JJ Husker

It's a valid point. The best thing we could do for our economy is quit sourcing the majority of our manufacturing overseas. But, part of the problem is Americans have grown soft and don't want to work that hard. Hey, if you can buy $6 coffee daily and sit on your ass to earn your paycheck, why stand all day long doing mindless repetitive motion physical labor? I wouldn't want to do it either. But it does annoy the hell out of me that we'll extend unemployment benefits etc. but keep sending the bulk of our manufacturing out of the country.

I will say, since this place is directly south of Fremont, the workforce would be available. I guess that's a no brainer or the company would not want to locate there. For some reason, I pictured a place 60 miles away from anywhere in the middle of a cornfield. Ha, probably because I've been in Colorado too long. Back in the day, our church sponsored a family of Vietnamese refugee boat people. Brought them to Columbus initially but within a couple short years they had all moved to Fremont to work at the Hormel plant. You want to talk about an unbelievable work ethic. They made the most of their shot at picking themselves up by their bootstraps. They became self sufficient almost immediately. And yes, I would say it was by doing work that many "locals" didn't really want to do.

That could be, and that's also an interesting perspective, because I'd imagine that the less urban your area, along with the increase in fear of the unfamiliar, there'd probably be a decrease in the likelihood of ever having these sorts of things personally intersect with your life, right? Ever since moving away from Nebraska, my mind has changed and "been opened" on a lot of things as I've been exposed to and lived life in interaction with more minority, disadvantaged groups. I don't think I was any worse of a person, but I was very ignorant in the non-loaded sense of the word; just honestly unaware and unfamiliar with different life experiences. Every single member of my entire family sans one aunt and my half-brother live in Nebraska, almost all in towns of 5,000 or less. My family is good people. Even so, when I'm home for holidays I can't help but internally cringe at some of the things I hear people casually say, some of the misconceptions present. Growing up I was a part of it. Now it's like, "Dude....you're talking about my friend Travis." Yeah, I really think where we've lived and what we're used to is greatly affecting our differing views. Pretty much unavoidable I guess. I grew up in Columbus and have for the most part lived in Lincoln and Greeley other than that. I've grown and become more accepting of many things since leaving Columbus but likely not as much as I would've living in some of the places you have. Hopefully everyone recognizes that contributes to our worldview and that it tempers our view of other people's opinions and views. We all haven't had the same experiences or exposure.

I think the argument is that this creates an unnecessary risk. You send your 8-year-old daughter into the potty while you stay outside with your 3-year-old. Some perv is in there on the pretext that "all people have access to all bathrooms" or "you can choose which bathroom you use based on which gender you feel like today" and they do something bad to your daughter. It's a terrifying scenario for any parent.Also, women do not want to use the same bathroom as men. Not one woman I've asked about this is OK with guys in their bathroom. Yeah, that's anecdotal, but it's 100% so far. Again, just presenting arguments and "facts," not advocating for which way this should go. I still haven't made up my mind. I actually agree with all of this and understand the argument. I think the argument ends, however, at the increase in risk being so minute as compared to other more likely risks we comfortably live with every day. I also agree with all of what knapp said and I think I am beginning to better understand your view. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think lots of people who feel this is only a minor increase in risk have probably been used to being exposed to greater risk by living in or around larger cities. You live in Chi town now and previously ATL? I can easily see where someone used to these generally more dangerous places can't really grasp the fear those of us may have who just aren't used to that crush of humanity. The largest city I've ever lived in is Lincoln. I can unequivocally state that the larger the city the less comfortable I feel in public spaces. I would assume someone that is used to larger cities has probably grown somewhat immune to the sense of danger and likely views this issue much differently than those of us who are not used to it. Edit- to be honest, I've felt pretty creeped out in few extremely small towns too. You pull off the interstate to go to the bathroom and the cast of Texas Chainsaw Massacre is there to greet you.... That can be pretty creepy too.

Knapp may be right about the reason Nickerson turned this down. I don't know, heck I've never even heard of Nickerson and don't know where it is. But, the type of people that industry will attract is not necessarily the reason for my comments. I will say the change in culture could contribute greatly to it though. A small community of 400 in rural white Nebraska just wouldn't deal well with the culture shock IMO. I've seen it way too many times. Much of the downside is due to traffic and smell and straining the local infrastructure. I think most of it depends on what kind of a good neighbor the employer is. It's been my experience that larger packinghouse type employers generally are not the best contributors in smaller communities. Sure some of them do lots of good things but too often they over strain the infrastructure (think water supply, wastewater, roads, etc.) without paying their fair share of building these systems up to where they need to be. They will talk some of these towns into all kinds of tax breaks and exemptions and then basically rape and pillage the community. Larger towns and cities can usually handle it but a town of only 400 wouldn't really stand a chance with a large poultry producer, unless that is what they really want the identity of the town to change to. IMO, these employers and the towns can handle it in places over 40,000 or 50,000 population. Much smaller than that though and it seems things almost always change for the worse. That's what I've seen in these towns and I've seen a bunch of them. I will say that those "white collar" jobs without "those" people in tow just aren't looking to locate in a small town of 400. Why would they? Better jobs than that require a larger, more educated workforce. I'm guessing that a small town of 400 in rural Nebraska is already heavily agriculture based and likely doesn't really need and can't support an employer dangling 1100 jobs. The people filling the majority of those jobs will not be locals. They just won't be, primarily because they don't have the workforce readily available.

I've done work at the Schuyler plant and Gibbon and Lexington and most of the towns with packing houses in Nebraska and Kansas and Iowa and Colorado and quite a few in Texas. I pretty much owe my lively hood to that industry. It is not pretty when you consider what many of these towns were like before.

All jobs are not created equal. I don't blame a small community like that for refusing a a large poultry processor or beef packer or pretty much any primarily low skill, high turnover assembly line type work. Those types of places have a detrimental effect on the quality of life in a larger town, it would absolutely destroy it in a small town. If they can get by economically with the status quo in a town of only 400, more power to them.

RE: your first paragraph, this is kneejerk sensationalist politics/legislature at it's finest. There haven't really been studies and good research on this stuff, so why so many people are jumping to these wild solutions is just wild. However, I also don't think Target's policy is quite as loose and free as you make it out to sound. RE: your second, it's not really an assumption, but it's a reaction to the fearmongering that IS going on. The people fighting this stuff on top, the ones with the power, are doing it by painting trans people as this phobic, dangerous, unnatural threat. Your perspective is much more reasonable and refreshing, but it's also not, I don't think, the same one being used by a lot of people with the louder voices. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. It seems painfully obvious to me that there is an element in our society that will use the men are welcome in the women's rooms to abuse the policy change. It doesn't really take evidence to know this WILL happen. "Hey I may look like a man but I 'm one of these trans people you made this policy for, so quit harassing me." I can hear the excuse already. Maybe the reason there is no evidence (yet) of this is because men are out of place and not welcome in the ladies room. Their policy may not seem loose and free to you but there is absolutely no way to control it at all if men are allowed to enter women's restrooms. However, I do agree that it is not likely to cause problems to skyrocket but, IMO, even one instance that could have been prevented is one too many. I appreciate that you think my perspective is reasonable. I think your and NM's are also. I understand that there are many, not necessarily in this discussion on HB, that are not reasonable and that do have an agenda against trans people. I won't comment further on Red Dead's trolling of the topic- other than he's just being his typical douche self. And of course there are jackwagons like those in North Carolina contributing more to the problem than the solution.

I don't know why this keeps happening, but in the last two/three pages of this thread, you keep saying you're not worried about the trans people you're worried about the predators, and people keep responding to you like you're saying something about the trans people. You're not the only one seeing this. It's weird. Thanks knapp. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me.

We don't. Exactly.I guess I am now confused which side you are taking on this deal. Currently, standard convention helps prevent men from entering the ladies room. These guys know today that people will look at them funny and probably say something if they attempt to use the women's room. With this new Target policy, there is not even that deterrent to help keep them out. I realize that may cause a little discomfort for some trans people but I really do believe that would serve society as whole better. My point is that we can't assume that sex offenders are the opposite sex, or same sex. We can not monitor the risky "bathroom goers" at all right now anyway. By allowing transgendered to use the bathroom aligned to who they are today we are not increasing risk, as we have no clue what risk is now and we don't monitor and can't regulate it. Today men can go into mens rooms and prey on men. Women can go into womens' rooms and prey on women. Nothing changes if a transwoman goes into a ladies room. She may or may not be a good person or a sexual deviant just like everyone in every stall next to her. You're right, in that we really can't monitor much now and the bad people could be guys or girls. But at least one thing I think we know; Most of these types of crimes are committed by non-trans males. Yeah, nothing really changes as far as exposing possible new victims in the men's room but, allowing men to use the women's room does expose more potential victims IMO. I guess we just disagree if that trade off is worth making a relative small number of trans people feel a bit more comfortable using public restrooms. Why does everyone constantly assume that the people who oppose this think that trans people are the problem. They're not. I'm not for suppressing their desire to use the facility that makes them most comfortable but I am for keeping it "out of place" for a man to enter the ladies room. Not because they might be trans but because most of these sexual assault and predatory problems are caused by non-trans males. Anyway, I'm done because I have already stated that a dozen times. I just find it somewhat incredible that a few others don't see that we are opening Pandora's box.

I rarely visited the University (UNL) I attended. Does that count?

We don't. Exactly. I guess I am now confused which side you are taking on this deal. Currently, standard convention helps prevent men from entering the ladies room. These guys know today that people will look at them funny and probably say something if they attempt to use the women's room. With this new Target policy, there is not even that deterrent to help keep them out. I realize that may cause a little discomfort for some trans people but I really do believe that would serve society as whole better.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a woman ogling another or man ogling another man is just as much a crime. "No officer, it's okay. We're both women." Is that a crime? Ogling in a public restroom? Sure it's creepy and wrong but it seems awful hard to apply any law I am aware of.

Any sexual assault is a crime. It doesn't matter who or how it happens. But the last time I checked laws deeming something a crime don't keep the crime from happening. So I am not really concerned about whether it is a crime or not. What concerns me is making it easier for a crime or deviant behavior to happen. I believe that if a company, like Target, simply tells everyone "do whatever you prefer" then that opens the door for more possible criminal behavior. It's not trans people I'm worried about. It's the prototypical male that now thinks "hey I may be a man and look like a man but Target just invited me to use the women's restroom if I feel like it, so look out ladies here I come" I hope that explains it. It has nothing to do with preventing trans from doing what makes them most comfortable.

I agree with all of this with the one caveat being, I don't think any policy or law should be adopted that makes it any easier for potential sexual predators, voyeurs, and peepers (I am not not including trans people in this description) to enter the wrong restroom. Primarily concerned with men, who look like men, entering the ladies room. I would assume that most trans men (formerly men anyway, I don't know the proper way to refer to them once they head down the woman path) tend to dress and act like women. If they want to use the women's room, fine. And vice versa for trans women who look and act like men, go ahead and use the men's room. The problem in my mind would surface when a man (looks like a man, acts like man, and is probably a man up to no good) sharing the room with women. Do I think it's a big problem? No. But any instances of this occurring could probably be reduced by not simply flinging the doors open and saying do whatever you feel like. That is all the opening some of these sickos (again, not trans people) would need. I am opposed to laws like the one in North Carolina where they ban them. And I am opposed to advertising, like Target, to do whatever you wish. I think the current, or recently former, system has served us pretty darned well, evidenced by there not being a whole bunch abuse happening in public restrooms (at least none I am aware of). I guess I don't know any trans people but I am guessing they desire to use the facilities of the sex that they most closely identify with, look like, and act like. So I say just do that.

Null

One can not care about a topic and still discuss it without pretending to care.Now onto a more important topic. One which bothers me enough that I've probably posted about it before. I have a huge pet peeve when it comes to public restrooms. If I enter a place with 10 stalls and they're all empty, it's okay to pick any stall but the wheel chair one. But there are rules the 2nd person needs to abide by to avoid being considered a freak. At least by me. There are now 9 empty stalls to choose from. Do not, under any circumstances, pick the stall next to me. This happens to me an astounding number of times. What the hell is wrong with people? Are they so afraid of being alone that they have to pee right next to a stranger?? It's possible they are using a different criteria to select the stall they use. I will always pick the one that is the cleanest. Often times that happens to be the spacious wheelchair stall and I really don't concern myself it happens to be one located next to an occupied stall. I simply pick the one least likely to transmit any filth or disease. Besides that, how are we going to slap a low five under the stall when one of us emits a loud noise. Can't accomplish that public restroom requirement without being seated next door to someone. ;-)

Yeah, I would rather be outside doing yard work but it has been raining and snowing for about 4 straight days. Gotta do something with that time.

Yes Moiraine, women can be sexual predators and voyeurs and peeping Tom's too. Let me know when the incidence of women doing these things even remotely approaches the number of incidents by men. I just think people are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist all in the name of trying to be seen as inclusive. I'm not proposing we ban trans from certain restrooms, I'm saying don't change anything at all. Heck the suicide rate of trans people apparently increased due to a change, so let's not change things.

To be more clear, I am not for introducing laws that ban trans people from using whichever restroom they are comfortable with. But I am against laws or places like Target changing policy to state that people can use whichever room they feel like. It's a subtle difference but an important one in my way of thinking. It leaves things unchanged and does not open the door and turn on the light for the typical (non-trans) male sexual predator, voyeur or peeper.

Fun fact: There are zero documented instances of assault, harassment or abuse by trans women (in your mind, men) towards women in women's bathrooms. There is not a single instance in public record where this has ever happened. Conversely, when North Carolina passed their bill which does exactly what you want, bans trans people from using a bathroom that doesn't match their born-with genitalia, suicide calls to a crisis hotline for trans people, doubled, and a paper by the Williams institute out of UCLA remarked that 70% of trans people have reported being denied access, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms. As Coach just said and as I've said a bunch of times already, I'm not worried about the trans people. I'm worried about the policy that would in effect let anyone enter any restroom they wish. My primary concern would be male sexual predators or voyeurs or peeping Tom types being allowed access to the women's restroom. I really am not concerned about the trans people, to my knowledge, they have an extremely lower tendency towards these deviant behaviors than the typical heterosexual man. At least those are the guys we hear about daily causing the problems. If we open both doors controlled only by what any certain person wants to do on any given day, I believe we are increasing the chances for abuse. It's not that I believe trans people will be the ones causing the problems but rather the stupid policy change that I don't think serves society as whole very well. I would be interested to see the study that you claim suicides doubled over this in NC. It brings forward quite a few questions. 1-if thesee trans people were using the bathroom they wanted to before the law change and going undetected, why would they change what they were doing and why would suicides increase? If you think about it, it really seems like some made up BS. I don't recall of ever hearing about one problem of a trans person using the wrong bathroom before. Were they really suffering in silence.....with a lower suicide rate? 2 plus 2 do not equal 4 in your stated results of the change in NC.

You know today I was in Target and, for those of you who don't know, I have a medical condition that can cause me to have to relieve myself on extremely short notice. Believe it or not, I'm not making this up. Seriously (at least so far in the story anyway-now onto the part that may or may not be factual) So anyway, there I am in aisle 6 at Target, way on the opposite end of the store from the restrooms, and I begin feeling extremely uncomfortable very quickly. Knowing that I faced a long excruciatingly painful run across the store and that Target does not want any of their guests to feel uncomfortable in the least, I dropped trousers and left a steamer right there in the middle of aisle 6. To my surprise and dismay an associate called the manager over and he asked me to leave the store and never return. Based on this discussion so far, I'm pretty sure I have a lock of a discrimination case. Can anyone point me in the direction of the correct government agency that will handle this for me? Those bastards were not understanding or accommodating at all. And to top it off, some of the customers were pointing and laughing and a few made rather rude comments. I have a diagnosed medical condition for godsakes. Discrimination. I was simply doing what felt most comfortable for me.

What "rights" of these trans people are being trampled now? They can use public restrooms, no? Or, they can choose to largely avoid public restrooms in most cases, just like most sane people do. Call me crazy, a person with a penis is a man in my mind. Is it really discriminatory to expect them to use the same facilities as all other people with penis'? Really, that's discrimination?This actually makes me look forward to the day I'll be 6 feet under. People cra cra nowadays. We're just inventing ridiculous ways to create special interests anx to label thinges as discriminitory. Objective truth just doesn't seem to matter anymore. People with vaginas aren't women I guess, they're simply whatever sex they feel like identifying with on any particular day. Unbelievable this is something that needs attention. Someone please post some articles of how these people are being harmed by using the restroom their birth sex indicates. If it's not supposed to be a big deal for the majority of society to accept members of the opposite sex in the restroom with them, why/how is it such a big problem for the few to "feel out of place"? I'm pretty sure trans people have much bigger problems to deal with than which restroom they use in public. Besides that, who is patrolling restroom use anyway. If you're a man abut look, dress and act like woman, go ahead and use the damn women's room. Nobody is gonna know anyway....unless you're going to pee standing up but that sure isn't very lady like behavior now is it? Oops, was that politically incorrect to say? Point of clarity here - that would potentially settle things (or I suppose stir things up even more). It sounds to me what you describe and have issue with is cross dressing. Where a man who identifies as a man is dressed as a woman (or vice versa). In that I case I COMPLETELY agree that they should be in the bathroom that aligns to their plumbing. When one starts talking about Transgenders or Transsexuals it's a very different scenario. These folks sometimes have genetic reasons behind the lack of gender clarity or physiological reasons on top of the emotional feelings that they are not in the right body. For example, they feel like a man in everything they do in every situation they are in. They live their daily lives as a man, are known by their boss as a man and etc. They may or may not have yet had surgeries to alter anything, and those may or may not be in their future. I have zero issue with this person using the mens room in a public place. He is a man. He may be having future procedures that will give him more structural appearance of a man, but there is little doubt in my mind that he is a man already. I'll say it one last time, the only thing I have an issue with is men using women's restrooms. I don't care if somebody is cross dresser, trans whatever, whatever, in fact I find it rather exhausting trying to keep up with all the possibilities that seem to exist nowadays. I'm an old fart with somewhat old fashioned values. I just long for the days when men were men and women were women and it was clear which was which. I'm a 5'-10" tall, 50ish white man who is overweight. If I was standing next to you on the street and told you I was a 6'-5" thin Chinese woman that was 18 years old, which of the obvious facts would you struggle with? Are you going to accept that I'm 6'-5"? Prob not. Will you believe I'm only 18 years old? Are you going to think I'm thin? Prob not, but thanks if you do. Are you going to accept that I am Chinese? Doubtful but I guess it could be possible. Surely you aren't giggling at the very thought of any of this. But, you're not going to bat an eye at me claiming to be a woman, are you? You're going to come away from the encounter saying you met the nicest short, fat, young, white woman you ever met. I know you are.

*chortle* The fear/paranoia/ignorance is strong in this one... It's not that whimsical Yup, I'm crazy, paranoid, ignorant, a veritable loony bin here. I think people with vaginas are women.....quick someone get me help. I've gone off the deep end. ffs.