Donald Trump: Transgender People Should Be Allowed to Use Bathroom

[suzifrommd]

Donald Trump: Transgender People Should Be Allowed to Use Bathroom of Their Choice


by Alex Griswold | 8:57 am, April 21st, 2016

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-transgender-people-should-be-allowed-to-use-bathroom-of-their-choice/#ooid=xhMGgwMzE69mW8c2YeuL4tiw8BnEafPG

During an NBC Today town hall Thursday, Donald Trump said he had no problem with transgender people using whatever bathroom they chose and that a controversial North Carolina bathroom law has caused "a lot of problems" unnecessarily.

[Elis]

I bet he's just saying this because businesses have boycotted NC and because many people are opposed to it. It's unbelievable that he's selling out his views just to get extra votes and expects us to think he won't turn his back on us if he becomes president.

[Marlee]

From what I know of his past, he has never been anti-trans.

I bet he's just saying this because businesses have boycotted NC and because many people are opposed to it. It's unbelievable that he's selling out his views just to get extra votes and expects us to think he won't turn his back on us if he becomes president.

[DawnOday]

Mr. Trump has the opportunity to prove his newly arrived at position by providing sexually non specific restrooms at his hotels.

[Elis]

From what I know of his past, he has never been anti-trans.

True but I suspect that's because trans issues has only been in the media spotlight within the last few years and even then weren't given much thiught. Plus Trump has been focusing his entire campaign on immigration.

[Eevee]

At least he's not flawed in every stance he takes. I'm not inferior because I'm trans, but I am inferior because I'm a woman.

[WorkingOnThomas]

If you listen to what he said, he seems to be opposing NC's law on economic grounds. Not because opposing it is simply the right (and constitutional!) thing to do.

[cindianna_jones]

Like everything else, I'm sure that his response is not well reasoned. It was his gut reaction at the moment. And in that moment, he saw economic necessity. This is the first time that a presidential candidate in the GOP has said anything favorable about trans specific issues. It's a pretty big step.

[lisarenee]

Trump is not anti-trans. That said, he has to at least get some of the Fundamentalists to vote for him. If they coalesce behind Cruz, Trump is done. I have always believed that Trump is for the most part (immigration being the obvious exception) socially liberal and fiscally moderate/conservative. He, like many rich businessmen, is a Republican because of his wealth, not because of his social views.

[Kylo]

Whether he's anti-trans or not, he apparently has a habit of saying things he then goes on to contradict later.

[IdontEven]

I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day, but...I'm going to be keeping an eye out for subzero temperatures in hell just in case.

[traci_k]

If y'all remember a while back Trump said he was going to be LGBT friendly (paraphrasing) and I believe coming from New York he will be more socially moderate and hopefully fiscally conservative.

[FreyasRedemption]

It should be pretty clear by now that he will say literally anything to get more popularity and win the elections.
And any actually sensible political agenda of his, as the saying in my homeland goes, shines in its absence.

[Promethea]

If you listen to what he said, he seems to be opposing NC's law on economic grounds. Not because opposing it is simply the right (and constitutional!) thing to do.

Not just. He does say making new bathrooms would be discriminatory. I'm surprised!

[Colleen M]

I'm not sure he's really our friend, but I have no reason to think he's genuinely out to get us and I can think of an alternative who is certainly our enemy.

Full disclosure:  He's my third choice of the remaining five candidates.     

[Devlyn]

I like him, and this makes me like him more.

[lisarenee]

If you listen to what he said, he seems to be opposing NC's law on economic grounds. Not because opposing it is simply the right (and constitutional!) thing to do.

That is basically the same way various Republican governors have couched it when vetoing bathroom bills. The financial angle lets them vote their conscience (or some may be telling the truth) without causing too much of a rift with the party base.

[WorkingOnThomas]

I get that it lets them out of having to sign this stuff - but it is a dangerous argument to support. Even if we feel like 'beggars can't be choosers' and we have to take what comes, this actually undermines human rights, which are not, and cannot, be predicated on the notion of the market.

[suzifrommd]

I get that it lets them out of having to sign this stuff - but it is a dangerous argument to support. Even if we feel like 'beggars can't be choosers' and we have to take what comes, this actually undermines human rights, which are not, and cannot, be predicated on the notion of the market.

Yes! This!

That's exactly what I was trying to say in my last column, though you maybe said it better.