Have You Noticed any "Cait Effect?"

[Katey888]

If nothing else, doesn't it disturb you, even a little, that the central message being used against us right now is this "We can't let transgenders (sic) into the women's restroom because what happens if a man who claims to one day feel like a woman, another day like a man, tries to use the women's room? What happens to our wives and daughters?!?"

If it doesn't chill you that the behavior I've bolded that they use to justify their bogus fears doesn't apply at all to someone like me, but totally describes many of you, then I don't know what else to say.

I think this is the most important point for ANYONE who thinks that it's impossible for our out-and-about community not to be driven back to their closets. There are powerful and bigoted forces in the media and elsewhere who are prepared to commit to campaigns of disinformation and slur to negate legislation for new rights and even impose more punitive constraints than are presently legislated... This may not affect everyone, in every state (or country) but it seems a little myopic of ANYONE that goes out to think that they might be insulated from the effects. One example in our little bastion of democracy this side of the pond was found and posted by Teresa over in Media (here: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...lice-ourselves) that demonstrates how a newspaper of a certain persuasion can spin pejorative tales to millions of gullible readers. On the upside, this was in response to a UK government report that has published over 30 new recommendations on policy areas to improve equality for transgender people - it's clear that there is a powerful and prejudiced lobby against these changes and we should all be aware of what might happen... Well, all except the Closeteers, obviously...

Katey x

[ReineD]

Katey, the article you linked to posted by Teresa ... this is from a tabloid! Surely tabloids do not influence policy ... as evidenced by the government report that you posted in the same thread?

As to CDers wanting to use bathrooms ... it would be nice to find a way to separate the CDers who do not dress for sexual reasons from those that do. Even in this forum we've had members say how excited they were (use your imagination) to feel as "one of the girls" when using women's washrooms. They were quickly put down by the other members, but don't forget that CDers who join this forum to engage in sexual titillation usually don't stick around because of the forum rules. But look at the millions of other websites out there that cater to the sexual aspect. Should they all use women's bathrooms too?

So here's the thing. If a MtF identifies as a woman (not a back-and-forth-woman), she should use the women's bathroom. Presumably she is taking steps to transition. If he identifies as a man even if s/he feels feminine while dressed or as gender-neutral, then s/he should find alternate facilities like single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms that I dare say are becoming more prevalent.

If on the other hand a non-sexual CDer who identifies as a man can pass as a woman (which is often the case among our older members), then by all means use the women's bathroom. No one will stop you.

I'm responding to the bathroom issue because it's been commented on before me by several people.

[Zooey]

If nothing else, doesn't it disturb you, even a little, that the central message being used against us right now is this "We can't let transgenders (sic) into the women's restroom because what happens if a man who claims to one day feel like a woman, another day like a man, tries to use the women's room? What happens to our wives and daughters?!?"

If it doesn't chill you that the behavior I've bolded that they use to justify their bogus fears doesn't apply at all to someone like me, but totally describes many of you, then I don't know what else to say.

Exactly right, and in exactly the same way as (to use Paula's words) Big Gay Inc™ left trans folks by the wayside in order to gain "easier" approval for their issues, rest assured that lots of transitioning/transitioned men and women (myself almost-certainly included) will do the same thing to the broader "trans community" if it becomes anything anywhere close to necessary. It would not be terribly hard to argue that it has already become necessary.

So here's the thing. If a MtF identifies as a woman (not a back-and-forth-woman), she should use the women's bathroom. Presumably she is taking steps to transition. If he identifies as a man even if s/he feels feminine while dressed or as gender-neutral, then s/he should find alternate facilities like single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms that I dare say are becoming more prevalent.

I personally agree.

If on the other hand a non-sexual CDer who identifies as a man can pass as a woman (which is often the case among our older members), then by all means use the women's bathroom. No one will stop you (probably).

Bold part added by me. When it comes to bathrooms, equal-rights ordinances, etc., the question is not whether you can get away with something not being an issue most of the time. The question is what your rights are when/if somebody does try to make it an issue.

[Teresa]

Reine,
The tabloid misquoted the government report as Katey pointed out and I stand corrected, I should have checked on the report rather than the second hand version.

The rest room was the main point raised apart from the start of the article which stated that competitors at the next Olympics may not have their gender checked if they claim to be TG. I would think that statement is also flawed , especially in the light of recent claims of ignoring drug usage by athletes .

As far as the bathroom issue is concerned I'm sure it's never going to be totally resolved .

[ReineD]

The question is what your rights are when/if somebody does try to make it an issue.

But realistically, who could possibly make it an issue if someone passes, even if they're in a long line? They don't have to talk to anyone. If they don't pass and are transitioning, there are ways to prove this, should issues arise. And if they are not transitioning then we are back to finding single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms.

It may not be a perfect solution for everyone (solutions seldom are), but it's workable.

[Zooey]

But realistically, who could possibly make it an issue if someone passes, even if they're in a long line? They don't have to talk to anyone. If they don't pass and are transitioning, there are ways to prove this, should issues arise. And if they are not transitioning then we are back to finding single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms.

Well, anybody can end up being accused/questioned of being a man in the women's room, including ciswomen.
http://www.advocate.com/business/201...oking-man-sues

My point is that, if some people get their way, the consequences of being accused are not as simple as "don't ever do that again". It's more like, "pay heavy penalties and/or go to jail if you're found out and not legally considered transitioning". That's regardless of how you look - you might pass, you might not - it's about what you can prove.

As I mentioned, that doesn't affect me in the same way - as you said, I'm fine (or should be) with showing my license, being a woman in the eyes of the law, and all of that (assuming that the standards are applied consistently). It's not really a solution for CDs and other non-transitioners though, regardless of how well they pass.

[Katey888]

Katey, the article you linked to posted by Teresa ... this is from a tabloid! Surely tabloids do not influence policy ... as evidenced by the government report that you posted in the same thread?

Other way around, Reine...
If you read the media thread you'd see that it was the government recommendation that had precipitated the spun tabloid drivel... While in this case it's a bigger positive because the policy recommendations are promoting equality, the tabloid articles reach nearly a couple of million people every day, and influence people(badly), who vote... Just an example of how some specific bias is out there and working against TG equality.

Fortunately, we don't have the same lobbying in this country that seems to influence so much policy in yours - I suppose that speaks to Paula's point that even more activism is necessary simply to maintain a balance against some very large and powerful opinion blocs...

I agree with your point about fetish/ sexual CDers, btw (and I've said it before ) - this forum is not representative of the majority of men that crossdress for any and all purposes - and THAT is another reason for me why any crossdresser who dresses for merely an inkling of identity should be happy to fall under the TG umbrella... Given a choice (and I don't believe it really is but we still have some diehard 'hobbyists' here) I would much rather I was seen to be doing this for an expression of identity rather than just getting off... (no offence to anyone who does - just saying where I'd rather have my hot tush reside...)

Oh yeah... and the Cait Effect...? Well - CJ may just have propped everyone's head up above the parapet...

Katey x

[ReineD]

Other way around, Reine...
If you read the media thread you'd see that it was the government recommendation that had precipitated the spun tabloid drivel... While in this case it's a bigger positive because the policy recommendations are promoting equality, the tabloid articles reach nearly a couple of million people every day, and influence people(badly), who vote... Just an example of how some specific bias is out there and working against TG equality.

But that's what I'm suggesting. Government policies continue to improve, despite the drivel in the tabloids. The same thing happens in the US and Canada. There are lots of negative comments at the bottom of online articles, lots of groups who fight against the inclusion of MtF TS students in female locker rooms, lots of people who fight against gay marriage, lots of people who are downright vicious against transwomen in general, yet things keep improving. It's not improving without a fight and some states lag behind others, but things are continually moving forward if you compare it to the way it was 30 years ago. And it will continue to improve.


... except maybe the question of allowing male-identified folks to use female bathrooms while dressed. As I mentioned earlier, that's a sticky one especially if they continue to identify as male. How do we separate CDers who dress for identity reasons from the CDers who dress for non-identity reasons (re the millions of sex-oriented sites for CDers on the net, outside of a few forums like this one). Best to have GGs and MtF transitioners (HRT and/or SRS) use the women's rooms, and all others (unless they pass to the extent that no one would have a clue) could use single-user or gender-neutral bathrooms, which, as mentioned, there are more and more of anyway.

... that said, I've used the men's bathrooms in a pinch a few times. Stuff happens and it is likely that most CDers can and do use the women's bathroom without inciting a riot (my SO does), as long as they stay away from overly busy times in ladies rooms filled to capacity with mothers and their young daughters, and they go about their business efficiently while there.

[Eryn]

...but don't forget that CDers who join this forum to engage in sexual titillation usually don't stick around because of the forum rules. But look at the millions of other websites out there that cater to the sexual aspect. Should they all use women's bathrooms too?...

How many of these "sexual titillation" dressers go out in public?

[ReineD]

I couldn't begin to guess Eryn. But I've seen a lot of CDers present in ways that are more sexually oriented (breast forms quite large for their bodies, shorter skirts, higher heels, longer, redder nails, etc) than the women I see out and about where I live. I'm guessing it is members like these who post in threads wondering about creative ways to rework male plumbing, or the endless panty-type threads, or any of the other fantasy-flavored posts we often read here. Do none of these people go out dressed? I have no clue.

[ReineD]

Well, anybody can end up being accused/questioned of being a man in the women's room, including ciswomen.
http://www.advocate.com/business/201...oking-man-sues

Gosh, that's awful! They wouldn't even look at her ID! I hope she wins her lawsuit. She had every right to be there, and I agree that MtFs who are transitioning have every right to be in the women's room too.

There are extremists everywhere though, like the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who disobeyed the Supreme Court and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Hitting their pocketbooks heavily is a good way to get them to rethink their positions.

[PaulaQ]

The bill requires that “gender identity” be proven with at least 12 months of medical care and consistent and uniform assertion of that gender identity in those past 12 months — a burden placed on the individual filing the complaint.

Well, y'all aren't the only ones trying to separate CD from TS. What do you think of the above proposal for trans bathroom access?

[flatlander_48]

Gosh, that's awful! They wouldn't even look at her ID! I hope she wins her lawsuit. She had every right to be there, and I agree that MtFs who are transitioning have every right to be in the women's room too.

The embarrassment that she felt (just the very act of being challenged) wouldn't be any different from what a trans person would experience. Obviously documentation doesn't mean anything for people. And, as I have noticed here before, folks seem to do documentation change as they near the end of their transition process and not near the beginning.

There are extremists everywhere though, like the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who disobeyed the Supreme Court and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Hitting their pocketbooks heavily is a good way to get them to rethink their positions.

Not so sure about that. One parallel for me would be all of the decades that we had economic sanctions against Cuba. They survived, maybe not great, but they survived.

You're also forgetting the legions of folks that will contribute the the legal defense funds for people like Ms. Davis. She was just the tip of the iceberg. There's lots of folks who are very supportive. For what you cite, many would take that as just more reason to dig in deeper. You're assuming rationality in this and that is not the case. There is NOTHING rational about prejudice.

DeeAnn

[Rhonda Jean]

Sometimes the best discussions here come from disagreement. It always makes me think. I'm pretty stubborn about changing my mind, but it makes me think.

A couple of Paula's points that kinda stuck... That since they weren't able to stop gay marriage, we're the next target. I can see that. Not only did they not stop gay marriage, but then comes Cait and all the trans visibility of 2015. They must feel like they're the ones being attacked, and they're losing. The bathroom issue is quite an obvious target. I hadn't thought of the gay marriage issue playing into this.

Also Paula, you said that people are more likely to accept someone like me more so than you. I think that's situational. Back when I had long hair and got my hair done frequently, every hairdresser I went to thought I was TS and immediately assumed I liked men. I just rolled with it. I was perfectly comfortable with them thinking I was full time and I thing they were more comfortable and accepting of that than a part-timer who they'd probably assume was doing it just to get off. At one of these places I spent a lot of time because they did hair, nails, facials, and waxing. I got to know them pretty well. Especially after the novelty of having a TS client wore off, I felt very much like one of the girls. I know this is one place and I was able to very selective about where, when, and to whom I was out like this. I certainly don't pretend that this is representative of real life. Thus the defining difference between you and me. The only point I'm trying to make is that not only at this place, but at everywhere I can think of that I went often and of those everywhere we had any discussion about it, to them I was TS.

Another point. You said that because of trans activism I'm able to go out now when I couldn't have before. Not really. The first time I wore a dress, makeup, heels... the whole bit (including a bra stuffed with toilet paper) in public was as soon as I could drive at age 16 in 1973. I had decades of experience dressing as a woman in public before there was any sort of trans activism. As to the bathroom issue, I can't remember the first time I used the women's. Honestly, I've always avoided it, and still do. I don't go unless it's a dire emergency, unless I was with a GG.

As for you're personal situation of hating politics but being forced into an activist role, I think you could just go live your life. I've known you through this forum for a long time. You are driven to help others (and maybe driven by the challenge of it) to your own detriment. An admirable quality (I'm not just saying that!), but you certainly do it at your own peril. Another difference between you and me is I wouldn't do it. I know full well this puts me on a lower rung of humanity. Just being honest. I'm selfish in that way. I'd live my life as a woman. I'm sure I'd venture over into the gayborhood, as you put it, but I wouldn't be taking up anybody's causes but my very own. I think you could do exactly that if you wanted. That's just not you.

This thread is getting a bit contentious. I certainly hope it doesn't get shut down. This is healthy discussion! So far, at least, this is pretty respectful disagreement. I damn sure respect Paula. She's climbed a mountain that I won't and couldn't. The rest of you don't know, but we've disagreed mightily on a number of things, but, for me at least, I have always respected her in the end. In other words, she's a great person, just misguided.

[Zooey]

Well, y'all aren't the only ones trying to separate CD from TS. What do you think of the above proposal for trans bathroom access?

I do agree with the idea of a separation (from a policy standpoint), but I do not agree with that set of criteria. While it would cause me no issues NOW, it does not meet a lot of transitioners needs.

I believe that the feds already have a good standard for recognizing gender change - being under the care of a licensed medical or mental health professional, who is willing to provide a written statement that you are undergoing "appropriate treatment" and (implicitly) that they believe you should be legally considered as your target gender. I'd like to see that standard adopted broadly as the defining line.

IMO, if you have the letter, then whether or not you are on HRT, have changed IDs, have had surgeries, etc., you should be allowed. I am not lobbying for self-identified men in the women's room, but I definitely understand the needs of someone in early transition, and they do need to be addressed somehow.

[flatlander_48]

Exactly right, and in exactly the same way as (to use Paula's words) Big Gay Inc™ left trans folks by the wayside in order to gain "easier" approval for their issues, rest assured that lots of transitioning/transitioned men and women (myself almost-certainly included) will do the same thing to the broader "trans community" if it becomes anything anywhere close to necessary. It would not be terribly hard to argue that it has already become necessary.

That makes it very hard for anyone in the community, other than transsexuals, to support this issue if this separation comes to pass. I mean, logically speaking, why would I or anyone else, who is not a transsexual?

As for you're personal situation of hating politics but being forced into an activist role, I think you could just go live your life.

People become activists by way of conscience.

DeeAnn

[Zooey]

That makes it very hard for anyone in the community, other than transsexuals, to support this issue if this separation comes to pass. I mean, logically speaking, why would I or anyone else, who is not a transsexual?

I totally understand that. My personal opinion is that the long-term solution to supporting gender-variance is a transition (ha!) towards more gender neutral facilities in the future. While I value gendered spaces in some cases, I don't believe they are as necessary as people think they are. To the extent that gendered spaces do exist and may need to in the future, what I described is the bar I'm personally comfortable with for access.

My counter-question is this... Given what a small fraction of the general population is trans, is it easier for the FAR LARGER cis community to support something like I'm proposing than it would be for them to support the free-for-all proposal that the broader trans community would like? Assuming a move towards gender-neutral facilities over time, is that a reasonable compromise in the interim? For me, it obviously is, but I'm just one person and it's just my opinion based on my priority structure in my life. I would gladly support more permissive proposals if I feel they have a chance of passing, but I'm beyond willing to accept what I proposed if it becomes a viable option.

[AllieSF]

These are always interesting discussions that ramble all over the place and as just recently stated above help some of us think about certain topics in a different way thus helping us to understand other points of view. I understand the thinking on arriving at a standard and acceptable way of legally proving, when necessary that one is a woman, transitioning, transitioned or not required. However, when we get down to the basics of how to use that self identity tool in real life is where all this talk, discussion and rambling starts to fall apart. You are only legally required to prove who you are when doing specific things, like making a credit card purchase, entering a bar where the owner's want to protect their liquor license so they want to be sure about their patrons ages. Why would we want to add another identity check point to everybody's lives for using the ladies' or men's restroom when needed?

From my point of view California and other states and cities have it right when they simply state that you may use the restroom corresponding to how you are presenting. Perfect, probably not. Better than carrying around a letter to prove whatever when asked, much worse. When someone starts showing meaningful statistics about assaults in restrooms by non-letter carrying people presenting as the opposite gender, then maybe I would start to think differently. My point is that discussion is great, but in the real world we need to select the approach that really has a chance to work allowing people to do what needs to be done in restrooms and still keep people safe?

[Lorileah]

How many of these "sexual titillation" dressers go out in public?

I know several. There used to be a bar here that was known for sexual hookups...now back to the OP?

[AllieSF]

Zooey, are you proposing that transitioning people be certified as that and then need to become card carrying members so that they can get access to women's restrooms? I could maybe see that for access to areas where nudity may come into play as in gyms. But for restrooms? That is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and wasted money to use those simple facilities.

I personally do not want to be required to give out any personal information to anyone unless absolutely necessary for fraud protection and personal safety. It is bad enough that we have to give out our Social Security Number for so many things, when all experts, including the Government advise against it. Oh, and then the Government makes your Social Security number you Medicare ID number, so there it is out and proud to everyone that does not need it but may decide to use it fraudulently! Do you think that John and Jane Doe Public will put up with that? Will stores and restaurants and gas stations and bars be required to hire another person to check ID's at the bathroom door? I believe that it will be easier for the general public to accept what California and other jurisdictions have already done. Give access based on presentation. Those protesting that type of legislation are also in the minority, probably a minority much larger than the trans community, but much smaller than those that can accept it, or at least learn to live with it whether they like it or not. Laws should protect minorities when they need protection, they should not cater to all minority thought or ideological groups.

I am in favor of requiring more unisex restroom facilities in all public access buildings and facilities, but all of us will be long dead and gone before all buildings can be so equipped. Look at all the apartment buildings without fire sprinkler systems that are still legal and unsafe. So, I would not hold my breath nor expect that to solve today's needs for restroom usage by all.

[Zooey]

Zooey, are you proposing that transitioning people be certified as that and then need to become card carrying members so that they can get access to women's restrooms? I could maybe see that for access to areas where nudity may come into play as in gyms. But for restrooms? That is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and wasted money to use those simple facilities.

I'm not suggesting that everybody needs to be carrying a card at all times, and I'm certainly not suggesting a government-operated "registered transgender database".

My belief, which I believe is founded, is that anybody can be accused of being in a women's space that they shouldn't be (including ciswomen; see above). The question is, when accused, what constitutes proof of you being in the right vs. being in the wrong, to the extent that that is necessary.

For a variety of reasons, largely to do with the impracticality of enforcing anything else, I support access based on presentation, and I'm happy we have it here. I do live in California, as you know... We've met, have at least one rather large-chested mutual friend, and I like it here. A lot.

I also have friends I love in states like Michigan that have no such protections, and you better believe that it puts me on serious edge (despite having all my id changes done) when I go visit them. I want something standard across the country, and what I described is what I'm willing to vote for. If I think we have a chance of getting that passed nationally with broad'ish support, but not access based on presentation, I'm voting for what I suggested.

[flatlander_48]

I totally understand that. My personal opinion is that the long-term solution to supporting gender-variance is a transition (ha!) towards more gender neutral facilities in the future. While I value gendered spaces in some cases, I don't believe they are as necessary as people think they are. To the extent that gendered spaces do exist and may need to in the future, what I described is the bar I'm personally comfortable with for access.

Well, when the "What's in it for me?" doesn't apply, you're stuck with the "It's the right thing to do." and usually that doesn't go too far.

My counter-question is this... Given what a small fraction of the general population is trans, is it easier for the FAR LARGER cis community to support something like I'm proposing than it would be for them to support the free-for-all proposal that the broader trans community would like?

Perhaps, but it is still a tough sell considering that the transsexual community would be like a speed bump on the Bonneville Salt Flats compared to the rest of the population. There's no, or at least not enough, motivation there. In theory the logic there, but I just don't see it happening. They would not perceive a compelling reason.

Assuming a move towards gender-neutral facilities over time, is that a reasonable compromise in the interim? For me, it obviously is, but I'm just one person and it's just my opinion based on my priority structure in my life. I would gladly support more permissive proposals if I feel they have a chance of passing, but I'm beyond willing to accept what I proposed if it becomes a viable option.

Consider this. Think about how difficult it was to get the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act) passed. There's no moral part of the discussion compared to LGBT issues. Basically it covered accommodations that would improve the quality of life for those who have a disability of some sort. And the thing is, in spite of this being the law of the land for some time now, there are still serious gaps in implementation and enforcement. I've seen this first hand as my wife uses a wheelchair. Judging by how the ADA has gone, I don't see gender neutral facilities happening in a major way for some time.

Further, not to single Wal-Mart out, but...

I was in one the other day and went to the restroom when I entered the store. In this store, which is between 5 and 10 years old, the restrooms are at the front opposite the cashiers. However, the gender neutral facility is at the rear of the store. And if you know Wal-marts, the rear of the store is a long ways away.

Looks a lot like Separate But Equal to me...

DeeAnn

[Zooey]

I totally get your concerns, but here's another example...

The Affordable Care Act is FAR from perfect, and not what I really want. I am extremely happy that we got it passed though, and would not want to go back to the time before it, when my best friend could barely get insurance when she was between jobs because she had a pre-existing chronic stomach issue (well controlled with medication). It is a good step, has moved the discussion about healthcare in the US forward, and gives us a slightly higher platform from which to reach what I hope are the next steps.

I'm willing to accept progress if we can't manage to jump straight to the end goal.

[Eryn]

We're being diverted into arguing about trivia. Our enemies don't care whether we are properly registered, have surgery, or any other "litmus test" of gender. They want us dead, period. If they had their way the "showers" would be in operation tomorrow. Any compromise that we make with them will simply be seen as the starting point for their next attack.

Our enemies use fear and ignorance as their weapons. Unfortunately, all we have is reason and reality. As one of the people involved in the Houston fight stated "Your rights should not be subject to a popular vote."

[flatlander_48]

I totally get your concerns, but here's another example...

The Affordable Care Act is FAR from perfect, and not what I really want. I am extremely happy that we got it passed though, and would not want to go back to the time before it, when my best friend could barely get insurance when she was between jobs because she had a pre-existing chronic stomach issue (well controlled with medication). It is a good step, has moved the discussion about healthcare in the US forward, and gives us a slightly higher platform from which to reach what I hope are the next steps.

I'm willing to accept progress if we can't manage to jump straight to the end goal.

The point about Wal-Mart really had more to do with what you get when commitment is lacking. If folks are not going to be sufficiently committed to the disabled population, the message is that it is really uphill for what is being discussed here.

Also, I believe one of the reasons behind the to aversion to activism is that probably people have had little contact with it. Chances are that if you are closeted because you dress or are trying to sort out or avoid the notion of being transsexual, you probably do not spend much time discussing these issues in public. You wouldn't do that because then people would know that you are very different. No one would want to put themselves in the limelight if that is the situation.

DeeAnn