shape
carat
color
clarity

Transgender bathroom rights are going down the toilet

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
8,502
Republicans want less federal government interference. In the article below, scrotuses' reason for rolling back Obama's protections for transgender bathroom use is that it should be up to the states to decide. If I recall correctly, he also stated during the campaign that he felt states should be able to decide abortion law. So if states are given individual control of deciding what will be the fundamental rights of its residents, where does the "united" in United States factor in? Shouldn't basic human and civil rights be uniform across the nation for all American citizens rather than differing state to state?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/devos-sessions-transgender-students-rights.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President Trump could issue new guidelines as early as Wednesday to rescind anti-discrimination protections for transgender students, overruling his education secretary who had pushed to keep them in place.

“I would expect further guidance to come out on that today,” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said, declining to provide specifics. Mr. Trump, he added, is “a firm believer in states’ rights.”

Mr. Spicer declined to discuss details of a rift on the issue between Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education, and Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, who was adamant that the administration move quickly to reverse an order from the Obama administration that allowed transgender students to use the restroom of their gender identity. .

But Mr. Spicer said during a White House news conference that Ms. DeVos was “100 percent” supportive of the president’s decision.

Ms. DeVos initially resisted signing off on the order and told President Trump that she was uncomfortable with it, according to three Republicans with direct knowledge of the internal discussions.

Mr. Sessions, who strongly opposes expanding gay, lesbian and transgender rights, fought Ms. DeVos on the issue and pressed her to relent because he could not go forward without her consent. The order must come from the Justice and Education Departments.

But Mr. Trump sided with his attorney general, these Republicans said, telling Ms. DeVos in a meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday that he wanted her to drop her objections. And Ms. DeVos, faced with the choice of resigning or defying the president, has agreed to go along. The Justice Department declined to comment on Wednesday.

Though an official order from the administration was expected to be released as early as Wednesday, Mr. Sessions and Ms. DeVos were still disputing the final language.

According to a draft of the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times, the Trump administration cites continuing litigation and confusion over the Obama directives as a reason for telling schools to no longer obey them.

“School administrators, parents and students have expressed varying views on the legal issues arising in this setting,” the draft says. “They have also struggled to understand and apply the statements of policy and guidance” in the Obama orders.

The internal dissension within his administration threatens to become another distraction for Mr. Trump after a tumultuous first month in office.

In preparing to roll back transgender protections, his administration is wading into an issue that has become a cultural litmus test in the last year for liberals and conservatives.

The “bathroom debate,” as the controversy has become known, emerged as a major and divisive issue last March when North Carolina passed a bill barring transgender people from using bathrooms that do not match their biological sex, part of a broader bill eliminating anti-discrimination protections for gays.

The state’s bill, HB2, led to protests and economic boycotts in North Carolina, along with failed efforts by some state legislators to repeal the measure.

L.G.B.T. issues also became a point of attack for opponents of Ms. DeVos’s nomination last month, as Democrats questioned her about the extensive financial support that some of her relatives — part of her wealthy and politically active Michigan family — have provided to anti-L.G.B.T. causes.

Ms. DeVos distanced herself from her relatives on the issue, saying their political activities did not represent her views.

“Let me say I fully embrace equality, and I believe in the innate value of every single human being, and that all students, no matter their age, should be able to attend a school and feel safe and be free of discrimination,” she said.

While the draft being circulated in the Trump administration amounts to a significant rollback of transgender protections over all, it does include language stating that schools must protect transgender students from bullying, a provision Ms. DeVos asked be included, one person with direct knowledge of the process said.

“Schools must ensure that transgender students, like all students, are able to learn in a safe environment,” the letter says in a line echoing her comments at her confirmation hearing. Ms. DeVos, who has been quietly supportive of gay rights for years, was said to have voiced her concern about the high rates of suicide among transgender students.

The dispute highlighted the degree to which transgender rights issues, which Mr. Trump initially expressed sympathy for during the campaign, continue to split Republicans even as many in the party argue it is time to move away from a focus on social issues.

Mr. Trump appears to have been swayed by conservatives in the administration who reminded him that he had promised social conservatives during the campaign to leave the question of bathroom use to the states.

But he has given conflicting signals on this and gay rights more broadly. He said last April, for instance, that he supported the rights of transgender people to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate,” and he said that Caitlyn Jenner, perhaps the most famous transgender person in the country, could use whichever bathroom at Trump Tower she wanted. He has also called the decision legalizing same-sex marriage settled law. “And I’m fine with that,” he told CBS News after the November election.

Despite his personal views, his decisions in office have been consistently to the right on social issues. And he has shown considerable deference to the religious right, including the many religious conservatives he has named to top cabinet posts and the pledges he has made to fight for religious freedom protections and restrictions on abortion.

The Justice Department is eager to move quickly in laying out its legal position on transgender policy to avoid confusion in cases moving through the courts.

One filing deadline is coming up on Thursday in the case before the Supreme Court involving the Virginia transgender boy, Gavin Grimm. He sued the Gloucester County School Board two years ago after the board refused to allow him to use the boys’ bathroom and told him he could use a separate one in a converted janitors closet. The Obama administration had rejected that type of accommodation as unacceptable and discriminatory.

This dispute has underscored the outsized influence that Mr. Sessions, an early and ardent supporter of Mr. Trump during his campaign, is likely to exercise over domestic policy. As someone who has a long record of opposing efforts to broaden federal protections on a range of matters under his purview — immigration, voting rights and gay rights, for example — he has moved quickly to set the Justice Department on a strikingly different course than his predecessors in the Obama administration.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
I want kids to feel safe at school. But I am not sure what that means for transgender kids and bathroom use. If it creates an issue where there is none, then it does not help anything. If it causes millions or billions of dollars for the construction of facilities in schools specifically for this issue then I am absolutely against it. There are plenty of other uses in schools for that money.
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,611
This legislation is causing a problem, when there was none. I don't see the problem of transgendered students (a very small minority) using the bathroom they feel most comfortable in. Transgender people are much more likely to be the victim of assault, than the other way around. If states create laws forcing them to say use the bathroom matching the gender on their birth certificate, it is going to increase victimization of these students.

Believe me, we had the bathroom bill in NC. NO ONE WANTS IT. And Trump's legislation, is trying to pave the way for more states to pass legislation like that.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
15,293
ugh, as usual I am disgusted by the actions of this administration
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,490
part gypsy|1487800044|4132326 said:
This legislation is causing a problem, when there was none. I don't see the problem of transgendered students (a very small minority) using the bathroom they feel most comfortable in. Transgender people are much more likely to be the victim of assault, than the other way around. If states create laws forcing them to say use the bathroom matching the gender on their birth certificate, it is going to increase victimization of these students.

Believe me, we had the bathroom bill in NC. NO ONE WANTS IT. And Trump's legislation, is trying to pave the way for more states to pass legislation like that.

ALL of this. ^^^

HB2 has been an utter disaster for our state.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
18,394
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
monarch64|1487803573|4132336 said:
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.

Frankly, yes this is not an issue that the federal government should have ever been involved in. Which means the directive from Obama also.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
31,763
monarch64|1487803573|4132336 said:
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.

But ... when something's wrong why should the feds allow (some) states to do what's wrong?
I don't think murder is this way ... just move to the state where you can murder your husband. :???:

Anyone know the criteria for what laws should be enacted at the federal level vs. at the state level?
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
kenny|1487808912|4132359 said:
monarch64|1487803573|4132336 said:
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.

But ... when something's wrong why should the feds allow (some) states to do what's wrong?
I don't think murder is this way ... just move to the state where you can murder your husband. :???:

Anyone know the criteria for what laws should be enacted at the federal level vs. at the state level?

kenny how can you conflate a crime with a civil issue of what bathroom to use? Its not the job of the federal government to decide this. People have made this an issue where there should not be one.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
8,502
kenny|1487808912|4132359 said:
monarch64|1487803573|4132336 said:
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.

But ... when something's wrong why should the feds allow (some) states to do what's wrong?
I don't think murder is this way ... just move to the state where you can murder your husband. :???:

Anyone know the criteria for what laws should be enacted at the federal level vs. at the state level?[/quote]

Found this via google. I
http://www.lawhelp.org/resource/the-differences-between-federal-state-and-loc
Overview
There are different types of laws. Federal laws apply to everyone in the United States. State and local laws apply to people who live or work in a particular state, commonwealth, territory, county, city, municipality, town, township or village.

What are Federal laws?

Federal laws are rules that apply throughout the United States. These laws apply in every state, such as:

Immigration law
Bankruptcy law
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) laws
Federal anti-discrimination and civil rights laws that protect against racial, age, gender and disability discrimination
Patent and copyright laws
Federal criminal laws such as laws against tax fraud and the counterfeiting of money


What are state laws?

There are 50 states and several commonwealths and territories within the United States. Each has its own system of laws and courts that handle:

Criminal matters
Divorce and family matters
Welfare, public assistance or Medicaid matters
Wills, inheritances and estates
Real estate and other property
Business contracts
Personal injuries such as from a car accident or medical malpractice
Workers compensation for injuries at work

What are local laws?

There are different counties, cities, municipalities, towns, townships and villages in each state, commonwealth or territory. Some of them have their own system of laws and courts that handle:

Rent laws
Zoning
Local safety

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-of-preemption.html
What happens when state law conflicts with federal law? The answer relies on the doctrine known as federal preemption.

The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land". This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws, and treatises of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government's control. Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.

Example 1:

State A has enacted a law that says "no citizen may sell blue soda pop anywhere in the state".9516225 The federal government, however, has established the "Anti-Blue Sales Discrimination Act", prohibiting actions that discriminate against the color of goods sold. A local food and beverage vendor who sells blue soda pop in vending machines is charged with violating the state law. She may challenge the state law on the basis that it is preempted by federal law, and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Example 2:

The United States passes a law promising to preserve and to protect Indian tribes. State B wants to tax Indian tribes located within its state. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S., State B may not tax a federally recognized Indian tribe since doing so would violate the tribe's political interest in which the U.S. has promised to protect.

Moreover, the federal government has broad powers under the Supremacy Clause to create, regulate, and enforce the laws of the United States. The concept of federalism, or that of federal power, has a long-standing history dating back to the late 1700's, during the time in which the nation's founding fathers signed the U.S. Constitution. Among those powers, the federal government has certain express (or "enumerated") powers which are specifically spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, including the right to regulate commerce, declare war, levy taxes, establish immigration and bankruptcy laws, and so on.

Not only does the federal government have express powers under the U.S. Constitution, it also has implied powers, or powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This was the decision in the landmark Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland. For example, the Constitution does not expressly mention the right to privacy, or the right of people to adopt, or seek an abortion, however, these rights can be inferred by the Constitution itself, or from the later amended Bill of Rights.

Whether express or implied, federal law will almost always prevail when it interferes or conflicts with state law, except in circumstances where the federal law is deemed unconstitutional, or where the Supremacy Clause does not apply.

To that end, people living within the U.S. should be aware of the broad powers of the federal government, especially on issues affecting their daily lives, such as bankruptcy issues, discrimination claims, immigration challenges, federal taxation, and many others. A constitutional law attorney can help with the construction and interpretation of a federal law as applied to a particular state law.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
15,293
redwood66|1487810380|4132364 said:
kenny|1487808912|4132359 said:
monarch64|1487803573|4132336 said:
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.

But ... when something's wrong why should the feds allow (some) states to do what's wrong?
I don't think murder is this way ... just move to the state where you can murder your husband. :???:

Anyone know the criteria for what laws should be enacted at the federal level vs. at the state level?

kenny how can you conflate a crime with a civil issue of what bathroom to use? Its not the job of the federal government to decide this. People have made this an issue where there should not be one.
I think that this should be a federal issue because if it's a state issue then some states will discriminate and others won't. It's not fair (IMO) to put the burden on people to "move to a different state" if they are experiencing discrimination. It shouldn't be allowed anywhere.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
lovedogs|1487811157|4132367 said:
redwood66|1487810380|4132364 said:
kenny|1487808912|4132359 said:
monarch64|1487803573|4132336 said:
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.

But ... when something's wrong why should the feds allow (some) states to do what's wrong?
I don't think murder is this way ... just move to the state where you can murder your husband. :???:

Anyone know the criteria for what laws should be enacted at the federal level vs. at the state level?

kenny how can you conflate a crime with a civil issue of what bathroom to use? Its not the job of the federal government to decide this. People have made this an issue where there should not be one.
I think that this should be a federal issue because if it's a state issue then some states will discriminate and others won't. It's not fair (IMO) to put the burden on people to "move to a different state" if they are experiencing discrimination. It shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

But we live in a republic of states. What is fine for one state's population may not be fine for another. I do not see an issue that affects a minuscule percentage of the population as something for the feds to take on. And that is if it even has to affect them, leave it the hell alone. Both the fed and the states that are trying to pass laws defining what bathroom to use.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,077
At the heart of this issue is discrimination. The changes trump is looking at is removing the safety net for gender identity, while leaving it for sexual orientation/race/religion. This is akin to making it legal to have segregated bathrooms for certain races because a state wants it. That is currently a protection under the federal govt that you CANNOT discriminate against. Discrimination legislation needs to stay at a federal level IMO, and ensure all states are protecting their citizens.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
15,293
telephone89|1487812243|4132370 said:
At the heart of this issue is discrimination. The changes trump is looking at is removing the safety net for gender identity, while leaving it for sexual orientation/race/religion. This is akin to making it legal to have segregated bathrooms for certain races because a state wants it. That is currently a protection under the federal govt that you CANNOT discriminate against. Discrimination legislation needs to stay at a federal level IMO, and ensure all states are protecting their citizens.
Exactly this. That was the point I tried to make above. When it's about discrimination then it cannot be at the state level. It's not about something "not working", it's about making it illigal to discriminate, as it should be.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
kenny|1487808912|4132359 said:
Anyone know the criteria for what laws should be enacted at the federal level vs. at the state level?

I don't know what the criteria are in general, but the directive pertaining to transgender student bathroom rights under the Obama administration is specifically for schools that receive federal funding and are therefore subject to the Title IX federal civil rights law.

Here is the part of the directive that relates to bathrooms:

Restrooms and Locker Rooms. A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy.

I don't find anything confusing about this. States do not have to honor it if they want to forgo federal school funding. It doesn't cost schools any additional money. It only says that if a student is biologically one sex but identifies with the other, he shall be allowed to use the bathroom of the sex with which he identifies. No additional bathrooms are required to be be built.

The argument that it should be left up to the states is ridiculous to me. Did we leave the legality of slavery up to the states? Bi-racial marriage? Gay marriage? Women's right to vote? These are basic civil rights that all Americans should enjoy.

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!
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
redwood66|1487811652|4132368 said:
But we live in a republic of states. What is fine for one state's population may not be fine for another. I do not see an issue that affects a minuscule percentage of the population as something for the feds to take on. And that is if it even has to affect them, leave it the hell alone. Both the fed and the states that are trying to pass laws defining what bathroom to use.

Only 3.6 million people in the U.S. use wheelchairs to get around yet all public buildings and sidewalks must comply with ADA ramp codes.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
18,394
Maria D|1487813087|4132377 said:
redwood66|1487811652|4132368 said:
But we live in a republic of states. What is fine for one state's population may not be fine for another. I do not see an issue that affects a minuscule percentage of the population as something for the feds to take on. And that is if it even has to affect them, leave it the hell alone. Both the fed and the states that are trying to pass laws defining what bathroom to use.

Only 3.6 million people in the U.S. use wheelchairs to get around yet all public buildings and sidewalks must comply with ADA ramp codes.

I want to applaud the shit out of your statement, MariaD, but humans, period, are more likely to age and/or become disabled than people are to be transgender or whatever is involved in bathroom laws. So it doesn't seem to be a fair analagy. But I am not super smart, so I could be pretty wrong here. You tell me.

(Disclaimer: I have had some wine.)
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
Maria D|1487812663|4132374 said:
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.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
monarch64|1487815466|4132393 said:
Maria D|1487813087|4132377 said:
redwood66|1487811652|4132368 said:
But we live in a republic of states. What is fine for one state's population may not be fine for another. I do not see an issue that affects a minuscule percentage of the population as something for the feds to take on. And that is if it even has to affect them, leave it the hell alone. Both the fed and the states that are trying to pass laws defining what bathroom to use.

Only 3.6 million people in the U.S. use wheelchairs to get around yet all public buildings and sidewalks must comply with ADA ramp codes.

I want to applaud the shit out of your statement, MariaD, but humans, period, are more likely to age and/or become disabled than people are to be transgender or whatever is involved in bathroom laws. So it doesn't seem to be a fair analagy. But I am not super smart, so I could be pretty wrong here. You tell me.

(Disclaimer: I have had some wine.)

Do you find it unfair because there are more people using wheelchairs than there are transgender people (3.6 million vs 1.4 million in the US)? Yes, there are more, but it is still only a small segment of the entire population. Just to be clear, I am in no way complaining about ADA regulations - just responding to Redwood's assertion that since transgenders make up a "minuscule" percentage, laws protecting them should be left to the states. What percentage must be affected before it moves from a state issue to a federal issue?
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
8,502
monarch64|1487815466|4132393 said:
Maria D|1487813087|4132377 said:
redwood66|1487811652|4132368 said:
But we live in a republic of states. What is fine for one state's population may not be fine for another. I do not see an issue that affects a minuscule percentage of the population as something for the feds to take on. And that is if it even has to affect them, leave it the hell alone. Both the fed and the states that are trying to pass laws defining what bathroom to use.

Only 3.6 million people in the U.S. use wheelchairs to get around yet all public buildings and sidewalks must comply with ADA ramp codes.

I want to applaud the shit out of your statement, MariaD, but humans, period, are more likely to age and/or become disabled than people are to be transgender or whatever is involved in bathroom laws. So it doesn't seem to be a fair analagy. But I am not super smart, so I could be pretty wrong here. You tell me.

(Disclaimer: I have had some wine.)

Most recent study shows 1.4 million transgendered in the US. That's only the ones who feel comfortable reporting. While I get MariaD's point about accommodation, it is comparing apples and oranges. Transgenders are not disabled. They should, imo, be able to use whatever bathroom suits their gender identity. We're talking about kids specifically with this law. It's tough enough growing up and negotiating all the pitfalls of building self-esteem and confidence to face adulthood and anyone who has kids in school knows how hard kids can be on their peers. My heart aches for transgendered kids due to the challenges they face.
 

distracts

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,977
Matata|1487811110|4132366 said:
Federal laws are rules that apply throughout the United States. These laws apply in every state, such as:

Immigration law
Bankruptcy law
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) laws
Federal anti-discrimination and civil rights laws that protect against racial, age, gender and disability discrimination
Patent and copyright laws
Federal criminal laws such as laws against tax fraud and the counterfeiting of money

ding ding ding!

redwood66|1487808760|4132358 said:
monarch64|1487803573|4132336 said:
Nice title, Matata!

Honestly, if this is between being a state OR federal thing, I'll take state. It's a lot easier to move state to state than country to country.

Frankly, yes this is not an issue that the federal government should have ever been involved in. Which means the directive from Obama also.

The directive from Obama... applied to things the federal government has jurisdiction over... and basically just clarified how they were supposed to be interpreted.

redwood66|1487811652|4132368 said:
But we live in a republic of states. What is fine for one state's population may not be fine for another. I do not see an issue that affects a minuscule percentage of the population as something for the feds to take on. And that is if it even has to affect them, leave it the hell alone. Both the fed and the states that are trying to pass laws defining what bathroom to use.

wow ok so people's rights aren't important if there aren't enough people to cause a fuss? got it.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,077
redwood66|1487815664|4132396 said:
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.
Ruby posted a while back that this happened to her. She said it was totally fine. You are playing the 'what if' game, and even if it effects you 2% or 10%, it effects the trans* community 100%. It's going to make a much bigger impact for them. Safety > comfort IMO.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
redwood66|1487815664|4132396 said:
Maria D|1487812663|4132374 said:
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. :lol: 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?
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
Maria D|1487817916|4132417 said:
redwood66|1487815664|4132396 said:
Maria D|1487812663|4132374 said:
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. :lol: 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 and 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?

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.
 

distracts

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,977
redwood66|1487818573|4132420 said:
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).

If they are transgender, it depends on what you mean by biologically. Most of my trans friends have had to undergo a lot of therapy and testing before they were allowed to take hormones, and their brain scans and hormone levels already were not the same as the gender they were assigned at birth. Brainwise, they biologically weren't the gender society saw them as. I don't know what you mean by "biological" here? If you mean the state of their genitalia, that's not really relevant - a lot of trans people don't have surgery downstairs because of all the potential side effects.

" 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)." --> so you mean what trans bathroom bills in conservative states are trying to make happen? Like if this person walked into the bathroom: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2b/56/60/2b56603c8737a22de3af2f253caa0a40.jpg ?

Trying to understand what you mean. I know it's a really confusing issue, the only reason I know a lot about it is because someone I've been friends with since I was two transitioned.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
distracts|1487819037|4132422 said:
redwood66|1487818573|4132420 said:
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).

If they are transgender, it depends on what you mean by biologically. Most of my trans friends have had to undergo a lot of therapy and testing before they were allowed to take hormones, and their brain scans and hormone levels already were not the same as the gender they were assigned at birth. Brainwise, they biologically weren't the gender society saw them as. I don't know what you mean by "biological" here? If you mean the state of their genitalia, that's not really relevant - a lot of trans people don't have surgery downstairs because of all the potential side effects.

" 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)." --> so you mean what trans bathroom bills in conservative states are trying to make happen? Like if this person walked into the bathroom: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2b/56/60/2b56603c8737a22de3af2f253caa0a40.jpg ?

Trying to understand what you mean. I know it's a really confusing issue, the only reason I know a lot about it is because someone I've been friends with since I was two transitioned.

I was specifically speaking about the two kids in Maria'a school. I think the bathroom bills are stupid. I am talking about what happens once the federal government gets involved. They F up everything making rules that cost billions for things that aren't necessary.


Thanks for the pic. He is hot BTW. :lol:
 

distracts

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,977
redwood66|1487819341|4132423 said:
distracts|1487819037|4132422 said:
redwood66|1487818573|4132420 said:
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).

If they are transgender, it depends on what you mean by biologically. Most of my trans friends have had to undergo a lot of therapy and testing before they were allowed to take hormones, and their brain scans and hormone levels already were not the same as the gender they were assigned at birth. Brainwise, they biologically weren't the gender society saw them as. I don't know what you mean by "biological" here? If you mean the state of their genitalia, that's not really relevant - a lot of trans people don't have surgery downstairs because of all the potential side effects.

" 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)." --> so you mean what trans bathroom bills in conservative states are trying to make happen? Like if this person walked into the bathroom: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2b/56/60/2b56603c8737a22de3af2f253caa0a40.jpg ?

Trying to understand what you mean. I know it's a really confusing issue, the only reason I know a lot about it is because someone I've been friends with since I was two transitioned.

I was specifically speaking about the two kids in Maria'a school. I think the bathroom bills are stupid. I am talking about what happens once the federal government gets involved. They F up everything.


Thanks for the pic. He is hot BTW. :lol:

Ok. Sorry for snapping earlier, since this affects some of my friends and a child of one of my friends I am very, very testy about it. (The kid - no one should EVER see a six/seven-year-old suicidal, especially about something so trivial in the grand scheme of things as gender identity. I don't understand how a six-year-old could be so distressed about it - but she obviously was, and now living as a girl and having all her documents changed as made her a normal kid. So she hasn't had hormones or anything yet because she's too young obviously but she DOES live as a girl, all the kids in school know her as a girl, not as a boy, and now her identity paperwork shows her as a girl. So honestly it would be MORE confusing for her to use the boy's restroom since none of the other kids know she was born a boy.)
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
distracts|1487819705|4132424 said:
redwood66|1487819341|4132423 said:
distracts|1487819037|4132422 said:
redwood66|1487818573|4132420 said:
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).

If they are transgender, it depends on what you mean by biologically. Most of my trans friends have had to undergo a lot of therapy and testing before they were allowed to take hormones, and their brain scans and hormone levels already were not the same as the gender they were assigned at birth. Brainwise, they biologically weren't the gender society saw them as. I don't know what you mean by "biological" here? If you mean the state of their genitalia, that's not really relevant - a lot of trans people don't have surgery downstairs because of all the potential side effects.

" 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)." --> so you mean what trans bathroom bills in conservative states are trying to make happen? Like if this person walked into the bathroom: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2b/56/60/2b56603c8737a22de3af2f253caa0a40.jpg ?

Trying to understand what you mean. I know it's a really confusing issue, the only reason I know a lot about it is because someone I've been friends with since I was two transitioned.

I was specifically speaking about the two kids in Maria'a school. I think the bathroom bills are stupid. I am talking about what happens once the federal government gets involved. They F up everything.


Thanks for the pic. He is hot BTW. :lol:

Ok. Sorry for snapping earlier, since this affects some of my friends and a child of one of my friends I am very, very testy about it. (The kid - no one should EVER see a six/seven-year-old suicidal, especially about something so trivial in the grand scheme of things as gender identity. I don't understand how a six-year-old could be so distressed about it - but she obviously was, and now living as a girl and having all her documents changed as made her a normal kid. So she hasn't had hormones or anything yet because she's too young obviously but she DOES live as a girl, all the kids in school know her as a girl, not as a boy, and now her identity paperwork shows her as a girl. So honestly it would be MORE confusing for her to use the boy's restroom since none of the other kids know she was born a boy.)

I didn't think you snapped at me. I have edited my posts a couple times and I think you missed my additional words. I do not know enough about this subject but this situation is different than say gay marriage. I can see this issue going down the road of ADA if the federal government gets involved. People will complain about who is using what bathroom and the federal government, in all their wisdom :roll:, will decide that gender neutral bathrooms must be a regulation. Once this happens the cost will be astronomical for an issue that was never an issue. JMHO and not intended to be inflammatory at all.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
8,502
redwood66|1487820196|4132431 said:
I didn't think you snapped at me. I have edited my posts a couple times and I think you missed my additional words. I do not know enough about this subject but this situation is different than say gay marriage. I can see this issue going down the road of ADA if the federal government gets involved. People will complain about who is using what bathroom and the federal government, in all their wisdom :roll:, will decide that gender neutral bathrooms must be a regulation. Once this happens the cost will be astronomical for an issue that was never an issue. JMHO and not intended to be inflammatory at all.
It became an issue when transgender kids were forced to use bathrooms that didn't conform to their gender identity. What costs are you referring to as being astronomical related to gender neutral bathrooms? Men's and women's restrooms already have stalls and all it takes to convert them to gender neutral is the cost of changing the sign on the door.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,326
Matata|1487820604|4132434 said:
redwood66|1487820196|4132431 said:
I didn't think you snapped at me. I have edited my posts a couple times and I think you missed my additional words. I do not know enough about this subject but this situation is different than say gay marriage. I can see this issue going down the road of ADA if the federal government gets involved. People will complain about who is using what bathroom and the federal government, in all their wisdom :roll:, will decide that gender neutral bathrooms must be a regulation. Once this happens the cost will be astronomical for an issue that was never an issue. JMHO and not intended to be inflammatory at all.
It became an issue when transgender kids were forced to use bathrooms that didn't conform to their gender identity. What costs are you referring to as being astronomical related to gender neutral bathrooms? Men's and women's restrooms already have stalls and all it takes to convert them to gender neutral is the cost of changing the sign on the door.

I already said that the bathroom bills are stupid. Public facilities are required to meet standards for the amount of business that is expected to use them. If you convert even one restroom in a building that has 3 sets of restrooms, you have now changed the capacity for the building. All new builds would be required to have 3 in each set of restrooms instead of two. That is what happens when you have regulations. Another example is a large arena or skyscraper that has umpteen sets of bathrooms, you can't just convert one of those to a gender neutral for multiple levels. Do you demand that women or men who identify with their natural born biological sex/gender use this bathroom? Some may but many will refuse to.

Edit - Many a time I used a men's bathroom at a club because the ladies had a frigging line 20 deep. I don't know if I would do that now days being the old lady that I am. :lol:
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top