Same point I was going to make in so many words.
Just like with marriage, now that "traditional marriage" is the position of bigots and essentially "immoral", since it discriminates against "2 people in love" who choose a different sexual identity. Now, anyone who tries to adhere to the bathroom standard of even, "well, you should at least 'look' like a girl, if you're going into the girls bathroom" is also going to be a bigot, and a discriminator.
Changing the bathroom standard isn't to "accomodate" those who do blend in, but those who don't and don't really want to try. It loosens the standards, it doesn't "make it fair."
It will create "more" awkward situations that Danno describes, in my opinion, not less.
In principle we "should" be, I agree. We just aren't in practice. Everyone's going along to get along. And most of our officials are in line because of the earmark blackmailing. ("Obey or we withhold funds.")
State's did pass marriage amendments to their Constitution, including my state, Kansas. But our judges and officials all caved. Instead of upholding state's rights and "nullifying" Obergefell vs. Hodges, our Consitutional amendment stating the obvious about marriage was nullified and deemed unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights.
Didn't work for marriage, why would it work for bathrooms?
Obergefell vs. Hodges (gay marriage decision) was the 10th amendment destroying watershed moment. We aren't "leading up" to some event, that was the event. This bathroom crap is fallout from that. The Feds already got the holy grail of state's rights destroying power. Now they're just beating us over the head with it.
This "identity" language, is crystallized in the presiding justices opinion on that decision. That's why they keep using that word.
Well, that seems to be the whole agenda. To attack the foundation of definitions themselves.
The LGBT legal nazis seem to think "sex" in the civil rights act includes transgenders. Why? Your sex is a defined thing. Your race is also a defined thing.
I can't get a black person or Native American scholarship because I "identify" as a different race.
This is opening the door for not having a rational or scientific standard for anything.
I have a lot of foreign friends and this seems to be the case.
I don't think that is the case with him. For instance, I know a black man who can't stand the Obamas and I think part of it has to do with their influence in the black community. does that make him racist?
This is simply another case of changing definitions.
With marriage, no one said a gay guy or girl couldn't get married. A gay guy could still marry a girl. There was no discrimination.
There's no one saying a transgender person can't use a bathroom. They use the bathroom that matches the parts they have.
Discrimination is when a certain group is excluded from participating in social norms. This LGBT legal onslaught is about changing the social norms. Not being excluded from them.