Comments about ‘Protesters demand LGBT anti-discrimination bill be heard’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 10 2014 3:34 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Orem Parent
Orem, UT

If people knew what was in the bill, the support would drop from 72% to 7.2%.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

Lagomorph,

The bill only requires that an individual IDENTIFY as a certain gender, not that they actually BE that gender. And yes, there is a big difference.

I can THINK I am a flying purple dinosaur.

I can even get a doctor to write a note saying I IDENTIFY as a flying purple dinosaur. That is not the same as a doctor saying I AM a flying purple dinosaur.

Surely you understand this very big difference.

Ken
Sandy, UT

Lagamorph, It seems most of us agree women should be in womens locker rooms and men in mens locker rooms. Such a societal standard now requires we answer the question: What makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman. Although you could present rare situations when a person's anatomical structure is not clearly indicative of male or female, that would be a disingenuous argument because that clearly is not the basis of support. If that were the reason behind the support, every such person would present physical ambiguity relating to gender. We all realize not all such transgender people fall into this category. Therefore, if you're willing to have an honest discussion, the question still must be answered of what makes someone male or female

As for the proposed allowance for an employer to look for consistency in that person's identification or medical records, that still fails to identify what makes someone a male and what makes someone a female. Because they believe they are or doctor acknowledgement they belief as such?

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Chris B:
"ok perhaps that would work. But you're not really suggesting that be done are you?"

My suggestion applies only to restrooms. Locker space and showers are something entirely different.

If you go to a hospital, the restrooms are for both sexes. You go in, one person at a time, and lock the door behind you. So it will/does work for restrooms. For locker rooms, I suppose individual changing spaces would have to be the answer. For showers... looks like those who do not wish to be in a shower with someone who is trans-gendered will just have to go home to shower.

Anyway, it's an extremely knotty problem.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

wrz,

Those who don't want to shower with someone who is transgendered will just have to go home?

So in other words, a woman who only wants to shower or change clothes in front of other women and not men has no right for that kind of privacy. Any person who thinks they are a woman should be able to walk into a ladies locker room simply for believing they are a woman, as if belief made it so. Too funny.

Thanks for helping prove my point of why this bill and those who support it are dishonest and hide what it really means.

There is no reason to separate the genders in any locker room setting ever if the reason for such separation can be nullified by someone believing the reason for separation doesn't exist, regardless of whether it does or not.

Liberals often start with good intentions, but as the bill proves, typically end up in la la land. Hard to take anyone seriously when they're suggesting a man should be able to shower with a women(and she has no rights to privacy) if he simply wishes/believes he is a woman.

Ted H.
Midvale, UT

wrz, The need for privacy between the sexes is legitimate. Chris correctly points out that a belief by someone in something does not make it so. My wife and teenage daughters have the right to reasonable privacy, and that reasonable privacy includes not having to change their clothes in front of men in areas that have been designated as for females only.

I like some of your ideas about unisex restrooms and am glad some logic can be put behind coming up with actual solutions. Much credibility is lost however when one believes my wife and daughters should be able to prohibit a biological male from entering a locker room they are in if that biological male thinks he is a male but shouldn't have the same right to privacy with someone who is similarly biologically male but thinks they are female

jcobabe
Provo, UT

Absent any extenuating circumstances, Utah citizens favor fairness and would voice overwhelming support for equality and against unfair discrimination.

But SB100 is not about defending against discrimination or promoting equality. What it represents was effectively demonstrated by the shouting disruptive protests at the Utah Capitol. Utah legislators would be well advised to consider this in their deliberations. No hand-waving or shouting of disingenuous slogans can disguise the obvious animus and harmful intentions that these protesters have for imposing on the law-abiding citizens of Utah.

SB100 is a legislative solution in search of a problem. It does not merit further consideration.

CBAX
Provo, UT

All this junk about people using the other restroom is getting out of hand.

All this equality is attempting to do is erase needed boundaries. Things are just going to get strange from here on out.

Guys that can't take XY trying to go to the girls bathroom as if It will solve anything.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Let's get away from the anecdotal "evidence" and find some real evidence that such discrimination happens. I work with a lot of homosexuals. They promote just as easily as I do because they are qualified for the job, not because of whom they sleep with. I have heard of no housing discrimination amongst them. They live where they want. The only time I have heard anyone at work complain that they had problems with housing is because they caused it and got themselves evicted, just like any one else would if they misbehaved.

There are ample laws already on the books to protect against discrimination of all kinds. We do not need more. Nor do we need to establish any more "protected" classes.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

No matter what those protestors believed they had bravery to stand up to the system for their beliefs. I am proud of their courage and belief. I also remember in my own history when Blacks stood up to my Church and finally forced that change. At the time I was shocked they dared challenge my beliefs! But history now shows us they were right.

riverofsun
St.George, Utah

The protestors thought this out and will win in the long run.
Utah is already receiving a great deal of negative worldwide media attention because of the state's anti SSM philosophy. This protest adds fuel to that fire. This situation also adds to the overall scenario that Utah is a very religious state and is trying to keep their Mormon state just has it has been since the Mormon pioneers landed in the territory.
Others who cannot accept the LDS culture and abide by the LDS rules, have always been, and will continue to be advised to reside elsewhere.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

desert wrote:

"The most stupid thing with the LGBT issue in Utah is, they have no clue how nice Mormons can be."

I am married to an active LDS woman. I have lived among Mormons for three decades. I attend meetings regularly.

My observations have been that, like this self-serving comment, Mormons in general have an overly inflated opinion of themselves and their own "niceness".

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Yen yang thing, you have to have lubricant for the inner parts and gas for the movement to happen. A lot of money and sheared interest has got the show on the road. how far depends on the lube and the interest. I think it will come down to, who in the gov is coming out of the closet, and who will go back in to their hole. When gas and oil mix the gasket will blow.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "USU-Logan" you are missing the point.

Imagine that you own a house, and are renting it to a group of straight men. A gay man comes to you and wants to rent a room in that house too. Would you knowingly introduce a gay man into that group, or would you suggest to that gay man that the current room mates may not appreciate sharing the house with him? What if you let the gay man rent a room, and then the others beat him up because they don't like gays? Would you feel bad that you did not discriminate by telling the gay man that he was entering a potentially harmful situation?

Would you want to be one of those straight men, knowing that the gay man that you landlord added to the house could be looking at you as more than just a roommate?

The problem is that if you say that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, what about pedafiles, ex-cons, drug addicts, young adults, crazy people, and so forth? Will you discriminate against them in any way?

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Christopher B:
"So in other words, a woman who only wants to shower or change clothes in front of other women and not men has no right for that kind of privacy."

Both women and men should have the right to privacy in public locker facilities. If trans gender folks show up, you don't know if they're male or female. They could be both. If a female is changing clothes and a person enters the showers with a beard she certainly has a right to be suspicious.

"There is no reason to separate the genders in any locker room setting ever if the reason for such separation can be nullified by someone believing the reason for separation doesn't exist, regardless of whether it does or not."

Whaaat?

@Ted H.:
"My wife and teenage daughters have the right to reasonable privacy, and that reasonable privacy includes not having to change their clothes in front of men in areas that have been designated as for females only."

I agree. Everyone has the right to personal privacy. How can that happen if some person thinks he's woman and enters a lady's locker roo

jcobabe
Provo, UT

If SB100 is such vital anti-discrimination legislation, and the Utah Congress is foot-dragging, please let the proponents bring this issue into the public square, where it will be considered on its merits, before the people of Utah. Those who stage public demonstrations misrepresenting SB100 surely seem to be well-funded and motivated. Instead of volunteering to be thrown in jail as media stunt, let them expend some of their energy getting voter approval for an initiative that will bypass the legislative inertia.

I frame this challenge solely on the basis of my certain opposition to the passage of this legislative measure. It does not represent the best interest of the people of Utah. And I am convinced that in a democratic proposal, with full disclosure of all the implications, the voters of Utah would flatly refuse to back this special-interest legislation.

If, as is being asserted, the people of Utah overwhelmingly favor this measure, there should be no problem with subjecting it for full scrutiny.

As in similar issues, they bear the burden of proving that SB100 is what it claims to be.

Ken
Sandy, UT

wrz,

Men belong in mens locker rooms. Women belong in womens locker rooms. This isn't rocket science. As there is much confusion in BGTL community, we need to come up with some sort of definition of male and female. And when competent medical professionals have concluded that any given person is male or female, we are left with that as the best evidence, unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. But, as has been pointed out by Chris and others, a belief or wish by someone does not make it so. Chris B is not a purple dinosaur even if he wants to be or even if he thinks he is. Similarly, having a medical professional state that Chris B thinks he is a flying dinosaur does not mean he is a dinosaur.

If there is a better proposal for defining what male/female is as opposed to what competent medical professionals conclude at birth of child, I'm open to hearing it. And again, if you want to give rare examples of anatomical ambiguity, we both know that would be disingenuous and hurt your argument unless that is a requisite for a person to be able to be transgender.

Ted H.
Midvale, UT

@wrz "How can that happen if some person thinks he's woman and enters a lady's locker roo"

its quite simple. A man's privacy is protected in a man's locker room, so long as there are no women there. A woman's privacy is protected in a woman's locker room, so long as there are no men there.

I can think I am living in Antartica but reality is I'm living in Midvale.
I can think I'm a 25 year old dominating in the NBA, bur reality is I'm not.
I can think I'm a dog(as some people do). There was a recent ABC article on such a person. But I'm not.

Standards in society have to be rooted in reality, unfortunately. Sorry.

Mlawrence
Salt Lake City, UT

People are being spoon fed mis-information about the non-discrimination ordinances. It's not about bathrooms, it's not about being forced to rent a property to gay person. It's not about being forced to hire someone because they are gay. All this ordinance does is adds sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination ordinances that already exist. That is all. The non-discrimination ordinances that already exist that include gender, religion, race and age. These are not special rights, these are simply human rights. People can be fired just for putting a picture of their spouse on their desk, if their spouse happens to be the same gender. Landlords can be compelled to evict residence from their homes simply because someone doesn't like who they are and yes these things happen here in Utah every day. Stop listening to the lies and mis-information from the Eagles forum and the Southerland Institute. Look at these ordinances yourselves and then make your decisions.

Ranch
Here, UT

desert says:

"Next on the news I wish to see in the head lines. "LGBT community thanks Utah for being tolerant ..."

--- You want us to thank you for denying equality in marriage? That, sir/ma'am, is not "tolerant". Why do you deserve our thanks?

As for your church being know for it's "tolerance"; your church was involved in every. single. state. where anti-marriage amendments have been passed. That, sir/ma'am, is not "tolerance".

"... they have no clue how nice Mormons can be."

I grew up Mormon. I know how nice some of you are. I also know how cruel some of you can be (read the comments here in the DN, for example).

Meckofahess says;

"The gay community would deny our religious liberties ..."

--- You already deny our religious liberty, to worship and marry as our various religions allow. You don't like it when your own acts come back to haunt you?

@midvale guy;

"Unlawful act"? The US Constitution gives us the right to "petition our government" for redress of grievances.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments