Transgender bathroom rights are going down the toilet

[Maria D]

No and I am not trying to be flippant about it. I am talking about the two kids in your school who are afraid to use the boys bathroom. Are they biologically boys or girls? Girls changing to boys? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying about the two . I don't care if a man who identifies as a woman and also appears to be a woman using the womens restroom. They are not a concern for me (although I am pretty tough and maybe others aren't). I am talking about a biological woman who identifies as a man (and looks like one) but is afraid to use the mens restroom so he comes into the restroom with me (or a couple ninety year old ladies).

I am making this point because if the "boy" does not feel comfortable using the restroom with which they identify then does that fear all of a sudden go away once they are out of high school? I don't think so. So the government will have to step in to protect them.

Thanks for explaining redwood, I completely misunderstood your point, but I get what you are saying now. I agree that it would be a problem if kids like this grew up to demand unisex bathrooms everywhere. Here's why I don't think it's an issue.

The transition years for these boys at my school were middle school/high school. They grew up in a town where they were recognized as girls by everyone. Now they are letting the world know what they've known all along - they identify as boys. It has been agonizing for them to use the girl's bathroom because they did not feel like girls. And now it's even more agonizing because on top of their own issues they would be making other kids highly uncomfortable. On the other hand, the boys bathroom doesn't feel safe. The boys they'll encounter there are the same ones that knew them as girls. The trans kid may be coming to terms with his gender identity but that doesn't mean other male adolescents are going to. Think of the feelings of a fourteen year old boy relieving himself at a urinal when Martin who used to be Mary two years ago walks in.

When the trans male grows up, he'll have had years of being recognized as a man, along with hormonal treatments and plastic surgery. Even if he's still living in the same place, people will have had time to adjust. If he moves away, people won't have known him as anything but a man. There'll be no reason for him to feel unsafe using a men's room, because he'll have fully transitioned to a man.

 

[redwood66]

I agree that it would be a problem if kids like this grew up to demand unisex bathrooms everywhere.

These will be the ones that cause the issue. And it only takes one case to SCOTUS.

I am glad that we could have this discussion with mutual respect and understanding of each other's points. That is how it should work here.

Yay us!


Edit - I guess I missed some of the snarky comments earlier and went back to read them. Well we worked it out in the end. Although Matata has not answered back.

 

[chemgirl]

In the high school I work at, one of the single gender bathrooms was converted to a "Unisex" bathroom before the directive. The impetus for it was for a couple of transgender males in our student body who felt uncomfortable using the boy's bathroom, even though they identify as boys. Cis- and trans- gender females appear to be getting along fine in the using the girl's bathroom together. I think the fact that everyone there uses a stall has a lot to do with it!

I understand this as a child in a school. But what happens when these transgender males grow up and use public facilities? I might have a problem using a public restroom and someone who from all appearances is a man walks into the same restroom. That fact will open a door to the federal government requiring the construction of new bathrooms in public places for this minuscule percentage of the population. Reconstructing ADA compliant facilities are so costly that there are decades of backlogs in replacing just sidewalks and ramps in nearly every city in the US with no end in sight. And that Act has been around for decades. That does not take into account public facilities for the blind which are even more costly.

If the intent and spirit of "use the bathroom of the gender you identify with" is complied with, a person who from all appearances is a man wouldn't be using the women's restroom with you. It would be someone that looked like Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox or Jamie Clayton. That's if you were using a bathroom in Hollywood. Otherwise the trans woman might look like a nondescript middle-aged woman, I suppose. I think it's a safe bet that both of us have used public bathrooms at the same time as trans women without even being aware of it.

Perhaps you are assuming in advance that the intent and spirit won't be followed, and manly looking men who identify as men will "take advantage" and start using women's bathrooms?

Not like I'm an authority on all things trans,but to me, the main issue is that many trans women don't look like Laverne Cox, or Caitlyn Jenner, or even a generic middle aged woman. One of my favourite people is a trans woman and she was living as a woman long before she started hormone treatment. At first glance you would think man before noticing her clothing. Even after many years she has some masculine features. Not everyone can/wants to take on the expense and risk of multiple surgeries.

I think this is fairly common. At least among the trans people I've met.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Safety > comfort IMO.

What about those who do not feel safe using the bathroom, dressing room, or locker room with a person who feels they are the opposite gender but isn't comfortable using their 'biologically assigned' space? Whose 'rights' trump the other's? Your comment can easily go either way in this debate. For the girl or woman who may have been the victim of assault or rape by a man, who may feel triggered by his presence in a private/intimate space, her feelings about safety are just as important, are they not? I am all for equality, and have no problem with transgender people whatsoever, but individual perceptions about reality and rights are so varied that it's hard to draw a legal line for one without crossing another ... so many gray areas.

People abuse privileges and test the boundaries of laws all the time, and it's not fair to the victims if there is no recourse with which to ensure justice for them as well. Not having some legal measure in place opens the door (for example) for any man with ill intent to use gender identity as a defense for peeping, subsequently 'feeding fear' in society of those who really are transgender. That would pizz me off if I was transgender.

As for NC, it wouldn't have been an issue (creating the measure in HB2) had the local gov't in Charlotte not passed an ordinance that was in conflict with state law. And my understanding is she did so not because of any local issue, but via pressure from out of state influences. HB2's inclusion of this issue was intended to make it easier to prosecute cases where someone was committing a crime (e.g. peeping) in these spaces.

 

[elizabethess]

I am making this point because if the "boy" does not feel comfortable using the restroom with which they identify then does that fear all of a sudden go away once they are out of high school? I don't think so. So the government will have to step in to protect them.

Well, I mean, it depends on the person, but in general we all gain more self-confidence as we grow up, and possess more sophisticated life skills than a child Also, keep in mind you're equating concern for children in school who are stuck in that location all day long, with no other option but to find a bathroom in that location at some point, to adults at liberty.

For the girl or woman who may have been the victim of assault or rape by a man, who may feel triggered by his presence in a private/intimate space, her feelings about safety are just as important, are they not?

I don't quite understand how this would be an issue. If a girl or woman was the victim of assault or rape by a man, of course I am empathetic. If a transitioning/transitioned woman (MTF) briefly shared the same space in the bathroom with said victim, then why would that be a trigger? It would not be a man, nor someone attempting to present as a man.

 

[redwood66]

I am making this point because if the "boy" does not feel comfortable using the restroom with which they identify then does that fear all of a sudden go away once they are out of high school? I don't think so. So the government will have to step in to protect them.

Well, I mean, it depends on the person, but in general we all gain more self-confidence as we grow up, and possess more sophisticated life skills than a child Also, keep in mind you're equating concern for children in school who are stuck in that location all day long, with no other option but to find a bathroom in that location at some point, to adults at liberty.

For the girl or woman who may have been the victim of assault or rape by a man, who may feel triggered by his presence in a private/intimate space, her feelings about safety are just as important, are they not?

I don't quite understand how this would be an issue. If a girl or woman was the victim of assault or rape by a man, of course I am empathetic. If a transitioning/transitioned woman (MTF) briefly shared the same space in the bathroom with said victim, then why would that be a trigger? It would not be a man, nor someone attempting to present as a man.

You don't understand how a person who has been a victim of a sexual crime (or any woman who might have concerns) could be afraid of someone as described by chemgirl if they present themselves in a public bathroom? Like chemgirl said, they don't all look like Caitlyn Jenner or Laverne Cox. There has to be some understanding on both sides. I can see the point of a MTF being fearful of using a mens restroom so the other side has to be able to understand the point JCJ made.

 

[partgypsy]

Safety > comfort IMO.

What about those who do not feel safe using the bathroom, dressing room, or locker room with a person who feels they are the opposite gender but isn't comfortable using their 'biologically assigned' space? Whose 'rights' trump the other's? Your comment can easily go either way in this debate. For the girl or woman who may have been the victim of assault or rape by a man, who may feel triggered by his presence in a private/intimate space, her feelings about safety are just as important, are they not? I am all for equality, and have no problem with transgender people whatsoever, but individual perceptions about reality and rights are so varied that it's hard to draw a legal line for one without crossing another ... so many gray areas.

People abuse privileges and test the boundaries of laws all the time, and it's not fair to the victims if there is no recourse with which to ensure justice for them as well. Not having some legal measure in place opens the door (for example) for any man with ill intent to use gender identity as a defense for peeping, subsequently 'feeding fear' in society of those who really are transgender. That would pizz me off if I was transgender.

As for NC, it wouldn't have been an issue (creating the measure in HB2) had the local gov't in Charlotte not passed an ordinance that was in conflict with state law. And my understanding is she did so not because of any local issue, but via pressure from out of state influences. HB2's inclusion of this issue was intended to make it easier to prosecute cases where someone was committing a crime (e.g. peeping) in these spaces.

Forgive me, saying HB2 would not have been an issue had the local Charlotte Gov passed an ordinance, is just plain wrong. The state bill contradicts the Federal law stating no discrimination of people due to gender/sex. It was also judged to be unconstitutional due to the fact that the goal of bill is "animus", specific intent to restrict rights of a group of people (LGBT).
In addition to the bathroom rules, the other sections specifically had to do with legalizing discrimination against gay/transgender people.
"The bathroom rules occupy only one part of a five-part bill. Part II says that no city or county can require its contractors not to discriminate against employees or customers based on sexual orientation. Part III invalidates all present city and county ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination in private employment and public accommodations. It provides that only the state legislature can enact such a law from now on."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/hb2-is-a-constitutional-monstrosity/482106/

 

[telephone89]

Safety > comfort IMO.

What about those who do not feel safe using the bathroom, dressing room, or locker room with a person who feels they are the opposite gender but isn't comfortable using their 'biologically assigned' space? Whose 'rights' trump the other's? Your comment can easily go either way in this debate. For the girl or woman who may have been the victim of assault or rape by a man, who may feel triggered by his presence in a private/intimate space, her feelings about safety are just as important, are they not? I am all for equality, and have no problem with transgender people whatsoever, but individual perceptions about reality and rights are so varied that it's hard to draw a legal line for one without crossing another ... so many gray areas.

People abuse privileges and test the boundaries of laws all the time, and it's not fair to the victims if there is no recourse with which to ensure justice for them as well. Not having some legal measure in place opens the door (for example) for any man with ill intent to use gender identity as a defense for peeping, subsequently 'feeding fear' in society of those who really are transgender. That would pizz me off if I was transgender.

As for NC, it wouldn't have been an issue (creating the measure in HB2) had the local gov't in Charlotte not passed an ordinance that was in conflict with state law. And my understanding is she did so not because of any local issue, but via pressure from out of state influences. HB2's inclusion of this issue was intended to make it easier to prosecute cases where someone was committing a crime (e.g. peeping) in these spaces.

I'm so tired of this 'well any man can enter the bathroom now' argument. Its bullshit Jenn. Men can already enter any bathroom they want for whatever nefarious purpose that pleases them. In fact, they do. And have in the past. And will probably continue to. They don't need the guise of being transgendered and you know it. The only thing this bill actually represents is not discriminating based on gender identity. Who are you to look at someone and say "youre a man" or "youre a woman". Why is it your business what's in someones pants? That's the whole point of this bill. To not be able to say "youre a man, get out of my bathroom". Because you don't know that. They might not be.

 

[elizabethess]

You don't understand how a person who has been a victim of a sexual crime (or any woman who might have concerns) could be afraid of someone as described by chemgirl if they present themselves in a public bathroom?

I want to be clear that I certainly understand how a survivor of a sexual crime can be fearful of many things, and know that the things that might trigger panic or insecurity in such a person can be expected or wholly unexpected. If a survivor told me something made them feel unsafe I would absolutely accept what they said at face value. I also understand that some triggers or fears related to trauma are not the healthy and helpful "gut instinct" kind of fear and are things that people seek support to work through and manage during recovery.

What I didn't understand was the *general assumption* posited by JoCoJenn that sharing space with a MTF woman who is rejecting maleness at the very core of their identity would be a trigger for women who had been assaulted by a man. I concede it could happen. I didn't comprehend it being a logical given.

Like chemgirl said, they don't all look like Caitlyn Jenner or Laverne Cox.

That's true, we are a wide spectrum of people with all sorts of different looks. I'm also keenly aware of harassment that happens to both queer and straight women (ciswomen, aka assigned female at birth, and also currently identify as female) who are wearing butch clothing or have short hair, or just were blessed with strong facial features, when they use the women's bathroom. Would you argue that boyish/mannish looking women should be disallowed from ladies rooms as well, because it might trigger a survivor?

To me, the most logical way to approach a public bathroom is to trust that we all want to go in whatever place we can find that will cause us the least amount of personal harm, and we all just want to do our business and be in and out as quickly as possible.

I can see the point of a MTF being fearful of using a mens restroom so the other side has to be able to understand the point JCJ made.

I don't think these are exactly analogous. Seeing the point of a MTF being fearful of using a mens restroom means understanding that someone that considers themselves female would worry about receiving harrassment or attack for using a men's room. As that kind of harassment/attack is something that actually happens, you can see the point. JCJ's point was that a MTF in the women's room might make a survivor feel unsafe. To be an analogous point, you'd have to believe that survivors in women's rooms are being harrassed/attacked by MTF women.

 

[redwood66]

To me, the most logical way to approach a public bathroom is to trust that we all want to go in whatever place we can find that will cause us the least amount of personal harm, and we all just want to do our business and be in and out as quickly as possible.

This is all I want without the involvement of the federal government.

 

[telephone89]

To me, the most logical way to approach a public bathroom is to trust that we all want to go in whatever place we can find that will cause us the least amount of personal harm, and we all just want to do our business and be in and out as quickly as possible.

This is all I want without the involvement of the federal government.

And all the govt was trying to do is say "hey, don't be a jerk about trans people". It's the conservatives who are asking for their birth certificate upon entering, not the fed govt

 

[redwood66]

To me, the most logical way to approach a public bathroom is to trust that we all want to go in whatever place we can find that will cause us the least amount of personal harm, and we all just want to do our business and be in and out as quickly as possible.

This is all I want without the involvement of the federal government.

And all the govt was trying to do is say "hey, don't be a jerk about trans people". It's the conservatives who are asking for their birth certificate upon entering, not the fed govt

And now it can be discussed at the state level which IMO is where it should be.

 

[telephone89]

To me, the most logical way to approach a public bathroom is to trust that we all want to go in whatever place we can find that will cause us the least amount of personal harm, and we all just want to do our business and be in and out as quickly as possible.

This is all I want without the involvement of the federal government.

And all the govt was trying to do is say "hey, don't be a jerk about trans people". It's the conservatives who are asking for their birth certificate upon entering, not the fed govt

And now it can be discussed at the state level which IMO is where it should be.

Do you think this for all issues? Specifically related to this thread, do you not think the feds should be involved in gay marriage or equal rights for all races?
I'm confused if you think it should be states that run their own shit, or if you think *some* things should be protected by the feds, and trans rights just aren't one of them?

 

[the_mother_thing]

I'm so tired of this 'well any man can enter the bathroom now' argument. Its bullshit Jenn. Men can already enter any bathroom they want for whatever nefarious purpose that pleases them. In fact, they do. And have in the past. And will probably continue to. They don't need the guise of being transgendered and you know it. The only thing this bill actually represents is not discriminating based on gender identity. Who are you to look at someone and say "youre a man" or "youre a woman". Why is it your business what's in someones pants? That's the whole point of this bill. To not be able to say "youre a man, get out of my bathroom". Because you don't know that. They might not be.

First off, your tone and use of inappropriate language is unnecessary. I said I have no issue with TG people, and want equality for all (repeatedly); yet, you continue to unnecessarily find something in my post to get all defensive about without cause. I have ZERO desire to go "pants-peeping" on anyone, and have no idea where you get that I (personally) do. Perhaps if you're "so tired of this", quit reading/talking about it.

Yes, any man (or woman) can enter the bathroom. And when they do AND commit a crime (peeping, assault, etc), having a law specifically about this provides for additional charges that make it easier to prosecute offenders. Kind of like how it was already illegal to assault/batter someone, but when that person happens to be a non-white, you can now also slap the 'ol "hate crime" charge on top of assault & battery.

Here are three cases noted in one article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/13/transgender-woman-arrested-voyeurism-target-changi/

Another: http://wjactv.com/news/nation-world/ex-restaurant-worker-sought-on-restroom-peeping-charges

That resulted in charges that he's recorded nearly 50 females, including some little girls, using the restroom.

If myself or my daughter was one of these 50 females, I'd want the book thrown at this pervert and every possible charge filed against him.

It's NOT the transgender people I'm worried about or fearful of; it's the people who will SAY they identify with the opposite sex as a means to gain access to commit crimes. THAT does a disservice to TG people who simply want to go pee or try on an outfit.

 

[redwood66]

To me, the most logical way to approach a public bathroom is to trust that we all want to go in whatever place we can find that will cause us the least amount of personal harm, and we all just want to do our business and be in and out as quickly as possible.

This is all I want without the involvement of the federal government.

And all the govt was trying to do is say "hey, don't be a jerk about trans people". It's the conservatives who are asking for their birth certificate upon entering, not the fed govt

And now it can be discussed at the state level which IMO is where it should be.

Do you think this for all issues? Specifically related to this thread, do you not think the feds should be involved in gay marriage or equal rights for all races?
I'm confused if you think it should be states that run their own shit, or if you think *some* things should be protected by the feds, and trans rights just aren't one of them?

I believe this is a very fringe minority issue that is best left to states to decide. If an affected portion of the population of transgender peoples in a state requires addressing then it can be addressed by their legislature. If it is, as most here agree, a non-issue people will use whatever bathroom they see fit.

 

[sstephensid]

If people wanted to commit crimes you think they would wait until they could legally enter the bathroom under a transgender pretense then commit a crime? Really? If they were a rapist, pedophile, whoever- you think they wouldn't just go in the bathroom anyway? Come on.

Yes I'm sure the awful raping criminal would tremble in fear over entering the opposite sex bathroom. This alone is stopping hundresds if not thousands of people from committing terrible crimes

If you somehow feel that the lady symbol on the restroom door has been protecting you from criminals all these years, I don't know what to say.

 

[telephone89]

First off, your tone and use of inappropriate language is unnecessary. I said I have no issue with TG people, and want equality for all (repeatedly); yet, you continue to unnecessarily find something in my post to get all defensive about without cause. I have ZERO desire to go "pants-peeping" on anyone, and have no idea where you get that I (personally) do. Perhaps if you're "so tired of this", quit reading/talking about it.

Yes, any man (or woman) can enter the bathroom. And when they do AND commit a crime (peeping, assault, etc), having a law specifically about this provides for additional charges that make it easier to prosecute offenders. Kind of like how it was already illegal to assault/batter someone, but when that person happens to be a non-white, you can now also slap the 'ol "hate crime" charge on top of assault & battery.

Here are three cases noted in one article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/13/transgender-woman-arrested-voyeurism-target-changi/

Another: http://wjactv.com/news/nation-world/ex-restaurant-worker-sought-on-restroom-peeping-charges

That resulted in charges that he's recorded nearly 50 females, including some little girls, using the restroom.

If myself or my daughter was one of these 50 females, I'd want the book thrown at this pervert and every possible charge filed against him.

It's NOT the transgender people I'm worried about or fearful of; it's the people who will SAY they identify with the opposite sex as a means to gain access to commit crimes. THAT does a disservice to TG people who simply want to go pee or try on an outfit.

I'm tired of having to defend people for something (their identity) that should be protected. That's all.

Can you please explain which law you're talking about in the bolded? Are you talking about trans people committing crimes, or people committing crimes against trans people? Sorry, that was unclear to me.

To the first article - only 1/3 of these people is trans. As I said before, this has already happened [voyeur crime]. I can just as easily pull up 20 articles about voyeurism in bathrooms from well before the law update happening as well. Are you trying to say this is a crime that is on the rise since the law was changed? If so, that is something we can look up.

To the second article - this person was hiding in the ceiling. In the ****ing ceiling! Not from under the stall, or above the stall. This person wasn't actually IN the bathroom at all. He was obviously intent on getting this footage, and no bathroom bill would have stopped it. There is also no mention that this person was trans or not, so TBH I'm kind of confused as to its relevance in your post, and I do 100% agree its disgusting.

 

[telephone89]

Do you think this for all issues? Specifically related to this thread, do you not think the feds should be involved in gay marriage or equal rights for all races?
I'm confused if you think it should be states that run their own shit, or if you think *some* things should be protected by the feds, and trans rights just aren't one of them?

I believe this is a very fringe minority issue that is best left to states to decide. If an affected portion of the population of transgender peoples in a state requires addressing then it can be addressed by their legislature. If it is, as most here agree, a non-issue people will use whatever bathroom they see fit.

I missed your original post, so I'm not sure what was edited. However, your answer is as slick as a skating rink here red!

So you are saying that you do not think trans rights are something that deserve to be protected by the federal govt. However you DO believe that gay/lesbian/black/Asian/Christian/jewish/muslim/womens/mens/childrens/elderly/etc rights SHOULD be protected by the federal government.

So do you think trans people are either a) too small of a population or b) not important enough for you to care about their rights to have it mandated that they not be discriminated against?

Tried to fix quote tree.

 

[redwood66]

Do you think this for all issues? Specifically related to this thread, do you not think the feds should be involved in gay marriage or equal rights for all races?
I'm confused if you think it should be states that run their own shit, or if you think *some* things should be protected by the feds, and trans rights just aren't one of them?

I believe this is a very fringe minority issue that is best left to states to decide. If an affected portion of the population of transgender peoples in a state requires addressing then it can be addressed by their legislature. If it is, as most here agree, a non-issue people will use whatever bathroom they see fit.

I missed your original post, so I'm not sure what was edited. However, your answer is as slick as a skating rink here red!

So you are saying that you do not think trans rights are something that deserve to be protected by the federal govt. However you DO believe that gay/lesbian/black/Asian/Christian/jewish/muslim/womens/mens/childrens/elderly/etc rights SHOULD be protected by the federal government.

So do you think trans people are either a) too small of a population or b) not important enough for you to care about their rights to have it mandated that they not be discriminated against?[/quote]





Not sure I can help you any further. My answer is pretty plain. My edit was to remove "that it is" so don't worry about it changing any meaning. I am particular about my sentence structure and will edit if I deem necessary.

 

[telephone89]

Not sure I can help you any further. My answer is pretty plain. My edit was to remove "that it is" so don't worry about it changing any meaning. I am particular about my sentence structure and will edit if I deem necessary.

Yes it is.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Forgive me, saying HB2 would not have been an issue had the local Charlotte Gov passed an ordinance, is just plain wrong. The state bill contradicts the Federal law stating no discrimination of people due to gender/sex. It was also judged to be unconstitutional due to the fact that the goal of bill is "animus", specific intent to restrict rights of a group of people (LGBT).
In addition to the bathroom rules, the other sections specifically had to do with legalizing discrimination against gay/transgender people.
"The bathroom rules occupy only one part of a five-part bill. Part II says that no city or county can require its contractors not to discriminate against employees or customers based on sexual orientation. Part III invalidates all present city and county ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination in private employment and public accommodations. It provides that only the state legislature can enact such a law from now on."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/hb2-is-a-constitutional-monstrosity/482106/

The Charlotte ordinance contradicted the existing state law which was compliant with Federal laws at that time. That's why HB2 came about; to clarify the law and prevent discrimination. Have you read the actual law (not just what the news says about it)? If it was judged to be unconstitutional, how is it still in effect?

And all the govt was trying to do is say "hey, don't be a jerk about trans people". It's the conservatives who are asking for their birth certificate upon entering, not the fed govt

Again, this wasn't an issue (in NC) until Charlotte's mayor made it an issue by passing an unlawful ordinance. Conservatives weren't asking for birth certificates; the legislature had to define "gender" for the purposes of the law, just like they had to define 'single' vs 'multiple use' restrooms.

I'm tired of having to defend people for something (their identity) that should be protected. That's all.

Can you please explain which law you're talking about in the bolded? Are you talking about trans people committing crimes, or people committing crimes against trans people? Sorry, that was unclear to me.

To the first article - only 1/3 of these people is trans. As I said before, this has already happened [voyeur crime]. I can just as easily pull up 20 articles about voyeurism in bathrooms from well before the law update happening as well. Are you trying to say this is a crime that is on the rise since the law was changed? If so, that is something we can look up.

To the second article - this person was hiding in the ceiling. In the ****ing ceiling! Not from under the stall, or above the stall. This person wasn't actually IN the bathroom at all. He was obviously intent on getting this footage, and no bathroom bill would have stopped it. There is also no mention that this person was trans or not, so TBH I'm kind of confused as to its relevance in your post, and I do 100% agree its disgusting.

There are laws in place protecting my identity and privacy, and a host of other things that don't apply to me. Why is having a law protecting everyone's privacy in an 'intimate setting' so inconceivable? And I didn't say a law makes a crime less likely to happen; it makes it more punishable/prosecutable when it DOES happen. Gun free zones, hate crimes, etc .... same thing.

I didn't mean to bold any part of my post; sorry ... using a new tablet so I probably fat-fingered something by accident. My point though was that having the additional law in place - like "hate crime" laws - affords additional measures for prosecution of criminal behavior. A TG person using the bathroom isn't breaking the law; a person pretending or falsely stating they are TG (or identify with their opposite biological gender) for the purpose of peeping, taking pictures, committing battery, etc. IS breaking the law. And (for NC) HB2 makes those crimes more 'punishable'/prosecutable.

If you say that this law (HB2) isn't necessary because peeping and battery is already against the law, why do we Have additional "hate crime" laws on top of the existing laws that already make the crimes themselves (whether hate-triggered or otherwise) against the law?

Again, I don't fear TG people in the least; it's those who may use gender identity as a ruse for committing the aforementioned crimes. And that - in turn - hurts the TG community also.

 

[telephone89]

Forgive me, saying HB2 would not have been an issue had the local Charlotte Gov passed an ordinance, is just plain wrong. The state bill contradicts the Federal law stating no discrimination of people due to gender/sex. It was also judged to be unconstitutional due to the fact that the goal of bill is "animus", specific intent to restrict rights of a group of people (LGBT).
In addition to the bathroom rules, the other sections specifically had to do with legalizing discrimination against gay/transgender people.
"The bathroom rules occupy only one part of a five-part bill. Part II says that no city or county can require its contractors not to discriminate against employees or customers based on sexual orientation. Part III invalidates all present city and county ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination in private employment and public accommodations. It provides that only the state legislature can enact such a law from now on."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/hb2-is-a-constitutional-monstrosity/482106/

The Charlotte ordinance contradicted the existing state law which was compliant with Federal laws at that time. That's why HB2 came about; to clarify the law and prevent discrimination. Have you read the actual law (not just what the news says about it)? If it was judged to be unconstitutional, how is it still in effect?

And all the govt was trying to do is say "hey, don't be a jerk about trans people". It's the conservatives who are asking for their birth certificate upon entering, not the fed govt

Again, this wasn't an issue (in NC) until Charlotte's mayor made it an issue by passing an unlawful ordinance. Conservatives weren't asking for birth certificates; the legislature had to define "gender" for the purposes of the law, just like they had to define 'single' vs 'multiple use' restrooms.

I'm tired of having to defend people for something (their identity) that should be protected. That's all.

Can you please explain which law you're talking about in the bolded? Are you talking about trans people committing crimes, or people committing crimes against trans people? Sorry, that was unclear to me.

To the first article - only 1/3 of these people is trans. As I said before, this has already happened [voyeur crime]. I can just as easily pull up 20 articles about voyeurism in bathrooms from well before the law update happening as well. Are you trying to say this is a crime that is on the rise since the law was changed? If so, that is something we can look up.

To the second article - this person was hiding in the ceiling. In the ****ing ceiling! Not from under the stall, or above the stall. This person wasn't actually IN the bathroom at all. He was obviously intent on getting this footage, and no bathroom bill would have stopped it. There is also no mention that this person was trans or not, so TBH I'm kind of confused as to its relevance in your post, and I do 100% agree its disgusting.

There are laws in place protecting my identity and privacy, and a host of other things that don't apply to me. Why is having a law protecting everyone's privacy in an 'intimate setting' so inconceivable? And I didn't say a law makes a crime less likely to happen; it makes it more punishable/prosecutable when it DOES happen. Gun free zones, hate crimes, etc .... same thing.

I didn't mean to bold any part of my post; sorry ... using a new tablet so I probably fat-fingered something by accident. My point though was that having the additional law in place - like "hate crime" laws - affords additional measures for prosecution of criminal behavior. A TG person using the bathroom isn't breaking the law; a person pretending or falsely stating they are TG (or identify with their opposite biological gender) for the purpose of peeping, taking pictures, committing battery, etc. IS breaking the law. And (for NC) HB2 makes those crimes more 'punishable'/prosecutable.

If you say that this law (HB2) isn't necessary because peeping and battery is already against the law, why do we Have additional "hate crime" laws on top of the existing laws that already make the crimes themselves (whether hate-triggered or otherwise) against the law?

Again, I don't fear TG people in the least; it's those who may use gender identity as a ruse for committing the aforementioned crimes. And that - in turn - hurts the TG community also.

Hi Jenn - sorry for the confusion, I actually bolded that part of your post lol. So if I understand it, you are ok with having the protections in place for TG, but also in favour of a law to punish people for taking advantage of it unlawfully? I think that's fair actually. Hate crime laws are there to protect minorities (in theory), so this is a bit different, but very interesting.

 

[momhappy]

Safety > comfort IMO.

What about those who do not feel safe using the bathroom, dressing room, or locker room with a person who feels they are the opposite gender but isn't comfortable using their 'biologically assigned' space? Whose 'rights' trump the other's? Your comment can easily go either way in this debate. For the girl or woman who may have been the victim of assault or rape by a man, who may feel triggered by his presence in a private/intimate space, her feelings about safety are just as important, are they not? I am all for equality, and have no problem with transgender people whatsoever, but individual perceptions about reality and rights are so varied that it's hard to draw a legal line for one without crossing another ... so many gray areas.

People abuse privileges and test the boundaries of laws all the time, and it's not fair to the victims if there is no recourse with which to ensure justice for them as well. Not having some legal measure in place opens the door (for example) for any man with ill intent to use gender identity as a defense for peeping, subsequently 'feeding fear' in society of those who really are transgender. That would pizz me off if I was transgender.

As for NC, it wouldn't have been an issue (creating the measure in HB2) had the local gov't in Charlotte not passed an ordinance that was in conflict with state law. And my understanding is she did so not because of any local issue, but via pressure from out of state influences. HB2's inclusion of this issue was intended to make it easier to prosecute cases where someone was committing a crime (e.g. peeping) in these spaces.

I agree with this. For me, the question becomes who's "right" should be deemed more important and why? There are those who might not feel comfortable sharing bathrooms and/or locker rooms with members of the opposite sex (for whatever reasons) and there are those who might not feel comfortable sharing bathrooms and/or locker rooms with members of their own sex (a trans person for example), so who's rights are more important? The answer is both in my opinion, which is why I don't like the concept of unisex bathrooms and/or locker rooms. I understand that trans people need a solution, but forcing members of the opposite sex to share a rather personal space is not a practical solution. A CNN host referred to a 12-year old girl as "intolerant" when she said that she didn't want to see a penis in her locker room It should be within her right to feel safe and comfortable too and it's certainly not fair to label her as intolerant simply because she expressed her opinions/rights, just as a trans person might express theirs. This issue is more complex and I don't have the answers.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Hi Jenn - sorry for the confusion, I actually bolded that part of your post lol. So if I understand it, you are ok with having the protections in place for TG, but also in favour of a law to punish people for taking advantage of it unlawfully? I think that's fair actually. Hate crime laws are there to protect minorities (in theory), so this is a bit different, but very interesting.

I don't like ANY laws (protections) that single out ANY one group of people because they tend to create favortism as well as (usually) an adverse impact on another group; rather, I think ALL laws should apply to ALL people equally. No one is any more or less "special" than any other (except violent criminals; I don't think they deserve as many 'rights', but that's a separate discussion). We SHOULD try adhering to and enforcing the laws we have in place. And any new laws should be written in such a manner that do not favor nor create an adverse impact on any one group, but apply to all equally. In this case, if someone has undergone transformation to the opposite gender, they change their birth cert, drivers license, passport, etc. (because they are now a man or woman), and use the (new) 'facilities'. If they haven't, they are still legally the gender reflected on their drivers license & birth certificate, and thus should use the restroom that coincides with that. (I bolded 'legally' because IF a person commits a crime (peeping, assault, etc), the LAW is broken and is used to punish that person.) If someone goes to jail, do they also get to choose which population (male or female) they are put in? I don't think so.

If someone feels existing laws cover the aforementioned crimes (in the articles I posted), and HB2 and the like is unnecessary, then wouldn't existing laws also cover incidents where a person is assaulted in the same bathroom as his/her biological gender? So there is no need for them to use the other bathroom. They already are free to use the facility that coincides with their 'legal' gender. Rather than create an adverse impact on others, let's punish those who commit the crimes against people - whether it's on a street or in the dressing room. Same for "hate crimes". That we even have to further legislate something that should be common sense is quite baffling.

I don't want ANYONE to be discriminated against. I DO want criminals to be punishable by any & every measure possible because that is in EVERYONE'S best interest; not just one group's best interest. And I think our existing laws allow for that. BUT ... because someone found it necessary to create/modify laws to cater to this group, that group, create extra-super-spongecake protections, etc., then why NOT have one more that provides additional protections for people who deserve privacy when going to the bathroom, trying on an outfit, or changing to go for a dip in the public pool, and restrict facilities to one's biological gender?

ETA: for the purposes of my post, 'biological' gender should read 'legal' gender, meaning that which appears on their identifying documents (birth certificate, drivers license, etc).

 

[VRBeauty]

I consider the whole "let the states decide" approach to be a political smoke screen. It's another way of saying "these people just aren't that important to me," or "I think being transgender is a choice that one can/should be punished for." Trump is on the record as opposing the North Carolina bathroom bill, and yet he rescinded guidance that would provide the youngest transgender people with some protections. I read Trump's action as saying "I don't want to lose any donors over these people," because of course he has already filed to run in the 2020 election - which is an issue worthy of its own thread, but we have time to get to that one...

I realize that the issue of transgender identification is a difficult one. I was introduced to it as a fairly early age (a teacher in my primary school came out as transgender) and I've encountered quite a few transgender people as an adult - and I have no issues at all interacting with them the women or men they identify themselves to be. And yet... a year or two ago a friend's teenager came out as a transgender male, and I can't help mourn the loss of the young woman I knew, and wondering if it's a "phase" he'll grow out of, and being concerned about his safety and comfort and acceptance... his safety most of all. (This is a long-distance friendship, and I haven't seen this family in person since "Ken" came out as transgender.)

I suspect that we'll see more children being allowed to make this transition early as parents become more attuned to the messages their children are sending and even voicing. And I suspect that the earlier a child identifies and is allowed to act on this preference, the easier the adjustment will be for all concerned. And it seems frankly barbaric to me to force a young transgender child to use the restroom at school associated with what would be, to them, the opposite sex. For that matter it also seems barbaric to me to force a transgender woman - and yes, I've met a few, including one in her 60's - to use a male rest room.

Anyhow, I found the following video helpful in grappling with this issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/fa...e-christian-family-whose-baby-daughter-wante/

 

[Calliecake]

I consider the whole "let the states decide" approach to be a political smoke screen. It's another way of saying "these people just aren't that important to me," or "I think being transgender is a choice that one can/should be punished for." Trump is on the record as opposing the North Carolina bathroom bill, and yet he rescinded guidance that would provide the youngest transgender people with some protections. I read Trump's action as saying "I don't want to lose any donors over these people," because of course he has already filed to run in the 2020 election - which is an issue worthy of its own thread, but we have time to get to that one...

I realize that the issue of transgender identification is a difficult one. I was introduced to it as a fairly early age (a teacher in my primary school came out as transgender) and I've encountered quite a few transgender people as an adult - and I have no issues at all interacting with them the women or men they identify themselves to be. And yet... a year or two ago a friend's teenager came out as a transgender male, and I can't help mourn the loss of the young woman I knew, and wondering if it's a "phase" he'll grow out of, and being concerned about his safety and comfort and acceptance... his safety most of all. (This is a long-distance friendship, and I haven't seen this family in person since "Ken" came out as transgender.)

I suspect that we'll see more children being allowed to make this transition early as parents become more attuned to the messages their children are sending and even voicing. And I suspect that the earlier a child identifies and is allowed to act on this preference, the easier the adjustment will be for all concerned. And it seems frankly barbaric to me to force a young transgender child to use the restroom at school associated with what would be, to them, the opposite sex. For that matter it also seems barbaric to me to force a transgender woman - and yes, I've met a few, including one in her 60's - to use a male rest room.

Anyhow, I found the following video helpful in grappling with this issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/fa...e-christian-family-whose-baby-daughter-wante/

I completely agree your post VR. I think this is just another way the Republicans are trying to take us backwards and I find it very sad for anyone who is transgender. Jackie Evancho, the young woman who sang at Trump Inaguration has a sister who is transgender. They are requesting a meeting with Trump but I'm sure that will do no good.

 

[chemgirl]

I am making this point because if the "boy" does not feel comfortable using the restroom with which they identify then does that fear all of a sudden go away once they are out of high school? I don't think so. So the government will have to step in to protect them.

Well, I mean, it depends on the person, but in general we all gain more self-confidence as we grow up, and possess more sophisticated life skills than a child Also, keep in mind you're equating concern for children in school who are stuck in that location all day long, with no other option but to find a bathroom in that location at some point, to adults at liberty.

For the girl or woman who may have been the victim of assault or rape by a man, who may feel triggered by his presence in a private/intimate space, her feelings about safety are just as important, are they not?

I don't quite understand how this would be an issue. If a girl or woman was the victim of assault or rape by a man, of course I am empathetic. If a transitioning/transitioned woman (MTF) briefly shared the same space in the bathroom with said victim, then why would that be a trigger? It would not be a man, nor someone attempting to present as a man.

You don't understand how a person who has been a victim of a sexual crime (or any woman who might have concerns) could be afraid of someone as described by chemgirl if they present themselves in a public bathroom? Like chemgirl said, they don't all look like Caitlyn Jenner or Laverne Cox. There has to be some understanding on both sides. I can see the point of a MTF being fearful of using a mens restroom so the other side has to be able to understand the point JCJ made.

Not what I was trying to say at all. If someone is trans and looks like Caitlyn Jenner they really don't need a bathroom law. Who would ever question her presence in a woman's restroom?

People like my friend who are in the process of transitioning or who may not have the resources to look a certain way need their rights to be protected. They are the ones who face descrimination every day.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but victims of sexual assault will face triggers in unpredictable places. We can't discriminate against a group of people because someone may be triggered by their presence. Trans people may be triggered by using the bathroom of the gender they don't identify with. It can't be a battle of who's more traumatized.

 

[the_mother_thing]

People like my friend who are in the process of transitioning or who may not have the resources to look a certain way need their rights to be protected. They are the ones who face descrimination every day.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but victims of sexual assault will face triggers in unpredictable places. We can't discriminate against a group of people because someone may be triggered by their presence. Trans people may be triggered by using the bathroom of the gender they don't identify with. It can't be a battle of who's more traumatized.

I don't mean this question the way it will probably come across on a forum: how is your friend not "protected" today? Is your friend living in a country that does not have laws preventing discrimination, assault, battery, etc., whereby additional 'protections' are necessary? I guess I don't quite understand how people are actually being discriminated against by their use of the facility that corresponds with their legal gender.

I think the issue of 'triggers' could probably be it's own thread entirely.

 

[lovedogs]

People like my friend who are in the process of transitioning or who may not have the resources to look a certain way need their rights to be protected. They are the ones who face descrimination every day.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but victims of sexual assault will face triggers in unpredictable places. We can't discriminate against a group of people because someone may be triggered by their presence. Trans people may be triggered by using the bathroom of the gender they don't identify with. It can't be a battle of who's more traumatized.

I don't mean this question the way it will probably come across on a forum: how is your friend not "protected" today? Is your friend living in a country that does not have laws preventing discrimination, assault, battery, etc., whereby additional 'protections' are necessary? I guess I don't quite understand how people are actually being discriminated against by their use of the facility that corresponds with their legal gender.

I think the issue of 'triggers' could probably be it's own thread entirely.

Because that's not the facility that corresponds with their gender identity. If you HAD to use the men's restroom you might be uncomfortable with that, because you'd feel as though that wasn't your "correct" restroom based on your gender. Their legal gender isn't what they feel, it isn't what they agree with, and they are distressed by that. So their legal gender is irrelevant here, IMHO.

 

[VRBeauty]

I've had "somewhat close" encounters with two transgender females. The first was a housekeeper/maid in a guest house that my SIL and I once stayed in for about a week. My SIL and I both agreed that she was had once been a male. She was probably in her 60's, and looked about as tired and beaten down as you'd expect anyone still doing menial labor and cleaning up after others in their 60's to look. I don't see what purpose would be served by forcing her to use male public facilities. I do see the possibility that she would be harmed or harassed if she were forced to use male restrooms and happened to encounter some hotheaded guys... or that she might avoid using public facilities altogether to avoid such confrontations.

Another was a colleague that I encountered at a conference. Some co-workers had told me that he had become a she over the summer... and indeed she had. I did feel some discomfort when we both visited the restroom during a break, but it was only the discomfort of me restraining myself from saying "let's go shopping... I can give you some great pointers!" I have no idea where she was in her transition, but I do know that she was living as a woman and that's probably what most casual observers would have considered her to be. Again, what would be the point of forcing her to use male restrooms?

On the flip side, I'm a big Dancing With the Stars fan and I remember when Chaz Bono was a contestant. He was a short-lived contestant because he really wasn't a very good dancer, but I digress. I'm old enough to remember when Chastity Bono was born, and Sonny and Cher showing her off on their variety show. The Chaz on DWTS bore no resemblance to that little girl, or to any woman for that matter. As a woman, I'd be startled if not uncomfortable to find him using restroom facilities with me, and I can imagine some men wanting to "teach him a lesson" if they saw him entering a restroom while that was also being used by their wives or girlfriends. Again, the question is what would be the point?