Commentary Review #2, "Courts & Toilets."

In this commentary I'm review today is classmate Jennifer Silva, Taking Culture Wars to the Toilets. This original article talks about gender identity issues involving using the restroom.

Since this addresses about a public grocery store, from a point of view the "issue" is understandable. Of course, a bunch of people of any notion will enter the store. Unlike a small restaurant where you immediately see the person who enters. So I could see how it could make Parents nervous since public bathrooms are more or less private. I agree with Jennifer, you could never be too safe.

But I believe that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom to the gender that they say they are. It’s a person identity. It’s a concept of who they are. I think that adding in that men who falsely dress up as women and go into the women's bathroom is just supporting a fear that is not related to the transgender community. If a man did that, then that's a different court problem that involves mentally ill perverts, not self-identity or civil rights.

Look the only reason why anyone would go to the bathroom is to use the bathroom. There are no interviews going on in there. You get in and you get out.

What I find ridiculous for Texas to do is to try to pass a bill.  Specifically speaking according to KXAN article, "House Bill 1748 authored by Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Spring) says if someone over the age of seven uses a bathroom that doesn’t match their gender, they can be charged with a felony." I feel like that is an excessive ordeal and inappropriate.  Okay...How does this not apply to mothers bringing in their toddler sons into the women's bathroom? If a transgender goes into the bathroom then that's their goal is to use the restroom. Ask no questions, keep bathroom issues out of the court house.

Proposition 1: $8.1 million. Bluff?

From the following article I'm going to go about is something that I haven't really been involved with. Which is UBER and Lyft. I never had a true thought about the companies because I always had my on transportation. But when I was talking to my friend of mine, who lives in Australia, had the knowledge about knowing something controversial involving the topic. So I've became interested to review about it since I live in a state with one heart of the problems.

If you haven't heard this issue has been starting from Texas municipal government news to now world wide about Uber, Lyft, and Austin. It's been said that there has been misleading opinions by Uber as of Texas wants to drive them out do to recent Texas regulations. Yet, Uber and Lyft are funding Proposition 1, “the political action committee funded entirely by Uber and Lyft, have risen to a whopping $8,100,000.”

What is Proposition 1? Just a leading campaign to go against of Texas regulations of having the drivers fingerprinted, background checked, and possible use of uniforms.

I can see that Austin’s argument would be for the safety of Texas citizens. But I Lyft and Uber are not a creation by Texas and are their own company. I think that people who use those kind of drivers should really be independent of their choices. Ride at their own risk. There’s no need to turn the companies into a similar process of the way Taxi cabs are.

Maybe Texas was depending on if anyone did care about municipal government. Well, back to $8.1 million during pre-voting secession. Says that they do.

But I think they may be doing this to boost the companies up economically. I mean there's never one reason to raise $8.1 million.

Dan Solomon, Texas Monthly writer of Austin’s Prop 1 Vote Has Big Implications Around The State—And Around The Country  , kindly provided where the money is going, “That money has gone to a lot of things: a near-constant blanketing of ads on the airwaves, a forest’s worth of direct mail, and salaries to folks including former Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell and former candidate for state representative Huey Rey Fischer.”

Non of this is really hurting Uber or Lyft economically. They have already left 3 other Texas cities.

But what doesn't make any sense is that they would bend backs to Houston’s regulations.

“The fact that the fight over Prop 1 isn’t strictly about Austin is clear in other ways too. Opponents of the recall campaign note that, when fingerprinting requirements went into effect in Houston, Uber continued to operate in that city.”

Really it's whatever Austin voters respond in voting, once something is in the ballot box it’s the last word on May 7th.