Many places do not have a family restroom. While they may be common in large facilities, they are not so common in places like restaurants, bars, and smaller venues.
The ability to access a public washroom is a matter of public health, not of convenience. And when I say "force", I mean that if I used the ladies' room in NC, I would be breaking the law and could be forcibly removed and told to use the men's.
"Not being able to use the restroom I identify with makes me uncomfortable"
No, not exactly. Were I forced to use the men's room, I'd be at severe risk of harassment, assault or worse. The law is supposed to protect our safety. It doesn't guarantee our comfort. Which is why in this case, transgender people's right to safety trumps other people's wish not to be made uncomfortable.
That Daily Caller article refers to a stunt by some guy who did it explicitly to oppose laws that protect transgender people. So not much of an example.
The data from multiple jurisdictions show that these non-discrimination rules are simply not a problem in practice and any abuse is statistically insignificant.
And also, everyone's forgetting about trans guys. In North Carolina, this guy would be forced to use the ladies' room.
Wow. Now that all those Republican politicians and hypocritical evangelical Christians can't get to their porn, we'll see them really start to get cranky.
You conveniently ignore the fact that that incident took place before Toby's bill was passed giving trans people protection. So lack of a law offer no protection at all.
A man walking into a woman's restroom is doing just that.
Yes, except I'm not a man. Do you agree, then, with the NC law that will forcethis guy to use the ladies' room? Oh? You forgot there are female-to-male trans people?
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
When I go to the ladies' room, I'm not trampling anyone's rights. What the hell are you talking about?
I've had precisely one comment from a woman in a public washroom. And her comment was: "I really like your necklace."
And secondly: You and your ilk do not have the right to force me to risk my safety. You do not have the right to make it legal to deny LGBT people housing or employment.
Yes? The Seattle case was done as a stunt by a guy specifically protesting the law.
The Toronto case, as you say, happened even before the law existed... so not having the law offers women no protection whatsoever.
OK, now please tell us: In that time period, how many women were assaulted or harassed by "normal" guys who didn't claim to be trans? Hint: In Canada alone, over 400,000 per year.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
No-one's asking you to participate in anything. If you go into a public washroom and you encounter a transgender person there, here's my survival guide:
Step 1: Ignore him or her and go about your business.
Nobody is born a man or a woman. People are born boys and girls. But that's a minor quibble, because I'm not aware of a single jurisdiction in the US with the exception of NC and possibly now Mississippi that has ever said exactly what the rule is for which restroom you use. It was always based on unspoken common-sense rules: If you look like and present as a woman, you use the women's room, and similarly for men.
Obviously, the transgender woman (not man) should prevail. By forcing her to use the men's room, she has a significant risk of harassment or assault. US law guarantees the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
It does not guarantee the right to never feel slightly uncomfortable.
Oh, and in case you never learned it: Democracy does not equate to "majority rule". True democracy respects the will of the majority while at the same time putting in place institutions and laws to protect the rights of everyone, not just the majority. Even if 95% of Americans wanted to remove the right to vote from people whose names started with "Q", to actually do so would be highly undemocratic.
there is nothing about Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexuals in the debate
But there is. The law overturns all LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances in NC. People are just fixated on the bathroom issue because it's sensational and Americans have a completely fucked-up attitude towards sex, sexuality and the human body. They extrapolate everything to its most lurid extreme and puff themselves up with moral outrage while secretly fucking the altar boys on the side.
I live in a place with a population of over 10 million and a "use the bathroom you identify with" law. There have been no problems since the law was introduced 4 years ago. I mean zero, none, nada.
OK, if "any pervert" can claim that, please cite cases. Many jurisdictions (Ontario, Canada; California, USA, etc.) have similar non-discrimination ordinances like the one struck down in Charlotte. Ontario has had it for almost 4 years.
Find a case of "any pervert" abusing the law by pretending to be transgender. Go on. Try.
A lot of transsexuals never have "the surgery", whatever you think "the surgery" is. But they still look like the gender they present as and would be far more at home in a washroom that matches their gender expression than one that matches their genitalia.
For example, the NC law would forcethis man to use the women's restroom. And it would forcethis woman to use the men's room.
And what's even more ironic is that while male-to-female transsexuals are pretty much all over the map as far as sexual orientation goes, the vast majority of female-to-male transsexuals are attracted to women, so they've just been thrown a license to party in the ladies' room!
Also a prominent Broadway composer has banned his works from being performed in NC. I'm very heartened by this; the boycott movement might actually get legs and make NC think twice.
Unfortunately, Mississippi has passed an even more egregious law than the one in NC. The Mississippi law basically makes it legal to fire LGBT people and refuse them housing.
What the hell is going on in the Bible Belt? Are these people insane?
We do this [subverting the law with restrictive regulations] with everythng. And the people doing it clearly campained in the elections they would be doing that
In a democratic society, you cannot take away people's civil rights even if you have a popular mandate. Abortion is legal in the United States; this was decided by the Supreme Court. The Court decided in a 7-2 vote that women have a Constitutional right to privacy when deciding to terminate their pregnancies. Removing this right (a constitutional right, as decided by the court) through regulations is simply undermining the democratic process.
If you still don't see that, imagine if it were left-wing lawmakers applying restrictive regulations to guns and ammunition and see how many people would cry foul. Well, it's the same principle.
Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day.
Actually, no. No he can not. Voyeurism, harassment and rape are all illegal, you know. Staying out of my life and letting me go to the bathroom I look most appropriate in doesn't magically legalize rape. And yes, it is a myth that the rules will be abused.
...you are yet to explain, why Evangelicals are especially responsible for the decision you dislike
They are the driving force behind these sorts of discriminatory laws, many of which are couched in the language of "religious freedom", a point I mentioned but you ignored.
Am I insane because I identify as a woman? No, I'm not. Believe me, I've talked to psychologists and counselors and no-one has thought I was anything but sane. Furthermore, I function very well in society, running a company successfully, employing people, providing for my family, contributing to my community, paying taxes and being a good citizen. The fact that my gender identity doesn't match my biological sex is just one facet of who I am. You want a definition of a "man" or "woman"? Well, it depends if you're talking about sex or gender, which are two different things. It's also the case that one's brain can be a different sex from one's body; Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain and that the brains of transgender people are in many ways closer to the sex they identify as than the sex one naively expects from their chromosomes. All this is to say that sex and gender are more complex than you make out.
Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.
We are not asking for special treatment. What's special? We just want to be left in peace. And in the context of the bills in the USA, LGBT people simply want the right not to be refused housing, employment or accommodation because of who they are - exactly the protections enjoyed by every other person in the US.
...I deem this particular contention self-evident...
People who vehemently contend something do usually see it as self-evident... that's hardly exciting news.
But the hormones and genitalia make the sexes rather distinctly and obviously different — hopefully, you agree
No, not really. There are physical differences, to be sure, but they are relatively superficial. The same undifferentiated fetal genitalia can go either way, and structures are reused. What becomes the labia in females becomes the scrotum in males. What becomes the clitoris in females becomes the glans in males. Nature is pretty efficient at code reuse.
Forged into your brain"? Is that a scientific term too
Indeed. Did you read the papers on Dick Swaab's brain-bank studies of the brains of transgender people? Go read them.
I fail to see, how the demand, that people with penises use the male bathroom, is in any way "anti-LGBT"
It is for a number of reasons. It puts transgender people at risk without increasing anyone else's safety. Also, people forget about transgender men and forget that the law would force people like this guy to use the ladies' room. I don't know about you, but I think one's general presentation is far more likely to make people comfortable or uncomfortable than the presence or lack of a penis, particularly because anyone who scrutinizes genitalia in a public restroom is somewhat creepy at best. Finally, bills such as the North Carolina one use the scary "bathroom issue" to get passed, but it also contained provisions explicitly banning local LGBT non-discrimination ordinances (not just T, but LGBT) and also contained a provision setting the minimum wage. So we see the cynical manipulation of people's irrational fears by the religious right to push their agenda, even if parts of the agenda are totally unrelated to the fear-mongering.
My contention — about inseparability of religious beliefs from a politician's job stands.
Your contention, as I wrote before, can be made as much as you want. It doesn't make it a fact. Arguing by strenuous contention isn't proof of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
A democracy respects the rights of all minorities. The numbers are not relevant.
The women's safety is not at risk, as all the data show.
Basically, you're asking me to put myself in real danger in order to avoid other people being made uncomfortable because of ungrounded fear.
Many places do not have a family restroom. While they may be common in large facilities, they are not so common in places like restaurants, bars, and smaller venues.
The ability to access a public washroom is a matter of public health, not of convenience. And when I say "force", I mean that if I used the ladies' room in NC, I would be breaking the law and could be forcibly removed and told to use the men's.
"Not being able to use the restroom I identify with makes me uncomfortable"
No, not exactly. Were I forced to use the men's room, I'd be at severe risk of harassment, assault or worse. The law is supposed to protect our safety. It doesn't guarantee our comfort. Which is why in this case, transgender people's right to safety trumps other people's wish not to be made uncomfortable.
That Daily Caller article refers to a stunt by some guy who did it explicitly to oppose laws that protect transgender people. So not much of an example.
The data from multiple jurisdictions show that these non-discrimination rules are simply not a problem in practice and any abuse is statistically insignificant.
And also, everyone's forgetting about trans guys. In North Carolina, this guy would be forced to use the ladies' room.
Wow. Now that all those Republican politicians and hypocritical evangelical Christians can't get to their porn, we'll see them really start to get cranky.
You conveniently ignore the fact that that incident took place before Toby's bill was passed giving trans people protection. So lack of a law offer no protection at all.
A man walking into a woman's restroom is doing just that.
Yes, except I'm not a man. Do you agree, then, with the NC law that will force this guy to use the ladies' room? Oh? You forgot there are female-to-male trans people?
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
When I go to the ladies' room, I'm not trampling anyone's rights. What the hell are you talking about?
I've had precisely one comment from a woman in a public washroom. And her comment was: "I really like your necklace."
And secondly: You and your ilk do not have the right to force me to risk my safety. You do not have the right to make it legal to deny LGBT people housing or employment.
Yes? The Seattle case was done as a stunt by a guy specifically protesting the law.
The Toronto case, as you say, happened even before the law existed... so not having the law offers women no protection whatsoever.
OK, now please tell us: In that time period, how many women were assaulted or harassed by "normal" guys who didn't claim to be trans? Hint: In Canada alone, over 400,000 per year.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
No-one's asking you to participate in anything. If you go into a public washroom and you encounter a transgender person there, here's my survival guide:
Step 1: Ignore him or her and go about your business.
Step 2: See Step 1.
So your wife has bought into the bullshit fear-mongering. Lucky you and lucky her.
The South is wacko. This book should be required reading.
Nobody is born a man or a woman. People are born boys and girls. But that's a minor quibble, because I'm not aware of a single jurisdiction in the US with the exception of NC and possibly now Mississippi that has ever said exactly what the rule is for which restroom you use. It was always based on unspoken common-sense rules: If you look like and present as a woman, you use the women's room, and similarly for men.
Obviously, the transgender woman (not man) should prevail. By forcing her to use the men's room, she has a significant risk of harassment or assault. US law guarantees the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
It does not guarantee the right to never feel slightly uncomfortable.
Oh, and in case you never learned it: Democracy does not equate to "majority rule". True democracy respects the will of the majority while at the same time putting in place institutions and laws to protect the rights of everyone, not just the majority. Even if 95% of Americans wanted to remove the right to vote from people whose names started with "Q", to actually do so would be highly undemocratic.
there is nothing about Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexuals in the debate
But there is. The law overturns all LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances in NC. People are just fixated on the bathroom issue because it's sensational and Americans have a completely fucked-up attitude towards sex, sexuality and the human body. They extrapolate everything to its most lurid extreme and puff themselves up with moral outrage while secretly fucking the altar boys on the side.
I live in a place with a population of over 10 million and a "use the bathroom you identify with" law. There have been no problems since the law was introduced 4 years ago. I mean zero, none, nada.
OK, if "any pervert" can claim that, please cite cases. Many jurisdictions (Ontario, Canada; California, USA, etc.) have similar non-discrimination ordinances like the one struck down in Charlotte. Ontario has had it for almost 4 years.
Find a case of "any pervert" abusing the law by pretending to be transgender. Go on. Try.
Nothing at all is wrong with that "cultural suggestion" system. But it doesn't feed the fear that feeds the religious RIght's voter base.
A lot of transsexuals never have "the surgery", whatever you think "the surgery" is. But they still look like the gender they present as and would be far more at home in a washroom that matches their gender expression than one that matches their genitalia.
For example, the NC law would force this man to use the women's restroom. And it would force this woman to use the men's room.
And what's even more ironic is that while male-to-female transsexuals are pretty much all over the map as far as sexual orientation goes, the vast majority of female-to-male transsexuals are attracted to women, so they've just been thrown a license to party in the ladies' room!
Also a prominent Broadway composer has banned his works from being performed in NC. I'm very heartened by this; the boycott movement might actually get legs and make NC think twice.
Unfortunately, Mississippi has passed an even more egregious law than the one in NC. The Mississippi law basically makes it legal to fire LGBT people and refuse them housing.
What the hell is going on in the Bible Belt? Are these people insane?
We do this [subverting the law with restrictive regulations] with everythng. And the people doing it clearly campained in the elections they would be doing that
In a democratic society, you cannot take away people's civil rights even if you have a popular mandate. Abortion is legal in the United States; this was decided by the Supreme Court. The Court decided in a 7-2 vote that women have a Constitutional right to privacy when deciding to terminate their pregnancies. Removing this right (a constitutional right, as decided by the court) through regulations is simply undermining the democratic process.
If you still don't see that, imagine if it were left-wing lawmakers applying restrictive regulations to guns and ammunition and see how many people would cry foul. Well, it's the same principle.
Sure. And it all happens long before birth.
So? So what?
Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day.
Actually, no. No he can not. Voyeurism, harassment and rape are all illegal, you know. Staying out of my life and letting me go to the bathroom I look most appropriate in doesn't magically legalize rape. And yes, it is a myth that the rules will be abused.
They are the driving force behind these sorts of discriminatory laws, many of which are couched in the language of "religious freedom", a point I mentioned but you ignored.
Am I insane because I identify as a woman? No, I'm not. Believe me, I've talked to psychologists and counselors and no-one has thought I was anything but sane. Furthermore, I function very well in society, running a company successfully, employing people, providing for my family, contributing to my community, paying taxes and being a good citizen. The fact that my gender identity doesn't match my biological sex is just one facet of who I am. You want a definition of a "man" or "woman"? Well, it depends if you're talking about sex or gender, which are two different things. It's also the case that one's brain can be a different sex from one's body; Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain and that the brains of transgender people are in many ways closer to the sex they identify as than the sex one naively expects from their chromosomes. All this is to say that sex and gender are more complex than you make out.
Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.
We are not asking for special treatment. What's special? We just want to be left in peace. And in the context of the bills in the USA, LGBT people simply want the right not to be refused housing, employment or accommodation because of who they are - exactly the protections enjoyed by every other person in the US.
People who vehemently contend something do usually see it as self-evident... that's hardly exciting news.
But the hormones and genitalia make the sexes rather distinctly and obviously different — hopefully, you agree
No, not really. There are physical differences, to be sure, but they are relatively superficial. The same undifferentiated fetal genitalia can go either way, and structures are reused. What becomes the labia in females becomes the scrotum in males. What becomes the clitoris in females becomes the glans in males. Nature is pretty efficient at code reuse.
Forged into your brain"? Is that a scientific term too
Indeed. Did you read the papers on Dick Swaab's brain-bank studies of the brains of transgender people? Go read them.
I fail to see, how the demand, that people with penises use the male bathroom, is in any way "anti-LGBT"
It is for a number of reasons. It puts transgender people at risk without increasing anyone else's safety. Also, people forget about transgender men and forget that the law would force people like this guy to use the ladies' room. I don't know about you, but I think one's general presentation is far more likely to make people comfortable or uncomfortable than the presence or lack of a penis, particularly because anyone who scrutinizes genitalia in a public restroom is somewhat creepy at best. Finally, bills such as the North Carolina one use the scary "bathroom issue" to get passed, but it also contained provisions explicitly banning local LGBT non-discrimination ordinances (not just T, but LGBT) and also contained a provision setting the minimum wage. So we see the cynical manipulation of people's irrational fears by the religious right to push their agenda, even if parts of the agenda are totally unrelated to the fear-mongering.
My contention — about inseparability of religious beliefs from a politician's job stands.
Your contention, as I wrote before, can be made as much as you want. It doesn't make it a fact. Arguing by strenuous contention isn't proof of anything.