Transgender bathroom rights are going down the toilet

[AGBF]

I've been going to a VA (Veterans Administration) Hospital with a friend a lot recently. There are always several restrooms in a corridor that accommodate only one person at a time that can be used by by either sex. I find that really comfortable. I think that is a great solution in any building (as is a family restroom) even if there have to be men's and women's rooms or unisex restrooms that accommodate more people at a time.

AGBF

 

[the_mother_thing]

I can't remember who asked about how Charlotte's ordinance 'kicked off' NC's HB2 law (Tekate or Part Gypsy?), but here is what I consider to be a local 'fair & balanced' article/editorial on that specific subject (not for/against the bill itself): http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article92685957.html

Excerpts:

But the idea for the law actually first took root quietly during July 2014 as two Charlotteans sat at Nova’s Bakery on Central Avenue, considering what more Charlotte might do to protect lesbians, gays and bisexual and transgender people from discrimination.
...
The civil rights protections Bishop suggested actually dated to February 2011, when it was announced Charlotte would host the Democratic National Convention. At the time, Bishop was on the board of MeckPAC, an LGBT lobbyist group.

“Charlotte didn’t have protections for LGBT people, and that’s a big part of the Democratic platform. We had to ask ourselves: ‘What are we going to do about it,’” Bishop recalls. “We (LGBT community activists) made a list of what we were lacking and what we thought we could achieve in Charlotte.”

It's not clear to me what the state laws said at the time, and what 'protections' they offered, but what is clear here is that this (Charlotte's ordinance) wasn't something sparked by 'average citizens' who personally felt they were being discriminated against who asked the city or state to address; rather, it was - as someone else stated - a 'solution looking for a problem' fueled by lobbyists with politically-driven agendas.

The changes proposed by Charlotte's ordinance:

▪ Adds marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the list of protected characteristics in the commercial nondiscrimination and passenger vehicle for hire ordinance.

▪ Adds those same five new categories to the list of protected characteristics that the Community Relations Committee is authorized to make recommendations for legislation or other actions to eliminate or reduce discrimination and to approve or disapprove plans to eliminate discrimination through the conciliation process.

▪ Changes the public accommodation ordinance to add “sex” and the five new characteristics to the general prohibition of discrimination and delete the current separate section dealing with discrimination based on sex in restaurants, hotels and motels.

TG/GI matters aside for a moment - and purely 'legally-speaking' - the issue Charlotte's ordinance created was establishing anti-discrimination laws that were not consistent throughout the state nor with state laws. Many in this thread (who oppose the 'bathroom bill') have said anti-discrimination laws should be the same across the country. The concept is the same here, but on a smaller, state level. NC state legislators had to pass HB2 to ensure anti-discrimination laws were consistent state-wide, not just when you hop in a cab or have to pee in Charlotte.

Specific to employment, the EEOC has (since 2012 I believe) interpreted/held that TG/GI persons are 'covered' by the CRA, and thus in employment-settings, they must not be discriminated against and must be permitted to use the restroom that coincides with their GI. So it would appear there already is/was employment 'protection' - at the Federal level.

Just wanted to share that to hopefully help others understand that NC was NOT aiming to be nor appear 'bigoted' as the left and MSM portrays; rather, it was ensuring anti-discrimination consistency across the state, and the requirement for local communities to defer/refer anti-discrimination laws to the state level for THAT purpose. Were there some who opposed Charlotte's ordinance and supported HB2 for 'bigoted' reasons? I'm sure there were. But that does not mean everyone who supports HB2 does so for those reasons, myself included. I want consistency & fairness.

I am an NC resident, and am not TG/GI, so it doesn't directly impact me. But in the same 'consistency' manner, there are other 'local' ordinances here that vary from county to county that are regulated by the state that do directly impact me if/when I travel around the state, and - like HB2 - I would like to see the state apply consistency in those areas as well vs have to conduct research into local ordinances when I cross county lines.

 

[OreoRosies86]

 

[telephone89]

Yep pretty much.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Transgender folks are the least of my (safety) concerns.

“Over and over again, women are told your abuse is not important, it’s not important to fund, it’s not important to protect. This is just one more way for us to know that our abuse doesn’t matter, that we’re not protected,” Simon said, adding:
...
Having been watched in the shower by her abuser, Triller Haver said it’s been “a gentle, slow process of healing” to use locker rooms again.

“I was a college athlete all growing up and I couldn’t even in college shower with my team,” she said. “So for me to use a locker room at all, that’s been a gentle, slow process of healing and I feel like that completely got stripped away.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/25/sexual-assault-victims-speak-out-against-washingtons-transgender-bathroom-policies/

Opponents of laws allowing opposite-sex public-facility use argue that they increase the danger of such attacks because they allow men, transgender or not, to enter women’s rooms unchallenged.

“I’m sure his intent was innocent,” said Susan Wright in a Friday post on the conservative website RedState. “I’m sure he really felt that he belonged in the women’s restroom and the little girl was somehow oppressing him, which caused the confusion, resulting in his hands ending up around her neck.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/man-who-choked-girl-in-womens-restroom-stokes-alar/

TORONTO - A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender.

The judge said he imposed the indefinite prison sentence because there’s a great risk that Hambrook will commit more sex crimes and require strict supervision if he returns to the community.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender

Charges were filed Tuesday against a man who wore a wig and women's clothing to disguise himself as he allegedly used a concealed camera to record "hours" of video of women in a Los Angeles-area department store restroom.
Jason Pomare, 33, of Palmdale, was arrested Saturday after customers contacted security officers at a Macy's store to report a man in the women's restroom. The security officers contacted a deputy, who was on patrol at the Antelope Valley Mall (map) when he saw a man matching the subject's description leave the store.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Secret-Recording-Store-Mall-Antelope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html

A man dressed as a woman was arrested in Virginia on Monday after police say he was caught peeping into restroom stalls three times in the past year.

Richard Rodriguez, 30, filmed a woman in a bathroom stall at the Potomac Mills Mall, Prince William County Police said on Tuesday. A 35-year-old woman was in the stall when she saw a bag moved toward her under the stall divider. Rodriguez apparently had been filming her, police said.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Dressed-as-Woman-Arrested-for-Spying-Into-Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html

 

[ruby59]

Jenn, so what you were afraid might happen IS happening, and men dressed as women are coming into the ladies room?

This is what would concern me in women's locker rooms or at beach bath houses as women and young girls are going from the showers to a changing room.

 

[redwood66]

Well strictly from a numbers and ratio standpoint, the number of sexual offenders in the US is infinitely higher than the number of transgenders using the women's bathroom. Therefore the likelihood is quite high that degenerate criminals would do it. But that is just from a numbers standpoint and experience reading hundreds of of criminal records, including the most heinous sexual ones, over 2 decades. Nah, it'll be ok, probably, most likely.

 

[ruby59]

Well strictly from a numbers and ratio standpoint, the number of sexual offenders in the US is infinitely higher than the number of transgenders using the women's bathroom. Therefore the likelihood is quite high that degenerate criminals would do it. But that is just from a numbers standpoint and experience reading hundreds of of criminal records, including the most heinous sexual ones, over 2 decades. Nah, it'll be ok, probably, most likely.

When my two girls use the woman's rest room or shower and change after working out at the gym, as their mom, "probably" and "most likely" is not comforting.

 

[mary poppins]

Supreme Court Rejects Gavin Grimm’s Transgender Bathroom Rights Case
by PETE WILLIAMS

In a blow to advocates of transgender rights, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it would not hear the case of a transgender high school student fighting to use the bathroom of his choice.

The court also wiped off the books a lower court ruling in favor of the student, Gavin Grimm, who said federal law allowed him to use school restrooms matching his gender identity.

"This is a detour, not the end of the road," said the ACLU's Joshua Block, who represented Grimm.

The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear the case on March 28. But last month, the Trump administration announced a change in policy on the transgender issue. The lower court had relied, in part, on an earlier version of that policy.

In light of the change, the Supreme Court asked lawyers involved in the case whether it should proceed, and both sides urged the court to hear the case.

But Monday's order, with no noted dissent, took the case off the court's calendar.

"It's not a loss, it's really just a temporary setback," said Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality.

She noted that a handful of cases involving a similar issue are now working their way through the federal courts.

Grimm's case came to the Supreme Court on an appeal from the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm. He was born female but began to identify as male after his freshman year. He legally changed his name and began hormone therapy.

The principal at first gave him permission to use the boys' bathroom, but the school board adopted a policy saying restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."

Grimm sued, claiming that the arrangement made him feel stigmatized and isolated, and the appeals court ruled in his favor. It said refusing to allow students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would violate a federal law known as Title IX that bans sex discrimination.

The ruling cited an Education Department letter that said "a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." The appeals court found that to be a reasonable interpretation of Title IX.

In February, the Trump administration rescinded the Education Department letter as well as guidance issued by the Obama administration to the nation's schools, warning them that failing to allow students to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity could cause them to lose their federal funds.

The Obama administration had also cited the court ruling in its transgender lawsuit against North Carolina's bathroom law.

Grimm's case now goes back to the Fourth Circuit. It, in turn, could sent the case back to the Virginia trial court.

"While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin's case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored," said the ACLU's Block.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-transgender-rights-case-n729556

 

[lovedogs]

Supreme Court Rejects Gavin Grimm’s Transgender Bathroom Rights Case
by PETE WILLIAMS

In a blow to advocates of transgender rights, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it would not hear the case of a transgender high school student fighting to use the bathroom of his choice.

The court also wiped off the books a lower court ruling in favor of the student, Gavin Grimm, who said federal law allowed him to use school restrooms matching his gender identity.

"This is a detour, not the end of the road," said the ACLU's Joshua Block, who represented Grimm.

The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear the case on March 28. But last month, the Trump administration announced a change in policy on the transgender issue. The lower court had relied, in part, on an earlier version of that policy.

In light of the change, the Supreme Court asked lawyers involved in the case whether it should proceed, and both sides urged the court to hear the case.

But Monday's order, with no noted dissent, took the case off the court's calendar.

"It's not a loss, it's really just a temporary setback," said Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality.

She noted that a handful of cases involving a similar issue are now working their way through the federal courts.

Grimm's case came to the Supreme Court on an appeal from the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm. He was born female but began to identify as male after his freshman year. He legally changed his name and began hormone therapy.

The principal at first gave him permission to use the boys' bathroom, but the school board adopted a policy saying restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."

Grimm sued, claiming that the arrangement made him feel stigmatized and isolated, and the appeals court ruled in his favor. It said refusing to allow students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would violate a federal law known as Title IX that bans sex discrimination.

The ruling cited an Education Department letter that said "a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." The appeals court found that to be a reasonable interpretation of Title IX.

In February, the Trump administration rescinded the Education Department letter as well as guidance issued by the Obama administration to the nation's schools, warning them that failing to allow students to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity could cause them to lose their federal funds.

The Obama administration had also cited the court ruling in its transgender lawsuit against North Carolina's bathroom law.

Grimm's case now goes back to the Fourth Circuit. It, in turn, could sent the case back to the Virginia trial court.

"While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin's case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored," said the ACLU's Block.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-transgender-rights-case-n729556

This was very disappointing for me to read this morning, but not surprising given that Trump just rescinded the title IX ruling. I hope that lower level courts rule in favor of Gavin, and that the rights of Trans individuals aren't rolled back as a consequence of Trump's actions.

 

[ruby59]

Supreme Court Rejects Gavin Grimm’s Transgender Bathroom Rights Case
by PETE WILLIAMS

In a blow to advocates of transgender rights, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it would not hear the case of a transgender high school student fighting to use the bathroom of his choice.

The court also wiped off the books a lower court ruling in favor of the student, Gavin Grimm, who said federal law allowed him to use school restrooms matching his gender identity.

"This is a detour, not the end of the road," said the ACLU's Joshua Block, who represented Grimm.

The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear the case on March 28. But last month, the Trump administration announced a change in policy on the transgender issue. The lower court had relied, in part, on an earlier version of that policy.

In light of the change, the Supreme Court asked lawyers involved in the case whether it should proceed, and both sides urged the court to hear the case.

But Monday's order, with no noted dissent, took the case off the court's calendar.

"It's not a loss, it's really just a temporary setback," said Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality.

She noted that a handful of cases involving a similar issue are now working their way through the federal courts.

Grimm's case came to the Supreme Court on an appeal from the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm. He was born female but began to identify as male after his freshman year. He legally changed his name and began hormone therapy.

The principal at first gave him permission to use the boys' bathroom, but the school board adopted a policy saying restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."

Grimm sued, claiming that the arrangement made him feel stigmatized and isolated, and the appeals court ruled in his favor. It said refusing to allow students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would violate a federal law known as Title IX that bans sex discrimination.

The ruling cited an Education Department letter that said "a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." The appeals court found that to be a reasonable interpretation of Title IX.

In February, the Trump administration rescinded the Education Department letter as well as guidance issued by the Obama administration to the nation's schools, warning them that failing to allow students to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity could cause them to lose their federal funds.

The Obama administration had also cited the court ruling in its transgender lawsuit against North Carolina's bathroom law.

Grimm's case now goes back to the Fourth Circuit. It, in turn, could sent the case back to the Virginia trial court.

"While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin's case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored," said the ACLU's Block.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-transgender-rights-case-n729556

This was very disappointing for me to read this morning, but not surprising given that Trump just rescinded the title IX ruling. I hope that lower level courts rule in favor of Gavin, and that the rights of Trans individuals aren't rolled back as a consequence of Trump's actions.

Did you not read what was posted above that men are taking advantage of this? Yes, I agree they are most likely straight, but still it would give someone, especially one with young daughters, pause for concern?

 

[telephone89]

Ruby, men (and women) have been "voyeuring" long before this law was in place. Adding transgenders to a federal law that protects them from discrimination is not the place to address this issue. Taking away transgenders rights isn't going to stop this. It's only going to hurt vulnerable people.

eta - Half the articles that Jenn posted were from before this law even happened. So yeah, obviously people have 'thought' of this stuff before.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby, men (and women) have been "voyeuring" long before this law was in place. Adding transgenders to a federal law that protects them from discrimination is not the place to address this issue. Taking away transgenders rights isn't going to stop this. It's only going to hurt vulnerable people.

eta - Half the articles that Jenn posted were from before this law even happened. So yeah, obviously people have 'thought' of this stuff before.

Yes I have read articles about males putting cameras on public toilets to catch women in the act.

But confronting a camera is not the same as a male up to no good in there with you.


Big venues would be a problem. Not sure how they would handle it.

But for smaller places, a good example is Starbucks.

My local one has four separate self contained rest rooms containing a toilet and sink with a mirror in each.

You go in, lock your door, do your business, and leave.

 

[telephone89]

Yes I have read articles about males putting cameras on public toilets to catch women in the act.

But confronting a camera is not the same as a male up to no good in there with you.


Big venues would be a problem. Not sure how they would handle it.

But for smaller places, a good example is Starbucks.

My local one has four separate self contained rest rooms containing a toilet and sink with a mirror in each.

You go in, lock your door, do your business, and leave.

Probably the same way they've been doing it for years. Let people decide which bathroom they'd like to use. If something happens, let the authorities deal with it. Transgenders have been using the bathroom of their choice for years. Just because now they (were) federally protected didn't change that. It's just brought more attention to it.

 

[ruby59]

Yes I have read articles about males putting cameras on public toilets to catch women in the act.

But confronting a camera is not the same as a male up to no good in there with you.


Big venues would be a problem. Not sure how they would handle it.

But for smaller places, a good example is Starbucks.

My local one has four separate self contained rest rooms containing a toilet and sink with a mirror in each.

You go in, lock your door, do your business, and leave.

Probably the same way they've been doing it for years. Let people decide which bathroom they'd like to use. If something happens, let the authorities deal with it. Transgenders have been using the bathroom of their choice for years. Just because now they (were) federally protected didn't change that. It's just brought more attention to it.

Not sure what happened in the past, I am more concerned about the here and now and that some males are using it to their advantage.

And I am not comfortable with letting one of them traumatize a young girl and then see what happens, especially that in a couple of months on the East Coast the beaches and bath houses will be opening up.

 

[lovedogs]

Ignoring the rights of transgender people just because bad people "might take advantage of the rule!" is nonsense. Same argument as, "MEN SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO USE PUBLIC BATHROOMS BECAUSE SOME MIGHT SPY ON PEOPLE!" To violate rights of an entire group based on certain people doing bad things (which they will continue doing), is a straw man argument used by people who dont want to see trans individuals (and other groups) get the rights they deserve.

 

[ruby59]

Ignoring the rights of transgender people just because bad people "might take advantage of the rule!" is nonsense. Same argument as, "MEN SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO USE PUBLIC BATHROOMS BECAUSE SOME MIGHT SPY ON PEOPLE!" To violate rights of an entire group based on certain people doing bad things (which they will continue doing), is a straw man argument used by people who dont want to see trans individuals (and other groups) get the rights they deserve.

Where am I saying that transgenders should keep the h*ll out of women's rest rooms and locker rooms.

But I am saying that we have to figure out a compromise that will work for everyone involved.

 

[telephone89]

This was a comment on the first article that Jenn posted. This article was women who had been sexually assaulted (by cis males), and do not feel that transgenders should be allowed in their choice of bathrooms, but rather their genetalia bathroom.

Difficult to respond to this. I don't want to belittle these women or downplay what they went through. Sexual abuse is a terrible crime. In my opinion it's worse than murder.

That being said, the testimonies by these courageous women actually proves the point proponents for transgender rights are making. All these women experienced very bad things while the strict rules and gender segregation were in place. They weren't protected by it. The men who abused them came in and did what they wanted to do anyway. And some of them were supposed to be there as teachers so they will have access no matter what.

So, without meaning to, they are actually backing up the law in the state of Washington because no protection came to these women from gender segregation while a lot of damage is being done to transgenders due to it. And of course the entire discussion is causing them discomfort. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand but with the discussion itself. One of the women even stated she refused to use the lockerroom as a student in college because she felt vulnerable and uncomfortable there. Having transgenders in their bathrooms and lockerrooms won't change that.

I just hope these women will be treated with some dignity and respect but I fear they won't be. On one thing I have to agree with relgious conservatives: LGBTs are not known for their respect towards those who oppose us. And while in most cases that is warranted I sincerely hope my fellow LGBTs will go easy on these women. We should not burn them or brand them just as conservatives should not put them in the line of fire. Let's agree to try and keep these women safe, at least from all of us.

 

[ruby59]

Ignoring the rights of transgender people just because bad people "might take advantage of the rule!" is nonsense. Same argument as, "MEN SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO USE PUBLIC BATHROOMS BECAUSE SOME MIGHT SPY ON PEOPLE!" To violate rights of an entire group based on certain people doing bad things (which they will continue doing), is a straw man argument used by people who dont want to see trans individuals (and other groups) get the rights they deserve.

Where am I saying that transgenders should keep the h*ll out of women's rest rooms and locker rooms.

But I am saying that we have to figure out a compromise that will work for everyone involved.

I am also the person who wrote that I ended up in a public women's rest room with a transgender male and it was a total non issue.

What I am saying is that now that I have seen Jenn's articles, I now have pause for concern.

To be honest, I am not worried about myself. If a male dared to look at me he would get a Poise shoved up his nose. In other words I can take care of myself.

But I am not going to dismiss the rights of other women who may be severely traumatized by this.

 

[Tekate]

Supreme Court Rejects Gavin Grimm’s Transgender Bathroom Rights Case
by PETE WILLIAMS

In a blow to advocates of transgender rights, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it would not hear the case of a transgender high school student fighting to use the bathroom of his choice.

The court also wiped off the books a lower court ruling in favor of the student, Gavin Grimm, who said federal law allowed him to use school restrooms matching his gender identity.

"This is a detour, not the end of the road," said the ACLU's Joshua Block, who represented Grimm.

The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear the case on March 28. But last month, the Trump administration announced a change in policy on the transgender issue. The lower court had relied, in part, on an earlier version of that policy.

In light of the change, the Supreme Court asked lawyers involved in the case whether it should proceed, and both sides urged the court to hear the case.

But Monday's order, with no noted dissent, took the case off the court's calendar.

"It's not a loss, it's really just a temporary setback," said Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality.

She noted that a handful of cases involving a similar issue are now working their way through the federal courts.

Grimm's case came to the Supreme Court on an appeal from the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm. He was born female but began to identify as male after his freshman year. He legally changed his name and began hormone therapy.

The principal at first gave him permission to use the boys' bathroom, but the school board adopted a policy saying restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."

Grimm sued, claiming that the arrangement made him feel stigmatized and isolated, and the appeals court ruled in his favor. It said refusing to allow students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would violate a federal law known as Title IX that bans sex discrimination.

The ruling cited an Education Department letter that said "a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." The appeals court found that to be a reasonable interpretation of Title IX.

In February, the Trump administration rescinded the Education Department letter as well as guidance issued by the Obama administration to the nation's schools, warning them that failing to allow students to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity could cause them to lose their federal funds.

The Obama administration had also cited the court ruling in its transgender lawsuit against North Carolina's bathroom law.

Grimm's case now goes back to the Fourth Circuit. It, in turn, could sent the case back to the Virginia trial court.

"While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin's case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored," said the ACLU's Block.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-transgender-rights-case-n729556

This was very disappointing for me to read this morning, but not surprising given that Trump just rescinded the title IX ruling. I hope that lower level courts rule in favor of Gavin, and that the rights of Trans individuals aren't rolled back as a consequence of Trump's actions.

Did you not read what was posted above that men are taking advantage of this? Yes, I agree they are most likely straight, but still it would give someone, especially one with young daughters, pause for concern?

I don't have daughters have a soon to be DIL and I would not be worried, Jeez, what are the chances that a guy dressed up as a chick is going to be in Walmart dressing room? Living in fear all the time must be hard for you... anyone who approaches your car do you think they are going to carjack you? Me, I don't think I'm that special.. it could happen, but then again I could be hit by a meteor, a dog could attack me, I could be shot in a movie theater.. lotsa things.. I cannot and will not live in that fear NOPE.

You understand that transgender is NOT a rapist, or a pedophile, but a person who was born in one body but feels morally, spiritually, intellectually and honestly that they are of the opposite sex.. Why can't people stay out of women's bodies, transgendered people? ? don't we have enough to worry about with Muslim terrorists on every corner of America waiting to blow you and I up? whatever happened to: mind your own business? alt rights live in such fear very sad.

 

[ruby59]

Supreme Court Rejects Gavin Grimm’s Transgender Bathroom Rights Case
by PETE WILLIAMS

In a blow to advocates of transgender rights, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it would not hear the case of a transgender high school student fighting to use the bathroom of his choice.

The court also wiped off the books a lower court ruling in favor of the student, Gavin Grimm, who said federal law allowed him to use school restrooms matching his gender identity.

"This is a detour, not the end of the road," said the ACLU's Joshua Block, who represented Grimm.

The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear the case on March 28. But last month, the Trump administration announced a change in policy on the transgender issue. The lower court had relied, in part, on an earlier version of that policy.

In light of the change, the Supreme Court asked lawyers involved in the case whether it should proceed, and both sides urged the court to hear the case.

But Monday's order, with no noted dissent, took the case off the court's calendar.

"It's not a loss, it's really just a temporary setback," said Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality.

She noted that a handful of cases involving a similar issue are now working their way through the federal courts.

Grimm's case came to the Supreme Court on an appeal from the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm. He was born female but began to identify as male after his freshman year. He legally changed his name and began hormone therapy.

The principal at first gave him permission to use the boys' bathroom, but the school board adopted a policy saying restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."

Grimm sued, claiming that the arrangement made him feel stigmatized and isolated, and the appeals court ruled in his favor. It said refusing to allow students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would violate a federal law known as Title IX that bans sex discrimination.

The ruling cited an Education Department letter that said "a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." The appeals court found that to be a reasonable interpretation of Title IX.

In February, the Trump administration rescinded the Education Department letter as well as guidance issued by the Obama administration to the nation's schools, warning them that failing to allow students to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity could cause them to lose their federal funds.

The Obama administration had also cited the court ruling in its transgender lawsuit against North Carolina's bathroom law.

Grimm's case now goes back to the Fourth Circuit. It, in turn, could sent the case back to the Virginia trial court.

"While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin's case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored," said the ACLU's Block.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-transgender-rights-case-n729556

This was very disappointing for me to read this morning, but not surprising given that Trump just rescinded the title IX ruling. I hope that lower level courts rule in favor of Gavin, and that the rights of Trans individuals aren't rolled back as a consequence of Trump's actions.

Did you not read what was posted above that men are taking advantage of this? Yes, I agree they are most likely straight, but still it would give someone, especially one with young daughters, pause for concern?

I don't have daughters have a soon to be DIL and I would not be worried, Jeez, what are the chances that a guy dressed up as a chick is going to be in Walmart dressing room? Living in fear all the time must be hard for you... anyone who approaches your car do you think they are going to carjack you? Me, I don't think I'm that special.. it could happen, but then again I could be hit by a meteor, a dog could attack me, I could be shot in a movie theater.. lotsa things.. I cannot and will not live in that fear NOPE.

You understand that transgender is NOT a rapist, or a pedophile, but a person who was born in one body but feels morally, spiritually, intellectually and honestly that they are of the opposite sex.. Why can't people stay out of women's bodies, transgendered people? ? don't we have enough to worry about with Muslim terrorists on every corner of America waiting to blow you and I up? whatever happened to: mind your own business? alt rights live in such fear very sad.

First, stop making it about me. I posted above that I can handle myself. But I am not going to make blanket statements about other women.

As far as me maybe meeting a man in drag in Wamart is a moot issue as Jenn has shown that it is already happening. Shoud those women just get over it?

Again, read what I post. I am aware of who is who, transgender, pedophile, rapist- but that is not the point. It is not the transgender man I am concerned about as I already indicated I peed with one in the lady's room. I am concerned more with the man in drag who may be in there as well, especially in public bathrooms at rest stops or gas stations - less populated areas then that of a restaurant where a woman would be at his mercy.

As far as the statement you made about Muslim terrorists and things blowing up, I posted that the Boston Marathon hit close to home for me. So please do not go there.

I was taught and have taught my children to mind their own business but to also be aware of their surroundings. To do otherwise, is foolish and very unsafe.

 

[telephone89]

Ruby;
First, your terminology is incorrect. The person you peed with would be a transgender woman.
Second, men have been dressing in drag for years. What does this bill have anything to do with that?

 

[ruby59]

Ruby;
First, your terminology is incorrect. The person you peed with would be a transgender woman.
Second, men have been dressing in drag for years. What does this bill have anything to do with that?

Thank you for the correction. I thought it was the other way around.

As to the second.

A transgender woman has absolutely nothing to do with a man in drag.

Just like a poor woman with children from Syria has nothing to do with an extremist.

Unfortunately, the bad slip through with the good, potentially making it dangerous for all the innocent people involved.

 

[the_mother_thing]

If something happens, let the authorities deal with it.

Why isn't that same argument acceptable for those saying transgender people may be assaulted or harassed in their 'sex-assigned' facility?

Living in fear all the time must be hard for you... anyone who approaches your car do you think they are going to carjack you?

As someone who has been carjacked, I frequently experience moments of anxiety/panic if someone approaches me at/near my vehicle in an odd manor/behavior. It's not something I can control ... that doesn't make it any less real or impactful to me. But I know ... my feelings don't matter, given I am a conservative and all.

You understand that transgender is NOT a rapist, or a pedophile, but a person who was born in one body but feels morally, spiritually, intellectually and honestly that they are of the opposite sex.. Why can't people stay out of women's bodies, transgendered people? ? don't we have enough to worry about with Muslim terrorists on every corner of America waiting to blow you and I up? whatever happened to: mind your own business? alt rights live in such fear very sad.

I don't personally fear TG people or associate them with pedophiles, perverts, etc; it's the actual pedophiles and perverts who will AND HAVE leveraged the expanded access to do wrong. It's kind of ridiculous that a registered sex offender cannot be or live within so many feet of a school, but you want to enable them to legally mosey on into a restroom with children at the YMCA, Outback Steakhouse, Target, etc.

 

[AGBF]

It's kind of ridiculous that a registered sex offender cannot be or live within so many feet of a school, but you want to enable them to legally mosey on into a restroom with children at the YMCA, Outback Steakhouse, Target, etc.

How would pedophiles who are barred from being near children be affected by the gender marked or not marked on a restroom door? Young children are young regardless of sex. (BTW, the kindergarten bathroom in my daughter's classroom had one toilet and was unisex.I will always remember that I hoped I wouldn't be called a child molester by some little boy who needed me to zip up or unzip his zipper when I took him to the bathroom while I was doing cafeteria duty.)

AGBF

 

[E B]

You understand that transgender is NOT a rapist, or a pedophile, but a person who was born in one body but feels morally, spiritually, intellectually and honestly that they are of the opposite sex.. Why can't people stay out of women's bodies, transgendered people? ? don't we have enough to worry about with Muslim terrorists on every corner of America waiting to blow you and I up? whatever happened to: mind your own business? alt rights live in such fear very sad.

I don't personally fear TG people or associate them with pedophiles, perverts, etc; it's the actual pedophiles and perverts who will AND HAVE leveraged the expanded access to do wrong. It's kind of ridiculous that a registered sex offender cannot be or live within so many feet of a school, but you want to enable them to legally mosey on into a restroom with children at the YMCA, Outback Steakhouse, Target, etc.

Well, pedophiles and perverts already use the same restrooms as children- just, generally, boy children. And no pedo who puts a wig on is going to be excused from peeping at/exposing himself to/hurting a child just because he's wearing a wig. How do parents of male children- or female children- know the sexual proclivities of the person in the next stall? I have two young boys and the older one is able to go alone, but I'm always outside, and he knows that if anyone tries to touch him, he SCREAMS and RUNS. There's really not much else you can do other than check each person's criminal record upon entry, right?

The whole idea of risk of one taking the rights away from a group even more at risk is a slippery slope (and I apologize if this has already been said, this is a LONG thread!), because children are at a MUCH higher risk of being attacked by someone they know. So should men- uncles, cousins, brothers, family friends- be allowed to be alone with children? Priests?

Of course, there are always exceptions, but the idea that putting on a wig and molesting a child whose parent is literally standing outside being a good idea is kind of crazy, which is why children are much more at risk in a situation where they're comfortable, trusting, alone for long stretches. None of which a bathroom situation is. Transgender PEOPLE are at a much higher risk in this scenario.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It's kind of ridiculous that a registered sex offender cannot be or live within so many feet of a school, but you want to enable them to legally mosey on into a restroom with children at the YMCA, Outback Steakhouse, Target, etc.

How would pedophiles who are barred from being near children be affected by the gender marked or not marked on a restroom door? Young children are young regardless of sex.

Sex offenders are not banned from shopping malls, farmers markets, restaurants, grocery stores, and workout facilities. These all have restrooms/locker rooms/dressing rooms, and are public places where they are allowed to go. And there are also kids in these places, who also use those same facilities. I'm not interested in protecting sex offenders; rather, proactively protecting their targets/potential victims.

I know a sign/piece of paper will not keep them out if they really want to go in, but by having a law like HB2, it does add to the list of charges if/when they do. If you disagree, then explain the left's logic behind 'gun-free zones'.

 

[E B]

I wanted to add to my last point that they're not just at risk of being attacked, but also the pretty constant fear of humilation or anticipation of any confrontation, mild or extreme, that contributes to the incredibly high rate of suicide. I shared this elsewhere in this thread but again: I read that 1 in 3 transgender people don't eat or drink when they go out for fear of what they'll encounter in a public bathroom. It's awful.

 

[E B]

Has this info been posted yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-ass...ns-debunk-bathroom-predator/story?id=38604019

The lawmakers’ justification does not take into account that men can also be victims of sexual assault and harassment in public bathrooms and changing rooms. Transgender men who have had to use female restrooms due to such laws “experience a ton of violence in women’s restroom and are told they don’t belong there,” Strangio said. “It usually leads to people not using the bathroom.”

Palumbo said she believes people “must understand the facts about sexual assault,” adding that in 8 out of 10 cases the victim already knows the person who sexually assaulted them, citing Justice Department statistics. However, 64 percent of transgender people will experience sexual assault in their lifetime, she said, citing a study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality.

 

[asscherisme]

Supreme Court Rejects Gavin Grimm’s Transgender Bathroom Rights Case
by PETE WILLIAMS

In a blow to advocates of transgender rights, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it would not hear the case of a transgender high school student fighting to use the bathroom of his choice.

The court also wiped off the books a lower court ruling in favor of the student, Gavin Grimm, who said federal law allowed him to use school restrooms matching his gender identity.

"This is a detour, not the end of the road," said the ACLU's Joshua Block, who represented Grimm.

The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear the case on March 28. But last month, the Trump administration announced a change in policy on the transgender issue. The lower court had relied, in part, on an earlier version of that policy.

In light of the change, the Supreme Court asked lawyers involved in the case whether it should proceed, and both sides urged the court to hear the case.

But Monday's order, with no noted dissent, took the case off the court's calendar.

"It's not a loss, it's really just a temporary setback," said Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality.

She noted that a handful of cases involving a similar issue are now working their way through the federal courts.

Grimm's case came to the Supreme Court on an appeal from the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm. He was born female but began to identify as male after his freshman year. He legally changed his name and began hormone therapy.

The principal at first gave him permission to use the boys' bathroom, but the school board adopted a policy saying restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."

Grimm sued, claiming that the arrangement made him feel stigmatized and isolated, and the appeals court ruled in his favor. It said refusing to allow students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would violate a federal law known as Title IX that bans sex discrimination.

The ruling cited an Education Department letter that said "a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." The appeals court found that to be a reasonable interpretation of Title IX.

In February, the Trump administration rescinded the Education Department letter as well as guidance issued by the Obama administration to the nation's schools, warning them that failing to allow students to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity could cause them to lose their federal funds.

The Obama administration had also cited the court ruling in its transgender lawsuit against North Carolina's bathroom law.

Grimm's case now goes back to the Fourth Circuit. It, in turn, could sent the case back to the Virginia trial court.

"While we're disappointed that the Supreme Court will not be hearing Gavin's case this term, the overwhelming level of support shown for Gavin and trans students by people across the country throughout this process shows that the American people have already moved in the right direction and that the rights of trans people cannot be ignored," said the ACLU's Block.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-transgender-rights-case-n729556

This was very disappointing for me to read this morning, but not surprising given that Trump just rescinded the title IX ruling. I hope that lower level courts rule in favor of Gavin, and that the rights of Trans individuals aren't rolled back as a consequence of Trump's actions.

Did you not read what was posted above that men are taking advantage of this? Yes, I agree they are most likely straight, but still it would give someone, especially one with young daughters, pause for concern?

I don't have daughters have a soon to be DIL and I would not be worried, Jeez, what are the chances that a guy dressed up as a chick is going to be in Walmart dressing room? Living in fear all the time must be hard for you... anyone who approaches your car do you think they are going to carjack you? Me, I don't think I'm that special.. it could happen, but then again I could be hit by a meteor, a dog could attack me, I could be shot in a movie theater.. lotsa things.. I cannot and will not live in that fear NOPE.

You understand that transgender is NOT a rapist, or a pedophile, but a person who was born in one body but feels morally, spiritually, intellectually and honestly that they are of the opposite sex.. Why can't people stay out of women's bodies, transgendered people? ? don't we have enough to worry about with Muslim terrorists on every corner of America waiting to blow you and I up? whatever happened to: mind your own business? alt rights live in such fear very sad.

I do have daughters and my opinion on transgendered women using the bathroom at the same time as my daughters is: Just let the women pee! If they are trangendered women, let them use the women's room. Saying that men will use it as an excuse to sneak into women's room is absurd and insult to transgendered women.

It saddened me that the supreme court is not going to hear the case and bumped it back down.

edited to add: I don't need conservatives getting on TV trying to protect my daughter's from transgendered women in the bathroom. I raised my kids to know that they don't need to be "protected" from someone just because their gender doesn't match the body they were born into.