Cantr II Discussion Forum

I just found out about Colorado Senate Bill 200...

It will allow anyone to go into any restroom, changing room, showers, etc. they choose. Trying to stop someone from entering a restroom of the other sex could result in a fine and jail term... And this applies to every restroom in Colorado, whether it is in a school, mall, or where ever.

And all this is coming under the guise of 'gay rights.'

Edit: I want to add that you can be jailed for up to 1 year for not allowing a guy into the ladies room or displaying something that implies that guys may not go into the ladies room (this could be interpreted to mean the standard male/female signs) or vice verse.

Wow... I'm going to Colorado in 2 weeks. Guess I'll give it a shot. :p

"Scuse me, ma'am? Hi. Uhh, where are the urinals?"

*she screams and runs*

"What? 'There something on my face?" *shrug*

Wow... this will be abused...

I didn't see much in Google News on the subject. Most of the alarm seems to be from Christian fundamentalists. Apparently, the bill just said that transsexuals can use the restroom of the gender to which they have made a commitment. I imagine that they might have trouble in either men's or women's restrooms. I don't think the bill says anything about anyone going into any restroom. So, if you believe you're a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa, and have gone through hormone treatments and surgery and wear that gender's clothing, you can use your chosen gender's restroom in Colorado.

Chris wrote:Apparently, the bill just said that transsexuals can use the restroom of the gender to which they have made a commitment. I imagine that they might have trouble in either men's or women's restrooms. I don't think the bill says anything about anyone going into any restroom. So, if you believe you're a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa, and have gone through hormone treatments and surgery and wear that gender's clothing, you can use your chosen gender's restroom in Colorado.

The restroom part is what it seems everybody is worried about although the bill actually says any public faculty.

any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.

And, no, it is not just for transsexuals(although it is meant for them), it aplies to everyone:

"SEXUAL ORIENTATION" MEANS A PERSON'S ORIENTATION TOWARD HETEROSEXUALITY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BISEXUALITY, OR TRANSGENDER STATUS OR ANOTHER PERSON'S PERCEPTION THEREOF.

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry

Although the bill seems to have meant well it opens up a REALLY BIG loop hole.

and if people in Cantr can find the loophole that easy... the bill will not pass written as is... it will be changed and resubmitted... my 2 cents...

I saw this, my response was just;

"well, yes... and...?"

It just means that the Colorado are forward-thinking in their approach to gender. in that they recognise that not everyone adheres to the male/female binary. And that biological sex is not constitutive of gender. If someone with a male body feels much more comfortable when gendered as female, it should be in their rights to fufill that in public spaces.

Seriously, what's the problem? Don't be so stupid as to think some guy is gonna barge into ladies toilets just to get whatever kind of thrill he thinks he might get from doing so and get away with it. There is such a thing as harrassment legislation. This is pretty much a non-issue...

Sunni Daez wrote:and if people in Cantr can find the loophole that easy... the bill will not pass written as is... it will be changed and resubmitted... my 2 cents...

Actually it went right through the Colorado legislature and is already signed into law...

formerly known as hf wrote:I saw this, my response was just;

"well, yes... and...?"

It just means that the Colorado are forward-thinking in their approach to gender. in that they recognise that not everyone adheres to the male/female binary. And that biological sex is not constitutive of gender. If someone with a male body feels much more comfortable when gendered as female, it should be in their rights to fufill that in public spaces.

Seriously, what's the problem? Don't be so stupid as to think some guy is gonna barge into ladies toilets just to get whatever kind of thrill he thinks he might get from doing so and get away with it. There is such a thing as harrassment legislation. This is pretty much a non-issue...

Yes, I know where you are coming from, but one, everybody is either male or female and I highly doubt most women want to be sharing a changing room with a guy, no matter whether he wears a dress or thinks he is a woman or not. And two, this applies to schools, for some reason I think that this is going to create a whole lot of trouble... It is now illegal for teachers to tell students that they may not go into the bathroom of the other gender and most kids have (at least some) trouble thinking about the consequences of there actions.

This whole issue is silly. There is no loophole. The intent is clear, and it's not to let any guy barge into the women's restroom. Seriously, why would would a gay guy go into the ladies' room? He is interested in other guys. Dee dee dee! The courts aren't going to force unisex restrooms, a la Ally McBeal.

Chris wrote:This whole issue is silly. There is no loophole. The intent is clear

Exactly.

fishfin, the school issue is pointless. This doesn't mean that a teacher can't a kid not to go into a certain toilet. If the kid's intentions are to be disruptive or cause harrassment, that's still a point at which the refusal can be made.

As for changing rooms, if various people can't accept the genuine gender positionings of others (as opposed to gender play for purely provocative, disruptive reasons - in which case I think that'd fall under harrassment), then, frankly, I don't care about their hang ups. That's their problem.

It's this kind of change I like to see. If you have a problem with the genuine gender or sexuality positionings of others, you go elsewhere, you exclude yourself. For too long it's been the other way around.

I have a feeling that this is deteriorating into an argument about whether or not people are born gay or choose to be gay. I consider those discussions kind of pointless so why don't we just stop now and not go there.

Really? That didn't occur to me. But largely because I never even thought there was an argument... (People who seriously contend that sexuality is a choice don't have an argument so much as extreme myopia...)

Honestly.. if a transgender.. entered the ladies room while I was in there... big deal...
#1 if this person is living as a female... then she is no different than any other lady in there..
#2 there are no urinals in 99% of ladies room.. though I have seen some strange things ..
#3 Ladies rooms have doors on thier toilet stalls.. hence the guy sees nothing anyways...
#4 As stated before.. there are still laws against harassment...
#5 Personally... I have used a mens room when the line was too long at the ladies room.. just had someone stand at the door.. or locked it..
#6 There are unisex bathrooms all over the place! So whats new?

psst.. I didn't claim there was a loophole.. I was just making a statement...

Look at the websites of the people who are going on about what chaos this law will cause. It's not women's rights groups and rape prevention centers. It's the Christian Right, like Focus on the Family. They are against anything that gives the slightest legal recognition to people who don't fit their narrow mold of a godly human being. It's funny when one of them turns out to be frequenting gay prostitutes. There is every reason to believe that the percentage of gays among fundamentalist Christians is about the same as in any other group, but they are living a lie, pretending that praying and Bible study "cures" them of homosexuality. It's funny, and it's sad at the same time.

formerly known as hf wrote:Really? That didn't occur to me. But largely because I never even thought there was an argument... (People who seriously contend that sexuality is a choice don't have an argument so much as extreme myopia...)

It isn't at the argument stage yet but I'm pretty sure it has really been heading in that direction (there haven't quite been in direct insults yet).

I said I consider those arguments pointless (or almost any argument on forums for that matter) because
1. Everyone has there views and generally only read the other person's views in order to find ways to poke holes in them
2. Everyone is arguing (generally) about whether or not their point of view is correct and very little proof is (generally) given
3. It ussually ends with everyone calling each other things like 12-year-olds or critiquing the other person's spelling
4. No matter how hard you argue nobody is going to change their views, the only thing that can be accomplished is getting mad at each other

I also consider it pointless because I am not entirely sure where I stand on it (edit clarifying it: whether or not people are born GLT or become that way later on). I have read stuff from both sides and it seems to basically come down to some people saying that GLT is genetical because someone had observed it in dolphins (or some other similar scientific study) and others saying that it is choice because almost all GLTs are former 'straits' and that there are former GLTs. (I also know the arguments against both of those but I'm not putting them here.)

I personally believe that the feelings that GLT's have is not a choice on their own part and that they should receive every right that everyone one else does. I also believe that any sex outside of mirage is a sin but should not be considered a crime (everyone does things that are wrong, I personally think that in America a lot of people are thrown in jail when what they really need is something else, like a job that pays enough to live on), in the same way I believe that two people of the same sex doing stuff together is a sin but should not be considered a crime. I have been supporting the more far-right view (it should be considered a crime) as apposed to the far-left view (it shouldn't be considered either a crime or a sin but a social norm) because that seems to be the view that is least supported here, and my mom has been freaking out about how next time we go back to America she wont be able to let my sisters go to the restroom by their selves.