Texas GOP

[Calax]

No, one of her first edicts was that men who think they're women are now allowed to use women's bathrooms.

 

In other words she is a sane person.

 

Not so sure about that. Government support for transsexuals is not exactly a clear-cut issue. And I'm a fairly liberal person.

 

At the heart of this issue you would have to examine why bathrooms are separated by sex in the first place. When you do that you'll find that such an edict has some fairly hard-to-resolve implications.

Eh, then again, maybe the gender restraints on bathrooms shouldn't be as harsh. I mean Europe supposedly has a fair number of unisex bathrooms and don't seem to have to much trouble with it.

[Oblarg]

I was in the Natural History Museum Last week and discovered they have one set of bathrooms for everyone, with sturdy cubicles around each convenience. I didn't notice any lack of civilisation. Indeed, quite the reverse.

 

Which is an entirely different issue. I think unisex bathrooms would work fine.

 

However, if the law states that bathrooms should be separated by gender, then the bathroom which is available to a transsexual probably should be decided based on whatever reasoning responsible for having the bathrooms separated in the first place. If it's not treated in that manner then the law loses significance and should be entirely rewritten.

[Calax]

I was in the Natural History Museum Last week and discovered they have one set of bathrooms for everyone, with sturdy cubicles around each convenience. I didn't notice any lack of civilisation. Indeed, quite the reverse.

 

Which is an entirely different issue. I think unisex bathrooms would work fine.

 

However, if the law states that bathrooms should be separated by gender, then the bathroom which is available to a transsexual probably should be decided based on whatever reasoning responsible for having the bathrooms separated in the first place. If it's not treated in that manner then the law loses significance and should be entirely rewritten.

Does anyone actually know if the law states this sort of thing? or is it just a sort of unwritten civil decorum thing?

[Walsingham]

I was in the Natural History Museum Last week and discovered they have one set of bathrooms for everyone, with sturdy cubicles around each convenience. I didn't notice any lack of civilisation. Indeed, quite the reverse.

 

Which is an entirely different issue. I think unisex bathrooms would work fine.

 

However, if the law states that bathrooms should be separated by gender, then the bathroom which is available to a transsexual probably should be decided based on whatever reasoning responsible for having the bathrooms separated in the first place. If it's not treated in that manner then the law loses significance and should be entirely rewritten.

 

Can't disagree there.

[Monte Carlo]

I was in the Natural History Museum Last week and discovered they have one set of bathrooms for everyone, with sturdy cubicles around each convenience. I didn't notice any lack of civilisation. Indeed, quite the reverse.

 

I think a thread about the future of shared bathroom facilities would be made of pure 24 carat win, Wals. I don't know if you've ever been to the McDonald's at Charing Cross, near Villier's Street (slap bang in the middle of central London) but that has (gasp) shared bathroom facilities of the type you describe.

[~Di]

Yes, he was wrong. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense...lStatusDLID.htm ...The Department of Public Safety requires applicants who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States to present proof of lawful status in the U.S. before being issued an original, renewal, or duplicate Texas driver license or identification card...

 

The link above goes to the Texas DPS Driver License requirements (which are the same as in California and most other states). There's no mention of a citizen/non-citizen designation on the license. People simply have to prove that they are citizens and/or legal residents of Texas. I fail to see the problem or discrimination here.

 

 

"We propose that every Texas driver license shall indicate whether the driver is a U.S. citizen. No such documentation shall be issued to anyone not legally in the country."

 

The proposition would certainly change that, it seems.

 

You cut off the quote to which I was responding.

(heathen @ Jul 1 2010, 11:28 PM)

I'm sorry, you're saying that they're already not issuing drivers licenses to illegals? I must have misunderstood that quote then. They're just proposing to add a space where it says "CITIZEN/NON-CITIZEN" then, right? I understood illegals can at the moment get a drivers license and do drive most of the cabs in Texas, based on talks with a friend. Guess he was wrong, then.

 

Illegals in Texas cannot currently get a driver's license, and the link I supplied proves that.

[Thorton_AP]

But you did also mention the lack of designation regarding citizen/non-citizen, which is what Oblarg pointed out (and I believe Heathen was alluding to it, albeit sarcastically and ironically, correctly, with his comment about "just proposing to add a space....")

[Oblarg]

I was more referring to this:

 

"We propose that every Texas driver license shall indicate whether the driver is a U.S. citizen. No such documentation shall be issued to anyone not legally in the country."

 

What the heck is wrong with this? Nearly every state in the union requires proof of citizenship or legal residency to issue a driver's license. This is hardly a radical position.

 

What's wrong with it is it's basically placing a sticker on your drivers license that has no practical use other than facilitating discrimination.

[Monte Carlo]

^ So establishing someone's right to be in the country legitimately is discrimination?

 

Thanks for proving the old saw that 'A liberal is a person who's so open minded his brain fell out.'

 

The issue is how the law is conducted. Cops / immigration people doing it professionally and politely means no problem, as I said in the other thread I've been stopped by US border cops and they were very professional and polite. Shame their colleagues at US airports don't have the same training, but that's another story.

[Oblarg]

^ So establishing someone's right to be in the country legitimately is discrimination?

 

Thanks for proving the old saw that 'A liberal is a person who's so open minded his brain fell out.'

 

The issue is how the law is conducted. Cops / immigration people doing it professionally and politely means no problem, as I said in the other thread I've been stopped by US border cops and they were very professional and polite. Shame their colleagues at US airports don't have the same training, but that's another story.

 

You have some reading comprehension problems, bro.

 

Look at the part I bolded. Or do you not know the difference between not being a citizen and not being here legally?

[Calax]

^ So establishing someone's right to be in the country legitimately is discrimination?

 

Thanks for proving the old saw that 'A liberal is a person who's so open minded his brain fell out.'

 

The issue is how the law is conducted. Cops / immigration people doing it professionally and politely means no problem, as I said in the other thread I've been stopped by US border cops and they were very professional and polite. Shame their colleagues at US airports don't have the same training, but that's another story.

Thing is as Di pointed out, technically in Texas the only people who can have the License are either on green cards or citizens, which makes having said marker useless except to provide Cops etc ammunition to "persuade" people by threatening to have them deported.

[Thorton_AP]

I know this has already been said but:

 

If it is required to be a legal immigrant or actual citizen to have your license, there is no need to indicate if someone is a legal citizen or immigrant on their driver's license.

 

The potential risk IMO is too high.