom, were it legal, and peeked between the door and saw my girlfriend's lady parts as she uses the restroom, and proceeds to masturbate to it. Or worse, barge in and force her to have sex / commit sexual acts with her.

Now, with HB2 in place, it is fundamentally illegal for Mike to be in this room. Thus, no masturbation to the lady bits of my girlfriend will occur, and no opportunity for him to assault her while she is in a state of undress.

Now, you might say, that Mike could still go in there with HB2. And yes, he could. But all the girls inside would have to do is scream "omfg Mike is in here!" and the administration and security would pull Mike's ass out of that restroom, and probably punish him / turn him over to law enforcement. Thus, Mike has to be very bold to go in there, with tons of risk.

Without HB2, her school administration is told that "ya its okay for boys to be in there. don't do anything to stop it." at this point the administration, who I formerly said weren't paid enough to give a shit, are like "ah yes okay Mike's in there and yeah I'm pretty sure he isn't transsexual but I can't really prove it and that's out of my paygrade."

but but but the bathroom isn't a sexual place

and you're right. It isn't. But you can still see things if you try, and its still a vulnerable private place.

But the locker room doesn't have nearly as many stalls / any at all. Let's say Mike decides to say he's a girl and go into the girl's locker room while she's changing. Even worse.

Now I'm not saying Mike is a legitimate Trans. Mike is a horny teenage guy that, without HB2, would be able to claim to be part of a group that requires no further authentication than "yeah I'm a woman, ignore the physical features."

These arguments are not based on my religious beliefs, although they're in line with them. These arguments are the logical fact that, yes, there may be a lesbian in there, and that we can't stop. We can't pull the lesbians that would rape out. But why say: "Oh well there's already one potential threat in there lol let's let all the potential threats in there."

If we're going to do this gender identity thing, and I don't think we should for personal reasons, make it as difficult as legally changing your name. That way you can really tell the posers from the legitimate transsexuals.

Yes, it is the fault of the state government (and by fault I don't mean they're wrong, I just mean that this was their doing) but it is also not the fault of the millions of school kids.

To be honest, most of this just feels like you're creating a scenario to justify your beliefs.

 

[Prudence]

To be honest, most of this just feels like you're creating a scenario to justify your beliefs.

To each his own. I'm not.

 

[Outlander]

To each his own. I'm not.

Citation needed. Do we have any evidence of people going anywhere claiming to be transgendered just to sexually assault or commit other perverted actions? Not to mention all the people being oppressed by the ruling on something we don't actually have concrete evidence of.

 

[Richie B.]

@Prudence @Proleptic

First and foremost, keep your religion out of this, not to be rude but there is a reason for separation from church and state so that religious ideas such has the ones you two have will not get involved in the voting or political process.

Now that is out of the way time to discuss serious stuff.

To @Proleptic this is more than just morally gray it is backwards thinking that to keep people say we need to divide them that is what you get when you strip away all the fluff of what is happening.

If you removed your religious aspects out of it, than I guess you would vote no for the law that the state had, because your reasoning for saying yes to the law was religion at least that is what I think you are trying to say.

@Prudence now to your post, again same with Pro you most take away your religious believe from this since we have a idea that government wont be influence or controlled by religious belief, though that hasn't actually happened but we still strive to do this. Now for the example you put up let me explain how it doesn't really work.

A) like you already said he can go in there even if the law wasn't there, and if he was hiding than there is no way for him to get caught if the law was there or not, and masturbating in a public place like the restrooms is illegal so she can still scream no matter what. Which seems to be your major point on that he can now suddenly do these bad things simply because now he has a "right" in there. Honestly its a public restroom and if he tries anything she can still scream no matter what because she has a right not to be sexually assaulted.

B) The worst that can honestly happen is kids go into womans room to look at them but that's about as far as it can go, and even than doing that can allow the girls to kick them out as they are scarying them an so on. Its not about either they use transgender as a cover but what they do when they are in the female restroom that we need to be worried about. Because as I have said before he can still do that even without or with the law.

C) The federal government has threaten but hasn't actually do anything yet, they are only using it as leverage over the governor not actually cutting students off already.

 

[Prudence]

Citation needed. Do we have any evidence of people going anywhere claiming to be transgendered just to sexually assault or commit other perverted actions? Not to mention all the people being oppressed by the ruling on something we don't actually have concrete evidence of.

bam

boom

double triple bam

triple double boom

 

[Prudence]

B) The worst that can honestly happen is kids go into womans room to look at them but that's about as far as it can go, and even than doing that can allow the girls to kick them out as they are scarying them an so on. Its not about either they use transgender as a cover but what they do when they are in the female restroom that we need to be worried about. Because as I have said before he can still do that even without or with the law.

This isn't the worst that could happen, but its still a really bad scenario.

 

[Outlander]

bam

boom

double triple bam

triple double boom

I'll give your your fourth example. That is despicable.

I'm not sure how three proves anything. A guy went in, changed, left, came back, then left.

First and Second i'm not sure how to feel about. They where both doing things that where blatantly against the law regardless of gender. Them dressing up as women does give some credibility to your argument; however I firmly believe this would still happen if the bill was passed, since neither made mention of being transgender, just disguising themselves as women.

 

[Richie B.]

It is @Prudence anything more is illegal an can get the boys in trouble because that is still illegal transgender going into other restrooms don't mean sexual assaults and public masturbation is suddenly legal.

 

[Prudence]

I'll give your your fourth example. That is despicable.

I'm not sure how three proves anything. A guy went in, changed, left, came back, then left.

First and Second i'm not sure how to feel about. They where both doing things that where blatantly against the law regardless of gender. Them dressing up as women does give some credibility to your argument; however I firmly believe this would still happen if the bill was passed, since neither made mention of being transgender, just disguising themselves as women.

It's illegal to do it anyways, but it's 100% easier for them to do it and get away with it if it is legal for them to be in there.

If its illegal for them to be in there, they can be caught at the door or when they walk in. If its legal for them to be in there, then you have to actually catch them in the act of doing it.

 

[Outlander]

It's illegal to do it anyways, but it's 100% easier for them to do it and get away with it if it is legal for them to be in there.

If its illegal for them to be in there, they can be caught at the door or when they walk in. If its legal for them to be in there, then you have to actually catch them in the act of doing it.

Not really. Either way, they have to be observed in the act, disguise or not. Stopping them at the door just oppresses actual transgendered people, when anyone who really wants to get in just dresses like a woman, as we saw in those two articles, and does it anyways. Nothing is fixed.

 

[Prudence]

Not really. Either way, they have to be observed in the act, disguise or not. Stopping them at the door just oppresses actual transgendered people, when anyone who really wants to get in just dresses like a woman, as we saw in those two articles, and does it anyways. Nothing is fixed.

To get in without HB2 is significantly easier. Mike can be experiencing a burst of horomones and feel a bit horny and decide on the spur of the moment, rather than with prior planning, to go in and defile these girls