Houston voters reject transgender anti-discrimination prop

Post Reply New Topic

Proposal voted down by 20 percent after "No men in women's bathroom" campaign
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-bathroom-fears-conquered-transgender-rights-in-houston/414016/

It wasn't a transgender anti-discrimination proposal. Saying that it was plays into the propaganda against it.

It was a broad-ranging anti-discrimination proposal that, among many other classes, included transgender people.

Goes to show you, people can allow themselves to vote down the rights of others if given a reason to justify their prejudice. I'll chomp on the bit to stop myself from making an observation about Texas.
I think it should be added, there has never been a case of a transgender woman assaulting women or girls in public restrooms.

Like the rights of women not to have penises present when they just want to pee?

It cuts both ways. Your "rights" impede mine.

During the civil rights era, white southerners would claim their rights were being violated because they had to share public restrooms with black people. Just get used to it.

Stuff like this that makes me think we should sell Texas back to Mexico.

Houston is actually very liberal, and I was surprised it failed, especially by the margin it did.

Sure didn't match predictions, eh?

This is what happens when conservative Churches - whose members make up more than half the population - choose to directly use their influence on our political process. Sure, they're technically prohibited from directly endorsing candidates, etc., but that hasn't been enforced since 2007 and is unlikely to be enforced in the near future. In that case, we very much risk churches becoming political powerhouses with massive budgets for influencing the political process. Not to mention they have the added advantage of being able to tell their congregations that they, "risk their eternal soul" if they vote the wrong way or support the wrong political party, as was done in the Romney-Obama election and even since.

I know Houston's rep as a liberal town, and so I was also surprised that this was voted down. I had to ask myself, is this the right Houston?

False equivalence.

Africans have the same external gender.

THEY DO!?!?
No, but seriously, white southerners - and sadly enough, too many northerners - couldn't stand the thought of sharing the same toilet facilities with black Americans, the same way trans persons are regarded today. Blacks were considered to that much the other. Just because someone is made uncomfortable by somebody else is hardly reason to deny them the use of public facilities, even if it means taking a sh*t in the same place. The real reason for this vote was because people see transsexuals as sinful, and/or giving a phony excuse to dress as the opposite sex.
Besides, I think every man here has had to use the lady's room if the men's room was out of order, or if there's too long a line and you just can't wait. Does that mean in such emergencies, a man meaning no offense can be arrested?

Yes. It nearly happened to me a few times, even when I explained to the local storm troopers that I just had kidney surgery to remove kidney stones. If it weren't for a friend that was with me at those times, I'd be sitting in the county lockup, even if I had the written diagnosis from the urologist that performed the procedure and shown it to the officer and judge.

You're comparing two things that can only be compared superficially.

One was people of the same species using the gender appropriate facilities, and people were denied solely based on culture/race/color/whatever.

The other is a person of the opposite gender using the facilities without a clear distinction of what is classed as either gender.

Two entirely different things.

The latter is closer to a person using disabled facilities when there's no real distinction out there for what's disabled or not.

By all means, genuine trans should be allowed to use the facilities of their sex, but so far there's little burden of proof regarding that, unlike other disabilities people are born with/acquire.

Eh, I've been a bit put off by the push on trans issues myself, not out of any discomfort with trans people, more like I feel like they're being used as the replacement "wedge" now that gay rights are practically a settled issue, especially considering the tiny number of such people. I also don't care for the high pressure "you're an awful bigoted transmysoginist if you're not in every way comfortable with trans people" line being taken by the social justice crowd; these things take time, and that's not a realistic demand to make of people just getting used to alternative sexualities, let alone genders. Clearly, Houston should serve as a reminder to coastal liberals that their views are not as universally held as they like to believe.

Actually, Houston has served to remind people that Texas is very much a part of the Bible Belt & not much more. Most analysis I've heard today in the media seem to question if the religious people went too far in asserting their irrational (unprovable) opinions on everyone. The other thing is, people are starting to wake up to the fact that trans people are not a threat and just want to live their lives, while the people heading these campaigns against LGBT people's legal equality are making some pretty nice salaries off the fight. Kinda changes the average person's perspective when they realize that, you know?

Other than a very populous, economically successful state you mean? One that's home to more liberals than their coastal brethren seem to realize?



Which media? And what makes you so sure that this is purely a religious matter? Even the most unflattering analyses of the vote that I've seen paint more of a picture of people scared of men in the womens restrooms than of religious morals being invoked, as does most of the commentary I see on trans matters.



Actually, I tend to see more professional activists on the LGBTQ side, and like I alluded to in my initial post, the sudden and tremendous push on trans issues feels to me as much a matter of shopping for a new outrage to keep themselves employed and their supporters fired up as it does a genuine concern.

This is the problem with activists, that when they get what they want, they're out of work, and when the choice is between unemployment and finding some new cause, they tend to pick the latter. Look at MADD, they successfully stigmatized drunk driving into a life ruining event whether anyone is harmed or not, lowered acceptable BAC levels across the country, and generally succeeded beyond their wildest expectations; did they pat themselves on the back and go home? Hell no, they've become essentially a prohibitionist organization pushing for more and more draconian punishments and lower and lower BAC thresholds, and I fear the same thing is happening with the LGBTQ activists who are suing bakers and photographers and generally trying to put the same boot heel on the necks of their opponents that they feel was on their own just a few years back.

I don't see the religious out there actively trying to roll back LGBTQ gains, I see them fighting a rearguard action while trying to decide whether to decide whether to concede the issue or withdraw entirely from society. They lost, and given time will fade away, unless of course they become the persecuted minority, a far from far fetched scenario from where I sit in progressive Seattle.

Really, my point here, as it's been for years, is that name calling and demonizing opponents are really poor tools of persuasion, and that simply blaming religious fear and ignorance for your own failure to persuade people of the correctness of your cause isn't terribly productive either.