RTT, in all seriousness, how is this not what the law states. I thought that, in essence, folks could use either bathroom and not be discriminated against. If I understood it correctly, it was intended for, shall we say, 'gender neutral' people who, shall we say again, identified with the gender opposite of the one they resemble.

Not trying to get all snarky, I honestly thought that folks could walk into either bathroom now.

EDIT: I'm guessing this is the part that's got people up in arms?

quote:

---

It's not about bowing to knowledge or anything, it's about engaging someone who is willing to at least reasonably consider a concept that is foreign to them without being dismissive or mocking, as you have a tendency to be.

If what you say is true - that you aren't just here to troll the thread, I'll take you at your word and discuss your point with regard to this:

quote:

---

Gender identity means an individual's innate identification, appearance, expression or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not correspond to the individual's body or gender as assigned at birth.

---

The key word here is innate. For trans people, their gender identity is innate - it is who they are in their being.

---

Wrong. It is the opposite of who they are in their being. Hence the "trans" part. They are the opposite of what they are by nature. A man who becomes a woman is innately a man, but has chosen the opposite sex.

This comes next

Considering Houston still uses the IBC and IPC, I don't see a unisex bathroom requirement happening any time soon. The City has started allowing shared lavatories with separated water closets, but that's probably as close to unisex as you'll see under the code, unless the facility is so small as to require only one restroom.

Hey, Ryan, since we have a lesbian mayor, I guess Houston is out on the margins w/this "overreaching" ordinance. is that right? Any other big cities get waylaid around the country? Any at all?

Houston's the big-city outlier?

quote:

---

Hey, Ryan, since we have a lesbian mayor, I guess Houston is out on the margins w/this "overreaching" ordinance. is that right? Any other big cities get waylaid around the country? Any at all?

Houston's the big-city outlier?

---

18 states and about 200 municipalities have similar non-discrimination laws. Houston was the only one of the ten largest cities in the US that did not have such an ordinance at the time it was passed.

Interesting.

9 of 10, excepting only The Tine.
Your "tormentors" on this thread need to expand their crusade.

Much ado about very little here. JMO.

As of about a year ago:

So a transgendered woman can take a shower in the local gym's locker room with guys?

or is this just about using the toilet?

it does say any "public accomodation".

I still don't know, even after reading that section.

quote:

---

So a transgendered woman can take a shower in the local gym's locker room with guys?

or is this just about using the toilet?

it does say any "public accomodation".

I still don't know, even after reading that section.

---

No, a transgendered woman is a woman. She would shower with women.

quote:

---

So a transgendered woman can take a shower in the local gym's locker room with guys?

or is this just about using the toilet?

it does say any "public accomodation".

I still don't know, even after reading that section

---

As ludicrous as it sounds, it would seem to reason giving the absurdly open wording of the ordinance, that they would be allowed to shower in the local gym's locker room.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So a transgendered woman can take a shower in the local gym's locker room with guys?

or is this just about using the toilet?

it does say any "public accomodation".

I still don't know, even after reading that section.

---

No, a transgendered woman is a woman. She would shower with women.

---

But this "transgendered woman" might have a large floppy dong hanging, correct?

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, a transgendered woman is a woman. She would shower with women.

---

But this "transgendered woman" might have a large floppy dong hanging, correct?

---

She might. It could be small too.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, a transgendered woman is a woman. She would shower with women.

---

But this "transgendered woman" might have a large floppy dong hanging, correct?

---

She might. It could be small too.

---

Sure, it could be small, it doesn't matter either way. I believe this ordinance makes it a violation for you to say "Hey 'woman' with the big or small *****, don't shower with the 15 year old girls"

San Antonio passed a similar law almost two years ago, and there have been zero reports of such disturbances that have been hypothesized on this thread.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, a transgendered woman is a woman. She would shower with women.

---

But this "transgendered woman" might have a large floppy dong hanging, correct?

---

She might. It could be small too.

---

Sure, it could be small, it doesn't matter either way. I believe this ordinance makes it a violation for you to say "Hey 'woman' with the big or small *****, don't shower with the 15 year old girls"

---

Well let's look at the law's definition that Ryan posted.
Gender identity means an individual's innate identification, appearance, expression or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not correspond to the individual's body or gender as assigned at birth.

innate (adj): existing in one from birth; inborn; native

Babies don't identify with anything. Nor do they express anything, but urine and excrement. Their behavior is mostly eating, sleeping, and crying.

That leaves appearance. Many people cannot tell the difference between a male and female baby except for when they are naked...by looking at their genitals.

In short, this law defeats itself. "innate appearance" must correspond to the individual's body or gender as assigned at birth. Otherwise, remove the word "innate."

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So a transgendered woman can take a shower in the local gym's locker room with guys?

or is this just about using the toilet?

it does say any "public accomodation".

I still don't know, even after reading that section.

---

No, a transgendered woman is a woman. She would shower with women.

---

But this "transgendered woman" might have a large floppy dong hanging, correct?

---

Not if she's Asian.

quote:

---

quote:

---

San Antonio passed a similar law almost two years ago, and there have been zero reports of such disturbances that have been hypothesized on this thread.

---

So you're saying the law really wasn't needed and was only a feel good law to appease the gays? Shocking.

---

No, I'm saying there hasn't been some epidemic of "dudes in dresses" swinging their dicks around bathrooms while claiming to be transgender.

You gotta love this:

What should an employer do when a non-transgender employee complains about being uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with a transgender employee?
A. Employers need to offer an alternative to the complaining employee in such a situation, such as an individual restroom. It isn't the job of the transgender person to do the accommodating. (This was affirmed in a 2002 Minnesota federal appeals court ruling in the case of Cruzan v. Special School District, #1.)

Q. Are employers allowed to tell an employee to use a restroom that does not match the person's gender identity or presentation?
A. Employers should make the workplace fair for all employees. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) forbids employers from placing "unreasonable" restrictions on restroom access. Also, by insisting that someone use the wrong bathroom, an employer is both violating the employee's privacy by singling him or her out, and outing the person as transgender.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

San Antonio passed a similar law almost two years ago, and there have been zero reports of such disturbances that have been hypothesized on this thread.

---

So you're saying the law really wasn't needed and was only a feel good law to appease the gays? Shocking.

---

No, I'm saying there hasn't been some epidemic of "dudes in dresses" swinging their dicks around bathrooms while claiming to be transgender.

---

If it's not a problem, then why is the law needed?

quote:

---

You gotta love this:

What should an employer do when a non-transgender employee complains about being uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with a transgender employee?
A. Employers need to offer an alternative to the complaining employee in such a situation, such as an individual restroom. It isn't the job of the transgender person to do the accommodating. (This was affirmed in a 2002 Minnesota federal appeals court ruling in the case of Cruzan v. Special School District, #1.)

Q. Are employers allowed to tell an employee to use a restroom that does not match the person's gender identity or presentation?
A. Employers should make the workplace fair for all employees. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) forbids employers from placing "unreasonable" restrictions on restroom access. Also, by insisting that someone use the wrong bathroom, an employer is both violating the employee's privacy by singling him or her out, and outing the person as transgender.

---

You should definitely go after the Federal Courts, and OSHA.

Bastids think just like Parker.
....and 25 of the 30 largest cities, 200 municipalities, numerous states.....
TAKE THEM DOWN!

quote:

---

What should an employer do when a non-transgender employee complains about being uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with a transgender employee?
A. Employers need to offer an alternative to the complaining employee in such a situation, such as an individual restroom.

---

"go on...."

quote:

---

You gotta love this:

What should an employer do when a non-transgender employee complains about being uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with a transgender employee?
A. Employers need to offer an alternative to the complaining employee in such a situation, such as an individual restroom. It isn't the job of the transgender person to do the accommodating. (This was affirmed in a 2002 Minnesota federal appeals court ruling in the case of Cruzan v. Special School District, #1.)

---

What happened to "you're the weird one...deal with it?" I guess the hypersensitivity of today's pussified society means everybody must feel great all of the time.

I do hope some "woman" reaches under the stall to the lady next to him and says "honey, could I get a pad?"

So here's the dilemma, I choose not to hire a transgender person because of the added risk of controversy and increased legal risk; I get hammered by the ordinance.

I choose to hire a transgender person so I don't run afoul of the ordinance and they end up "not feeling safe" so I have to put in a new bathroom for this precious snowflake who because THEY don't feel like the sex they were assigned like everyone else have to be accommodated by others.

quote:

---

So here's the dilemma, I choose not to hire a transgender person because of the added risk of controversy and increased legal risk; I get hammered by the ordinance.

I choose to hire a transgender person so I don't run afoul of the ordinance and they end up "not feeling safe" so I have to put in a new bathroom for this precious snowflake who because THEY don't feel like the sex they were assigned like everyone else have to be accommodated by others.

---

Nothing about this ordinance will require you to construct a facility to accommodate the person. If one of your employees legitimately does not feel safe in your place of business, I think you've got a bigger issue to deal with.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So here's the dilemma, I choose not to hire a transgender person because of the added risk of controversy and increased legal risk; I get hammered by the ordinance.

I choose to hire a transgender person so I don't run afoul of the ordinance and they end up "not feeling safe" so I have to put in a new bathroom for this precious snowflake who because THEY don't feel like the sex they were assigned like everyone else have to be accommodated by others.

---

Nothing about this ordinance will require you to construct a facility to accommodate the person. If one of your employees legitimately does not feel safe in your place of business, I think you've got a bigger issue to deal with.

---

It has to be legitimate?

I'm going from LambdaLegal which claims to be "Lambda Legal is the oldest and largest national legal organization whose mission is to achieve full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIVthrough impact litigation, education and public policy work."

It says verbatim:

Q. What should an employer do when a non-transgender employee complains about being uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with a transgender employee?
A. Employers need to offer an alternative to the complaining employee in such a situation, such as an individual restroom. It isn't the job of the transgender person to do the accommodating. (This was affirmed in a 2002 Minnesota federal appeals court ruling in the case of Cruzan v. Special School District, #1.)

So if an employee complains it specifically recommends I need to provide them an alternative, what could that possibly be other than constructing a special one-holer "gender neutral" bathroom. All of my bathrooms are multiple-holers, as I'm sure many businesses are.

It appears that a "person" with a dong can shower in the men's or women's showers depending on how he/she identifies himself/herself.

quote:

---

It has to be legitimate?

I'm going from LambdaLegal which claims to be "Lambda Legal is the oldest and largest national legal organization whose mission is to achieve full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIVthrough impact litigation, education and public policy work."

It says verbatim:

Q. What should an employer do when a non-transgender employee complains about being uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with a transgender employee?
A. Employers need to offer an alternative to the complaining employee in such a situation, such as an individual restroom. It isn't the job of the transgender person to do the accommodating. (This was affirmed in a 2002 Minnesota federal appeals court ruling in the case of Cruzan v. Special School District, #1.)

So if an employee complains it specifically recommends I need to provide them an alternative, what could that possibly be other than constructing a special one-holer "gender neutral" bathroom. All of my bathrooms are multiple-holers, as I'm sure many businesses are.

---

Just because Lambda Legal opines as such doesn't mean it's binding on your business. The reason I said "legitimate" is that sometimes employees make **** up. Sometimes employees cry discrimination when no discrimination has occurred. I see that sort of thing all the time. If an employee told me they don't feel safe, they also need to tell me specifically why they do not feel safe. That reason might prove to be completely unfounded.

If the reason is that a coworker said, "If I see you in the bathroom I'm going to cut a *****." that's one thing that should be dealt with. If the reason is because they don't want anyone to know they are using the restroom, that's completely different, and in my opinion, not your responsibility to address.

Lambda Legal.

Devastating.

quote:

---

A. Employers need to offer an alternative to the complaining employee in such a situation, such as an individual restroom.

---

This is exactly what happen when Cartman complained

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

San Antonio passed a similar law almost two years ago, and there have been zero reports of such disturbances that have been hypothesized on this thread.

---

So you're saying the law really wasn't needed and was only a feel good law to appease the gays? Shocking.

---

No, I'm saying there hasn't been some epidemic of "dudes in dresses" swinging their dicks around bathrooms while claiming to be transgender.

---

If it's not a problem, then why is the law needed?

---

Did you not know? Where have you been? There was an epidemic of gays and transexual gays being bashed to death before...in bathrooms everywhere. Now it is all solved in an instant. No more blood in the bathrooms! The taxpayer money and absurd man-hours devoted to this ordinance is all justified!

quote:

---

So here's the dilemma, I choose not to hire a transgender person because of the added risk of controversy and increased legal risk; I get hammered by the ordinance.

I choose to hire a transgender person so I don't run afoul of the ordinance and they end up "not feeling safe" so I have to put in a new bathroom for this precious snowflake who because THEY don't feel like the sex they were assigned like everyone else have to be accommodated by others

---

This is what happens when you let gays dominate the upper levels of government. Their "issues" before everything else. Just wait until we get a gay or gay transexual president...

The middle east would stop hating us...that's for sure.

quote:

---

Just because Lambda Legal opines as such doesn't mean it's binding on your business. The reason I said "legitimate" is that sometimes employees make **** up. Sometimes employees cry discrimination when no discrimination has occurred. I see that sort of thing all the time. If an employee told me they don't feel safe, they also need to tell me specifically why they do not feel safe. That reason might prove to be completely unfounded.

---

Nah, I just won't ever hire any gays or gay transexuals to begin with so I can avoid this potential pain in the neck. They won't ever know why I didn't hire em.

PS- I don't run my own business, that just seems like a common sense approach in the face of completely useless laws like this.