The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chris_ on January 29, 2008, 05:36:02 PM
-
Transgender debate draws crowd
By MEGAN ROLLAND
Sun staff writer
11:57 pm, January 28, 2008
City Hall was buzzing Monday night with both protest and support for a proposed city ordinance that would include gender identity as a class of people protected from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation.
Continue to 2nd paragraph The auditorium had standing-room only, as did the entryway where a large crowd watched the decision on closed-circuit television. The vast majority of those who spoke on the issue were against the ordinance.
Those in favor of the ordinance lauded it as a step toward increased human rights for transgender individuals, who some said are marginalized in society.
The ordinance would add gender identity as a category of people protected from discrimination. Discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation and gender are already outlawed in Gainesville.
City officials defined gender identity as a situation where people have an inner sense of being a gender other than their gender at birth.
Those opposed reiterated oft-cited concerns of having a man in a woman's restroom, as well as the burden it would place on business owners to provide accommodations in the case of changing facilities.
Commissioner Ed Braddy immediately made a motion to deny the ordinance, and Commissioner Rick Bryant quickly seconded the motion.
"When you boil it down the issue is that because of some people who have some sort of emotional or psychological issue, others have to change," Braddy said.
He said the ordinance would require separate facilities if a business owner decided to deny a transgender individual access to dressing rooms.
"In that sense it makes a claim on other people's property," Braddy said. "This is about granting special privileges to a class of people."
:whatever:
:censored:
AIN'T THAT SPECIAL (http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20080129/NEWS/801290319/1002/NEWS)
-
So if a man "wants" to be a woman, they have to provide him seperate facilities?
I'm normally about 100% behind most things regarding anti-discrimination, but this is just ****ing stoopid.
-
There will be three bathrooms in the future.
MAN
WOMAN
WHATEVER
-
There will be three bathrooms in the future.
MAN
WOMAN
WHATEVER
maybe they should just make everything unisex in public bathrooms and just be done with it.
-
There will be three bathrooms in the future.
MAN
WOMAN
WHATEVER
maybe they should just make everything unisex in public bathrooms and just be done with it.
Many places have added unisex, single fixture public restrooms. They're very handy for some folks...
A father with his young daughter...too young to go by herself, but uncomfortable in the men's room...
Same for a mother with a young son...
An elderly couple where one needs the help of the other...
A person who is handicapped and needs assistance...
etc...
-
Men.....Women...Sheims
-
There will be three bathrooms in the future.
MAN
WOMAN
WHATEVER
maybe they should just make everything unisex in public bathrooms and just be done with it.
Many places have added unisex, single fixture public restrooms. They're very handy for some folks...
A father with his young daughter...too young to go by herself, but uncomfortable in the men's room...
Same for a mother with a young son...
An elderly couple where one needs the help of the other...
A person who is handicapped and needs assistance...
etc...
I think M-W-Unisex would be the best option at this point.
Some places have added family restrooms though. <shrug>
*TKay*
-
There will be three bathrooms in the future.
MAN
WOMAN
WHATEVER
maybe they should just make everything unisex in public bathrooms and just be done with it.
Be careful what you wish for!
Such a move would be 1) Expensive to implement (1 toilet and wash station per unit which would entail much greater difficulty cleaning for public restrooms, in addition to higher construction costs) and 2) It would open up the potential for a huge increase in and difficulty in protecting against sex crimes.