North Carolina Bathroom Bill

[Sparko]

Not so fast. You still have to establish that the right exists, with or without its explicit protection in the Constitution. Just because you say we have a right to privacy doesn't mean there is one anymore than me claiming a right to quality healthcare means there is any such thing. That's not how it works.

you are trying to abridge my right to bacon, aren't you!

[Sparko]

if there is no right to privacy then why is it against the law for police to plant listening devices and cameras in someone's home without a warrant?

[Carrikature]

if there is no right to privacy then why is it against the law for police to plant listening devices and cameras in someone's home without a warrant?

See the 4th Amendment. Though it's an odd way of framing it, I would consider it a search of house.

[Yttrium]

So I just listened to an interview with the North Carolina governor on CBS News. He said that the bill was "common sense" when it comes to bathrooms, as well as public lockers and showers. So it's common sense for someone who looks like a man, with male sex organs, showering with women, because his birth certificate says female. It's common sense for someone who looks like a woman and has female sex organs undressing in a male locker room, because her birth certificate says male. Huh. I'm not seeing the common sense in those cases. Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

By the way, Carikature, please don't derail the thread.

[Carrikature]

By the way, Carikature, please don't derail the thread.

A discussion of right to privacy isn't a derail, particularly when it's brought up in defense of the bill.

[Bill the Cat]

It doesn't. It focuses explicitly on liberty, of which sexual conduct is a subset. To whit:




Right to liberty, not privacy. I'd certainly agree that privacy is a subset of liberty, but it is not an individual right on its own. Further, and particularly relevant given the reference to court cases, it's not unheard of for cases to be overturned (as in fact happens in Lawrence v. Texas). I think it's safe to say that a majority opinion on a case heard by the Supreme Court isn't enough to affirm or deny the existence of any particular right.

The UN disagrees.

Source: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Article 12.


No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

See the 4th Amendment. Though it's an odd way of framing it, I would consider it a search of house.

Yet it goes for recording people's conversations in other places than their homes. The police can't bug your phone, or plant listening devices on your person, or listen in on any private conversation you have, no matter where you are.

I agree it is the 4th amendment but I think the 4th amendment extends beyond property and includes personal privacy. After all it does say ""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Basically, it says the government can't interfere with YOU or your possessions without a warrant. That means you have a right to privacy of yourself and possessions.

In addition, other amendments protect the privacy of various other aspects such as beliefs.

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

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.

http://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

and there are other various laws that protect your private information (e.g. HIPPA)

[Sparko]

So I just listened to an interview with the North Carolina governor on CBS News. He said that the bill was "common sense" when it comes to bathrooms, as well as public lockers and showers. So it's common sense for someone who looks like a man, with male sex organs, showering with women, because his birth certificate says female. It's common sense for someone who looks like a woman and has female sex organs undressing in a male locker room, because her birth certificate says male. Huh. I'm not seeing the common sense in those cases. Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

By the way, Carikature, please don't derail the thread.

They don't have male or female sex organs. Just the appearance of them. TG men don't have testicles, TG women don't have uteruses or ovaries.

[Yttrium]

They don't have male or female sex organs. Just the appearance of them. TG men don't have testicles, TG women don't have uteruses or ovaries.

So those differences are enough that it's common sense for them to be undressing in public facilities matching their birth certificates? Hmm. I remain skeptical.

[Sparko]

So those differences are enough that it's common sense for them to be undressing in public facilities matching their birth certificates? Hmm. I remain skeptical.

personally I am not comfortable either way. I wouldn't want a TG male to be in the woman's bathroom, or in the men's room (basically a women in the men's room) - heck I am pee-shy to begin with and usually head to a stall if there are even other guys at the urinals :-)

[Yttrium]

personally I am not comfortable either way. I wouldn't want a TG male to be in the woman's bathroom, or in the men's room (basically a women in the men's room) - heck I am pee-shy to begin with and usually head to a stall if there are even other guys at the urinals :-)

I'm with you on that last part. But perhaps you see my problem with the "common sense" statement. It's not common sense to send them to the facilities corresponding to their birth certificates. It's awkward. It may be awkward the other way too. As a society, we have to come up with something to accommodate them. Personally, I wouldn't be against a separate transgender bathroom. But that's been shot down by the bill too.

In my mind, the logical thing would be to switch entirely to single occupant bathrooms. But thanks to the liberal forces, I don't expect that to happen. I expect that we'll be living with the controversy for quite some time to come.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm with you on that last part. But perhaps you see my problem with the "common sense" statement. It's not common sense to send them to the facilities corresponding to their birth certificates. It's awkward. It may be awkward the other way too. As a society, we have to come up with something to accommodate them. Personally, I wouldn't be against a separate transgender bathroom. But that's been shot down by the bill too.

In my mind, the logical thing would be to switch entirely to single occupant bathrooms. But thanks to the liberal forces, I don't expect that to happen. I expect that we'll be living with the controversy for quite some time to come.

That would be really difficult to implement in public places, but it would certainly be nice.

[Yttrium]

That would be really difficult to implement in public places, but it would certainly be nice.

Compact and modular. That's the ticket.

[Sparko]

I'm with you on that last part. But perhaps you see my problem with the "common sense" statement. It's not common sense to send them to the facilities corresponding to their birth certificates. It's awkward. It may be awkward the other way too. As a society, we have to come up with something to accommodate them. Personally, I wouldn't be against a separate transgender bathroom. But that's been shot down by the bill too.

In my mind, the logical thing would be to switch entirely to single occupant bathrooms. But thanks to the liberal forces, I don't expect that to happen. I expect that we'll be living with the controversy for quite some time to come.

Most public places do have single occupancy bathrooms available, sometimes for families and sometimes to more easily accommodate handicapped.

I probably wouldn't have as much problem with TG using the bathroom that matches their plumbing, but the biggest problem is that a lot of pre-operative TG's still "identify" with the opposite sex, so you would end up with physical males using the women's bathroom because other than their genitals, they appear to be women. I think that is definitely wrong. I realize it would be embarrassing for them to go into the men's room, but then they are the one's who decided to change their appearance and they should live with the consequences, not force the rest of society to change to suit them.

[Zymologist]

All this talk about bathrooms reminds me of an awkward story (not THAT awkward):

I was in between classes at college, and had stepped into the men's room. Now, these bathrooms had a lineup of three urinals: two at the standard height and then a short one at the end. There were no dividers between them. So I went in and saw a guy already at the far end, on the standard height urinal, and so I decide to do the courteous thing and step to the other end, even though this would put me at the short one. It's kind of understood men's room courtesy that you leave at least one urinal's space in between two guys, where there are no dividing walls.

The first guy leaves, and before I can finish up, another guy comes in. Which urinal does he choose? That's right, he chooses the one in the middle. Not the standard height one at the end, leaving a comfortable, and courteous, space between us, but the standard height one right next to me. This has bugged me for like six years.