Transgender bathroom rights are going down the toilet

[the_mother_thing]

Men and women can sexually assault people. It is horrible. However, woman may be triggered by women or men by men.

Also, what about MTF who have the chest of a female but haven't fully transitioned the nether regions to female yet? Guess they don't get to use a restroom.

Everyone 'gets to use a bathroom'; no one has said otherwise that I have read.

But still no one has explained how this is a "basic human rights" issue. I don't know how one expects others to understand why/how it is if they don't explain their position. The rationale just keeps changing.

It won't be solved here though; that's for sure. While I care about other people and want others treated equally, I also do what I need to for my own safety and hope others do as well if they feel unsafe - for any reason - because 'a law' is just a piece of paper that criminals view as toilet paper.

 

[telephone89]

heh

 

[OreoRosies86]

Oh please don't misunderstand. You have the right to tell me your opinion, and I have the right to tell you what I think of it and how you express it. That doesn't bother me.

You do, indeed, have the right to assume whatever your heart desires.

That does not, however, make you right about your assumptions or whatever you *think* "I know", as your post suggested. I'm sure you are also smart enough to know what they say about people who "assume" and their "opinions".

I really don't care if you think I'm an ass or not. You have your opinion of me and I certainly have mine of you. And your hyper fixation on having the last word is evident in literally every thread you ever participate in, so peace.

 

[Matata]

Men and women can sexually assault people. It is horrible. However, woman may be triggered by women or men by men.

Also, what about MTF who have the chest of a female but haven't fully transitioned the nether regions to female yet? Guess they don't get to use a restroom.

Everyone 'gets to use a bathroom'; no one has said otherwise that I have read.

But still no one has explained how this is a "basic human rights" issue. I don't know how one expects others to understand why/how it is if they don't explain their position. The rationale just keeps changing.

It won't be solved here though; that's for sure. While I care about other people and want others treated equally, I also do what I need to for my own safety and hope others do as well if they feel unsafe - for any reason - because 'a law' is just a piece of paper that criminals view as toilet paper.

Trans men are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. Trans women are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. This is gender-based discrimination, a civil rights issue which becomes a human rights issue in relation to trans people because they are not accorded the same basic freedom to exercise a biological imperative in restrooms appropriate for their gender identity.

 

[lovedogs]

And it boggles my mind that so many have come to the conclusion that anyone here is against basic human rights. PS is not an echo chamber for your ideas and viewpoint.

It's truly boggling my mind how bathroom "choice" is even perceived to be a "basic human right".

In the late 90s, I had to spread my legs & cop a squat over a filthy, dingy, disgusting hole in the floor in a multi-person unisex bathroom, bracing myself on the walls of the stall with my butt subsequently below the stall walls just to "aim" and not "dribble".

This was not at some far off, desolate, bare-bones, military base/camp; it was a public restroom in Venice, Italy.

I lived.

I think again this somewhat misses the point. No one argued that trans people have multiple genders. So defining "humans" by gender isn't the problem. The problem is that trans people were born the WRONG gender, and are changing that gender. Also, it's not bathroom "choice". We aren't arguing that trans people should get to use ALL THE BATHROOMS and the rest of us are "stuck" with the one for our gender. We are arguing that trans people should use the bathroom of the gender that is CORRECT for them.

Earlier you said this issue isn't about "legal gender", then you said it was a human rights issue, now you're saying defining gender isn't a problem while completely ignoring my question about WHICH human right is supposedly being "violated". So is it or isn't it a "basic human rights" issue; and if it is, which UN human rights article is it you feel is at risk of being violated, and why?

I've said all along a TG person certainly should be free to use the facility that coincides with their (new) legal gender, and a person who is not TG should also use the facility that coincides with their legal gender. That is fair & applies the same "rule" to everyone - EQUALLY. Isn't 'equality' what we're after here?


It's quite evident reading here that She - indeed - does.

Was working so couldn't reply earlier. I said earlier that gender isn't the issue insofar as "biological gender". The issue is that trans people were born the wrong gender. Thus, they are being discriminated against when they are forced to use the restroom that corresponds w. their biological gender rather than their correct (identified) one. That is the human right that I see violated here.

EDIT: While I was working, Matata basically said exactly what I tried to above but more eloquently.

 

[chemgirl]

The next time a trans person deals with this issue, I am going to roll my eyes and tell them about the time I had to use a porta potty at the fairgrounds. That will school these snowflakes.

And the next time a victim of sexual assault deals with this issue or feels unsafe in a facility, be sure to also roll your eyes and tell them their feelings are less important/valid than the trans person's "basic human rights" (if lovedogs ever clarifies how exactly this is a "human rights issue").

You do realize people kill themselves over gender identity and discrimination right? As stated many times in this thread, trans people are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime. You're comparing real danger to a perceived danger.

I would be uncomfortable using the wrong bathroom, this goes so much further than discomfort.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Trans men are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. Trans women are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. This is gender-based discrimination, a civil rights issue which becomes a human rights issue in relation to trans people because they are not accorded the same basic freedom to exercise a biological imperative in restrooms appropriate for their gender identity.

Thank you! There is a lot of 'linkage' there from various laws, so I had to do some reading. It seems there is some legal decisioning to be made by the courts yet about whether the term "sex" includes "gender identity" or not. As it stands, legally, it appears that where the term "sex" is used, it's largely legally accepted to mean "man" or "woman". I have not yet found any laws (nor does the CRA mention) 'sex' is to be interpreted in any way other than male or female, and they are silent to 'gender identity'.

And as Telephone noted earlier, "gender" and "sex" are not legally synonymous. And the CRA as well as U.N.'s Human Rights are silent to "gender" that I have found, and are specific to "sex". An interesting case to watch for the outcome (that may impact this overall 'bathroom issue') is going to be Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (U.S. Supreme Court), as it seems to be debating this very issue in the briefs filed recently - both the use of bathrooms as well as the interpretation of the term 'sex'.

Was working so couldn't reply earlier. I said earlier that gender isn't the issue insofar as "biological gender". The issue is that trans people were born the wrong gender. Thus, they are being discriminated against when they are forced to use the restroom that corresponds w. their biological gender rather than their correct (identified) one. That is the human right that I see violated here.

EDIT: While I was working, Matata basically said exactly what I tried to above but more eloquently.

Okay, but you still didn't note WHICH human right per the U.N. human rights declaration, is specifically being violated; rather, it seems you're assuming a 'human right' exists based on your opinion or position rather than an actual 'human right'. I provided the link to the U.N.'s list earlier as it seems to be the authority on such matters, and I found none that apply to this situation.

 

[kenny]

heh

Oh My Gato, telephone ... that one meme perfectly sums up the ignorance on this issue!

Someone doing that would be the perfect, and justified, target for a stream of hot stinky pee.

 

[lovedogs]

Trans men are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. Trans women are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. This is gender-based discrimination, a civil rights issue which becomes a human rights issue in relation to trans people because they are not accorded the same basic freedom to exercise a biological imperative in restrooms appropriate for their gender identity.

Thank you! There is a lot of 'linkage' there from various laws, so I had to do some reading. It seems there is some legal decisioning to be made by the courts yet about whether the term "sex" includes "gender identity" or not. As it stands, legally, it appears that where the term "sex" is used, it's largely legally accepted to mean "man" or "woman". I have not yet found any laws (nor does the CRA mention) 'sex' is to be interpreted in any way other than male or female, and they are silent to 'gender identity'.

And as Telephone noted earlier, "gender" and "sex" are not legally synonymous. And the CRA as well as U.N.'s Human Rights are silent to "gender" that I have found, and are specific to "sex". An interesting case to watch for the outcome (that may impact this overall 'bathroom issue') is going to be Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (U.S. Supreme Court), as it seems to be debating this very issue in the briefs filed recently - both the use of bathrooms as well as the interpretation of the term 'sex'.

Was working so couldn't reply earlier. I said earlier that gender isn't the issue insofar as "biological gender". The issue is that trans people were born the wrong gender. Thus, they are being discriminated against when they are forced to use the restroom that corresponds w. their biological gender rather than their correct (identified) one. That is the human right that I see violated here.

EDIT: While I was working, Matata basically said exactly what I tried to above but more eloquently.

Okay, but you still didn't note WHICH human right per the U.N. human rights declaration, is specifically being violated; rather, it seems you're assuming a 'human right' exists based on your opinion or position rather than an actual 'human right'. I provided the link to the U.N.'s list earlier as it seems to be the authority on such matters, and I found none that apply to this situation.

Sorry, I meant that I think that the right to not be discriminated against was being violated. From the UN doc, this one:

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

 

[telephone89]

heh

Oh My Gato, telephone ... that one meme perfectly sums up the ignorance on this issue!

Someone doing that would be the perfect, and justified, target for a stream of hot stinky pee.

Wow Kenny, a compliment pour moi? *fans self*
(I don't think ps plays gifs, but this is a nice one)

 

[kenny]

Yeah, I also wish PS allowed us to upload gifs.

 

[telephone89]

Trans men are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. Trans women are discriminated against when forced to use a men's restroom. This is gender-based discrimination, a civil rights issue which becomes a human rights issue in relation to trans people because they are not accorded the same basic freedom to exercise a biological imperative in restrooms appropriate for their gender identity.

Thank you! There is a lot of 'linkage' there from various laws, so I had to do some reading. It seems there is some legal decisioning to be made by the courts yet about whether the term "sex" includes "gender identity" or not. As it stands, legally, it appears that where the term "sex" is used, it's largely legally accepted to mean "man" or "woman". I have not yet found any laws (nor does the CRA mention) 'sex' is to be interpreted in any way other than male or female, and they are silent to 'gender identity'.

And as Telephone noted earlier, "gender" and "sex" are not legally synonymous. And the CRA as well as U.N.'s Human Rights are silent to "gender" that I have found, and are specific to "sex". An interesting case to watch for the outcome (that may impact this overall 'bathroom issue') is going to be Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (U.S. Supreme Court), as it seems to be debating this very issue in the briefs filed recently - both the use of bathrooms as well as the interpretation of the term 'sex'.

Was working so couldn't reply earlier. I said earlier that gender isn't the issue insofar as "biological gender". The issue is that trans people were born the wrong gender. Thus, they are being discriminated against when they are forced to use the restroom that corresponds w. their biological gender rather than their correct (identified) one. That is the human right that I see violated here.

EDIT: While I was working, Matata basically said exactly what I tried to above but more eloquently.

Okay, but you still didn't note WHICH human right per the U.N. human rights declaration, is specifically being violated; rather, it seems you're assuming a 'human right' exists based on your opinion or position rather than an actual 'human right'. I provided the link to the U.N.'s list earlier as it seems to be the authority on such matters, and I found none that apply to this situation.

So one thing that annoys me with the title ix is the differentiation between sex and gender. Sex is your 'biological' or 'legal' as you say, sex. This is your genitals.
Gender is how you identify. MOST people with female sex parts identify as female. Most people with male parts identify as males. I just want to make sure that middle part is protected - no matter who/what they identify with.

As I said in my very first post in this thread - the heart of this debate comes down to discrimination. Do you [general] believe that transgendered rights is something to be protected, or not. Whether you believe in bathroom bills or anything else, that is the basis of this discussion. By taking away the federal protection of transgenders, I think it opens up a whole can of worms - a can that people will deeply regret in the future. I honestly think this is 'one of those' issues that will eventually come back to supreme court and will be implemented federally BECAUSE states try to take advantage of it. The same thing happened with race and orientation.

 

[telephone89]

as a reply to above...
*cough* jim crow *cough*

 

[lovedogs]

as a reply to above...
*cough* jim crow *cough*

haha I literally just saved this image to post. Great minds!

 

[telephone89]

as a reply to above...
*cough* jim crow *cough*

haha I literally just saved this image to post. Great minds!

 

[the_mother_thing]

You do realize people kill themselves over gender identity and discrimination right? As stated many times in this thread, trans people are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime. You're comparing real danger to a perceived danger.

Yes, I realize people take their lives for gender identity reasons, and a lot of other reasons having nothing to do with gender - ALL of which are tragic and terribly sad. I am not suggesting otherwise.

When you (collectively) say 'trans people are much more likely to be victims of violent crime', or commit/attempt suicide, more likely than who? Gays? Straights? Minorities? Veterans? Depression? PTSD? Chronic pain sufferers? Or just everyone in the country? I was trying to find these stats last night to see what they related that stat to and how they compared but didn't find any national stats that showed LGBTQ rates or risk as excessively higher than any other.

Sorry, I meant that I think that the right to not be discriminated against was being violated. From the UN doc, this one:

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Exactly! And I think that is where the 'disagreement' in this discussion lies - interpretation (or perception) of what constitutes 'discrimination'. Discrimination means to single out or treat differently/unfairly one person or group from others (for the list of reasons we all know including sex/gender). What you and others are advocating for IS discrimination. No one is suggesting TG/GI people cannot use the same facilities in any manner different than everyone else, or that they have to use a 'specially designated' facility because they are TG/GI. TG/GI people are basically asking to use facilities differently, and be singled out and treated differently than everyone else because of their sex/gender. That is against the law (and civil & human rights), just as it would be to say only whites can use a certain water fountain or sit in the front of a bus.

I DO see both sides of this issue, and I know there's not an easy solution. I do empathize with those who don't feel they 'belong' in one 'space' for whatever reason, but I also sympathize with those who also deserve privacy in their respective spaces. This issue does impact non-TG/GI persons because everyone's rights to privacy (as noted in some of these same laws specifically in 'intimate' settings) deserve protection.

While a few seem to want to crack jokes about it by posting memes, I am just trying to understand where - legally - we can find common ground for everyone.

 

[Missy]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html?_r=0

https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html

http://fusion.net/story/313047/lgbt-violence-statistics/


There is no evidence (that I have seen thus far) to suggest that transgender individuals have exploited non-discrimination laws to enter women's bathrooms or assault women. The kind of men who rape women don't give a damn about the law anyway and a sign on a bathroom door won't stop them. As already mentioned here fear of rape was often used as a justification for Jim Crow laws. The fear of transgender people is irrational (IMO). *I* feel many people who are against allowing transgender individuals to use the restroom of the gender they identify with is due to in part to ignorance (best case scenario but still no excuse) and for some motivated by malice and hate. And enforced by bigots, transphobes and fear mongers.

And a big ditto to that meme. Exactly.

 

[the_mother_thing]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html?_r=0

https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html

http://fusion.net/story/313047/lgbt-violence-statistics/

There is no evidence (that I have seen thus far) to suggest that transgender individuals have exploited non-discrimination laws to enter women's bathrooms or assault women. The kind of men who rape women don't give a damn about the law anyway and a sign on a bathroom door won't stop them. As already mentioned here fear of rape was often used as a justification for Jim Crow laws. The fear of transgender people is irrational (IMO). *I* feel many people who are against allowing transgender individuals to use the restroom of the gender they identify with is due to in part to ignorance (best case scenario but still no excuse) and for some motivated by malice and hate. And enforced by bigots, transphobes and fear mongers.

I don't know how the Times arrived at their stats & charts, but from the FBI ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final ), which the Times cited:

In 2015, the nation’s law enforcement agencies reported that there were 7,173 victims of hate crimes. Of these victims, 52 were victimized in separate multiple-bias incidents.

Even going with the full number of victims, 19.4% (or 1,392) of 7,173 hate crime victims in 2015 (in a population of 320,090,857 people) were due to orientation & gender identity. Hate crime victims in total were .00002% of the U.S. population, with orientation/gender victims comprising .000004%. I suspect there are also cases that are not reported, but that applies across the board, not just for one victimized group. Don't misunderstand my point here - it's not to minimize nor condone hate crimes at all; rather, to understand the actual statistics of these types of crimes vs how the Times is portraying them. If statistics are used to support a position either way, they should be factual, not twisted. And the facts don't seem to support the Times' claims, and subsequently, what some here are citing as an 'excessive or higher risk'. To the contrary, 'race' is still a much higher risk, followed by 'religion'.

Secondly, I didn't suggest they have exploited non-discrimination laws; I said what they are seeking appears discriminatory - unequal treatment/access based on sex/gender, according to the law.

Lastly, your assumptions and use of labels (along with others) are no less stereotypical and judgmental than that which you accuse others of having. Disagreement does not equate to discrimination, malice or hate, no matter how many times someone says it does, and it doesn't make your judgments 'acceptable'. If it did, it would make malice, hate and bigotry acceptable as well. I don't assume why someone else feels the way they do; rather, I accept (without labels) that they do so based on personal experience or influence by their community.

 

[Missy]

Don't worry Jenn. I am not misunderstanding anything you are writing. I see exactly what you are doing and who you are. Peace.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Don't worry Jenn. I am not misunderstanding anything you are writing. I see exactly what you are doing and who you are. Peace.

Ditto

 

[lyra]

My stance as an outsider is that this should be a federal issue, with cooperation from the states. In Canada, our gender identity laws state that you can change your legal gender identity WITHOUT requiring gender reassignment surgery as a minor or adult in all provinces and territories. I think this part is important, because in the US, some states flat out refuse to allow a person to legally change their gender identity, many require gender reassignment surgery as a prerequisite, and some just allow the legal change without surgery.

There are many reasons why asking that a person have surgery is wrong. It's a highly personal choice, it's expensive, it's less than a perfect solution (won't get graphic here), it's a very long and drawn out process. Most transgender people do not have the resources to do it. Nor should they have to, since gender identity is very complicated and is not just a female to male or male to female type of transition. The scope is much broader than that.

I think foisting these decisions off on each state is a major cop out. I thought Trump was going to do something to help the LGBTQ community, and it seems like he is not. I'm not surprised, but it's a great disappointment. The US should be more progressive than it is at this point in time. I think that the blurred lines between church and state are to blame. I wish there was more separation like we have in Canada.

 

[Missy]

Oh please don't misunderstand. You have the right to tell me your opinion, and I have the right to tell you what I think of it and how you express it. That doesn't bother me.

You do, indeed, have the right to assume whatever your heart desires.

That does not, however, make you right about your assumptions or whatever you *think* "I know", as your post suggested. I'm sure you are also smart enough to know what they say about people who "assume" and their "opinions".

I really don't care if you think I'm an a$$ or not. You have your opinion of me and I certainly have mine of you. And your hyper fixation on having the last word is evident in literally every thread you ever participate in, so peace.

Word. And the use of the passive aggressive wavey emoticon.


To get back on topic Ian it is surreal how I feel we are always fighting the same battles over and over though a bit different still fighting the same injustices decade after decade.

Lyra, I agree. Separation of church and state is key.

 

[House Cat]

You do realize people kill themselves over gender identity and discrimination right? As stated many times in this thread, trans people are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime. You're comparing real danger to a perceived danger.

Yes, I realize people take their lives for gender identity reasons, and a lot of other reasons having nothing to do with gender - ALL of which are tragic and terribly sad. I am not suggesting otherwise.

When you (collectively) say 'trans people are much more likely to be victims of violent crime', or commit/attempt suicide, more likely than who? Gays? Straights? Minorities? Veterans? Depression? PTSD? Chronic pain sufferers? Or just everyone in the country? I was trying to find these stats last night to see what they related that stat to and how they compared but didn't find any national stats that showed LGBTQ rates or risk as excessively higher than any other.

Sorry, I meant that I think that the right to not be discriminated against was being violated. From the UN doc, this one:

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Exactly! And I think that is where the 'disagreement' in this discussion lies - interpretation (or perception) of what constitutes 'discrimination'. Discrimination means to single out or treat differently/unfairly one person or group from others (for the list of reasons we all know including sex/gender). What you and others are advocating for IS discrimination. No one is suggesting TG/GI people cannot use the same facilities in any manner different than everyone else, or that they have to use a 'specially designated' facility because they are TG/GI. TG/GI people are basically asking to use facilities differently, and be singled out and treated differently than everyone else because of their sex/gender. That is against the law (and civil & human rights), just as it would be to say only whites can use a certain water fountain or sit in the front of a bus.

I DO see both sides of this issue, and I know there's not an easy solution. I do empathize with those who don't feel they 'belong' in one 'space' for whatever reason, but I also sympathize with those who also deserve privacy in their respective spaces. This issue does impact non-TG/GI persons because everyone's rights to privacy (as noted in some of these same laws specifically in 'intimate' settings) deserve protection.

While a few seem to want to crack jokes about it by posting memes, I am just trying to understand where - legally - we can find common ground for everyone.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

 

[OreoRosies86]

"Respondents who experienced rejection by family and
friends, discrimination, victimization, or violence had
elevated prevalence of suicide attempts, such as those
who experienced the following:
— Family chose not to speak/spend time with them: 57%"

Reading that is like someone just put an anvil on my chest.

 

[siv1]

I haven't read through all the replies.

I think what the biggest problem here is how in most restrooms, the stalls have the space at the bottom and space at the top where some "could" possibly look under or over. I wouldn't want someone that LOOKS like a man using the woman's restroom. BUT, unisex restrooms will probably be the best solution. If you think of how the porta-potties at outdoor functions are unisex..... usually lined up or in a U shape, this is how I see unisex restrooms working. The stall would actually have to have full walls and doors. A communal sink could be in the middle. Just think.... woman would no longer have to wait in the LONG lines while men walk in and out. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[Missy]

I haven't read through all the replies.

I think what the biggest problem here is how in most restrooms, the stalls have the space at the bottom and space at the top where some "could" possibly look under or over. I wouldn't want someone that LOOKS like a man using the woman's restroom. BUT, unisex restrooms will probably be the best solution. If you think of how the porta-potties at outdoor functions are unisex..... usually lined up or in a U shape, this is how I see unisex restrooms working. The stall would actually have to have full walls and doors. A communal sink could be in the middle. Just think.... woman would no longer have to wait in the LONG lines while men walk in and out. Sounds like a win-win to me.

This is imo the perfect solution and an added benefit being no more (or less) long lines for women. And once we are used to it this will be a non issue.

 

[House Cat]

I haven't read through all the replies.

I think what the biggest problem here is how in most restrooms, the stalls have the space at the bottom and space at the top where some "could" possibly look under or over. I wouldn't want someone that LOOKS like a man using the woman's restroom. BUT, unisex restrooms will probably be the best solution. If you think of how the porta-potties at outdoor functions are unisex..... usually lined up or in a U shape, this is how I see unisex restrooms working. The stall would actually have to have full walls and doors. A communal sink could be in the middle. Just think.... woman would no longer have to wait in the LONG lines while men walk in and out. Sounds like a win-win to me.

There are unisex bathrooms at large events in my state...such as concerts. It is very much a get in and get out ordeal. Basically, no one gives a shit because people are taking a shit.

 

[VRBeauty]

I hope anyone still on the fence on this issue will consider the following, which was written by a transexual male:

Imagine having to leave a night out with friends because you are scared to use the public restroom. Or leaving your food unfinished in a restaurant, paying you bill and leaving because you have to go and they don’t have inclusive or single-use bathrooms. Not drinking water for a whole day if you know that bathroom access will be an issue in the evening. Imagine a hundred different scenarios where the simple act of peeing becomes the most important part of your life. Being nearly 67 years old, holding it in becomes less and less of an alternative.

And consider watching the following, which might provide some insight into why some people are transexual... bearing in mind that while some children today might have the chance of transitioning with the support of their family and others in the community, older transexuals people likely did not have such a supporting environment.

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

 

[katharath]

I just haven't had the energy to get into it in this thread; I think it is mindblowing that it is considered an "issue" at all, and I'm afraid that if I try to argue my point in here, I'll just blow my top and go right over the edge, lol.

So, the only thing I really came in here to say is that I appreciate those of you taking the time to try to rationally discuss this. My stance is pretty obviously the same as Missy's, Elliot's, House Cat's, Lovedogs, etc etc etc - thank you for posting "my" thoughts.

VR Beauty - a comment on your last post - as someone who deals with "bathroom" issues that make it very difficult to even leave the house (although I do it every day, it must always be carefully planned), I sympathize with trying to plan your life around a bathroom. Obviously my reasons are different than a trans person's, but still - it sucks. It's ridiculous to make people's lives harder by imposing these stupid rules. (Sorry if that was TMI. I have health issues that I've been dealing with for over a dozen years now - it is what it is. Time has made me slightly less embarrassed and more matter of fact about it, lol).

 

[the_mother_thing]

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

Thank you, HC, for posting that link to the study. I was trying to understand how these stats were derived, who was factored into them, etc., to try and understand the 'scale' of the risk facing TG/GI individuals, and understand the 'other side' based on the reasons/stats/claims made for why this is a 'critical' issue, and thus warrants special protection/treatment, etc. Probably not the best words, but hopefully you understand what I mean; one suicide or assault - for any reason - is too many. Personally, Veteran suicide & PTSD is a matter close to my heart, not only because I served and have experienced PTSD, as well as have friends who suffer with it, but because a great husband, father, and veteran friend of mine for 20+ years took his life just before Christmas as a result. It's tragic, sad, and passes the unimaginable pain they bore onto the loved ones left behind. I don't wish that on anyone for any reason.

I noted via your link (and just sharing my findings in case anyone is interested):

With over 6,000 respondents, the NTDS is the largest survey of transgender and gender non-conforming adults to date. In that sample, 41 percent of respondents reported ever attempting suicide (Grant et al., 2011).

and

Little research has been done about transgender individuals, but in one study of adults and young adults 30.1 percent of transgender individuals surveyed reported having ever attempted suicide (Kenagy, 2005).

At first glance, that is (apparently) an ~11% increase in reported suicide attempts from 2005 to 2011, and those numbers do seem troublesome, an increased risk, etc.; however, I am also somewhat troubled by the notes about these numbers in the 'methods & limitations' noted for the survey, which indicate the results could be inflated by as much as 42%.

The National Comorbity Survey, a nationally representative survey, found that probing for intent to die through in-person interviews [which this survey did not do] reduced the prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts from 4.6 percent to 2.7 percent of the adult sample (Kessler et al., 1999; Nock & Kessler, 2006). Without such probes, we were unable to determine the extent to which the 41 percent of NTDS participants who reported ever attempting suicide may overestimate the actual prevalence of attempts in the sample. In addition, the analysis was limited due to a lack of follow-up questions asked of respondents who reported having attempted suicide about such things as age and transgender/gender non-conforming status at the time of the attempt.

Obviously, this is a deeply personal, private matter to discuss and respond to via an oral or written survey, so I understand the potential for varied results, and I am not suggesting that discredits the survey overall, but it is worth noting since suicide has been noted several times in this thread as a factor for support.

The TG population in the U.S. is estimated to be 1.4M (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/How-Many-Adults-Identify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf) or .004% of the U.S. population, for which (based on the 41% who have reportedly attempted suicide), equates to approximately 574,000 or .002% of the U.S. population.

Also noteworthy:

Most LGB youth who attempt suicide demonstrate some symptoms of psychopathology, with mood and anxiety disorders being the most prevalent diagnoses.
...
Lesbian and gay youth are three times more likely to report thoughts of suicide than their heterosexual counterparts, while bisexual youth are five times more likely to report such thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts.

http://www.suicidology.org/Portals/14/Re-Formatted%20LGB%20Youth%202016%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?ver=2016-11-16-105952-633

From all of this, I noted that:
- there is also a strong likelihood of mental illness presence in some of these cases (LGBTQ suicide stats), which could be the/part of the cause of suicide vs solely related to sexual orientation factors (and that is not to suggest being LGBTQ itself is a mental illness; it is not); and,
- suicide attempts are under-reported by heterosexual persons, possibly also making the numbers for LGBT to appear "higher risk".

Stats aren't the whole story obviously; these are people, lives, with loved ones and friends. And depending on how the stats are presented and/or referenced in discussions (like this thread), they tend to paint a picture that supports one side or the other, (again, why I don't like reading a media outlet's portrayal of how they perceive "facts").

I think in this case, I would prefer to see the money that would be spent on legislation and retrofitting facilities across the country, instead spent increasing availability of mental health for those who do need it (which these studies do note) as well as behavioral & educational measures aimed at increasing tolerance and acceptance. In the case of Gavin Grimm, it is clear that "if you build it" does not always mean "they will come".