Bathroom bills and other laws , discussion thread [Archive] - Crossdressers.com - #1 Community & Forum for Crossdressers, Family and Friends

Lena

05-19-2016, 06:07 AM

The issue started in Houston when city council passed HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance). HERO added LGBT to a protected class that cannot be discriminated against for employment, services, housing, etc. It also included protections for trans persons to use public restrooms that matched their identity. There was massive opposition to this ordinance. Mostly the opposition argument was businesses were afraid they would be forced to bake "gay" cake(and all the marriage, wedding halls etc). Conservatives in Texas are very upset that they are being expected treat LGBT with any dignity and want to protect their ability to discriminate legally.

So, the ordinance was put to a ballot. They couldn't gain traction by saying LGBT shouldn't be protected, so they ran television and radio ads showing predators in bathrooms. Most people voting didn't even know the ordinance included veteran status, age, weight, sex, race. They only knew it as the bathroom law. The vote happen and the ordinance was defeated. But the Houston anti-trans bathroom movement had been born. Texan politicians love to use deception, fear and anger(and religion) to manipulate their voters. Now that Texas politicians found a winner for fundraising and support, they're milking it for all they can. They don't care about the lives of those affected as long as they get their voters and donations. I've never seen such corrupt politics till i moved here.

The supporters of the law did a horrible job of defending it and countering the fictitious arguments. At the same time, money was flowing into the HERO opposition groups.

Lauri K

05-19-2016, 07:07 AM

To add to Lena's post about HERO

The initial measure passed the Houston city council to place HERO into effect, the opposition took HERO to the TX Supreme Court and bought themselves a few conservative judges to overturn HERO, which happened. As a result of the court action HERO had to be placed on a ballot for a vote of the public, which is what the conservative groups wanted, so they went off on a smear campaign to make HERO all about bathrooms and it worked for them.

Here is my thoughts on this, you can NEVER let the majority vote on rights for minorities.

This why you NEVER want to see minority rights issues on ballots, never, ever, ever.

Is should also be noted that HERO supporters outspent the opposition by a large amount and we still lost because the opposition made it about men in bathrooms.

The bathrooms bills / talk of them are a minor temporary setback for sure, unfortunately until we see what the next administration looks like and who ends up getting appointed to the SCOTUS .........we are going to remain in a state of limbo expecting any protections to be passed protecting our status any time soon.

Lot's of work to do but it will get done in due time, hang in there and educate people in the interim,.

Michala

05-19-2016, 07:10 AM

Lena - Texas voters don't hold exclusive rights to having uninformed voters. I'm sure every state has had issues where a person wonders what some voters are thinking. It's OK to disagree with someone but if you do you should at least have some facts and actually make an informed decision instead of getting all your information from gossip and the internet. Somehow too many people think "I read it on the internet so it must be correct."

BillieAnneJean - When I read your comment about a person standing in the bottom of an outhouse with an umbrella I started to laugh and then wondered whether I was going to throw up. For those of us old enough to remember using an outhouse, me for sure, have to wonder how bad do you need a dose of peeping tom to think you're going to get some kind of kick out of that situation. Seems like there might be some other mental issues. I can't imagine anything more disgusting than standing in an outhouse hole and I'm pretty sure the umbrella had nothing to do with making it more comfortable.

arbon

05-19-2016, 10:31 AM

The issue started in Houston when city council passed HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance).

Its been going on a lot longer then that. Years. Decades. Its only been getting more attention now.

flatlander_48

05-19-2016, 11:06 AM

The difference was that previously the trans community wasn't really visible enough to be able to point to something other than a ghost. Now, there are specific faces to point to: Chaz Bono, the Wachowskis, Aydian Dowling, Janet Mock, Laverne Cox, Zachary Drucker, Caitlyn Jenner, et al. A Wedge Issue works much better when there is a specific and clear target.

DeeAnn

Lorileah

05-19-2016, 01:12 PM

We had one killed here in Dallas this past week. A woman shot her in the bathroom at a Walmart.

I don't find any citations on that. Please either post links to these stories or proof. If we start making up things or spreading rumors we will be no better than the people who are planing the seeds of these laws....thank you

Meghan4now

05-20-2016, 07:45 AM

Out of curiosity,how many of us actually carry a copy of our birth certificate on us. And does it even HAVE sex on it? My son's were born in Indiana in the 90s and they didn't include gender on the cert. When they went to get drivers licenses here in Ohio, they were rejected. We had to go back to Indiana and have them reissue the cert with sex listed!

If someone asks me for id, can I ask for theirs back?

In the mean time, I guess I should change from hip padding to Depends and kill two birds with one stone. :yucky:

Jenniferathome

05-20-2016, 10:06 AM

Meghan4now

05-20-2016, 10:26 AM

Actually that happened in January, and the Hater got in trouble. Not trying to defend any law.

lisa_vin

05-20-2016, 02:18 PM

One solution I've personally seen is in the Santikos movie theater complex that I go to in Tomball, Texas. They have 3 bathrooms.......Men, Women and Unisex. Now, the Unisex one was probably set up more for a father taking his young daughter to the bathroom or a mother taking her young son and the father and/or mother stay in there and wait for their child to get through. I've heard that "trans" people use this one as well and, as far as I know, there have been zero problems.

The REAL problem with making this such an "In your face" issue and talking about passing laws and making it legal for trans people to use the bathroom they identify with is that this gives the true, real sicko perv the "legal right" to dress and enter these bathrooms with the sole intent and purpose of molesting/assaulting a victim, young or old. Mark my words........making this into the Big Deal that they have GUARANTEES that these assaults WILL happen!!!! That's why the separate bathroom thing that I mentioned about the movie theater MUST be the only way to go, no matter the cost! BTW.......smaller establishments with only one bathroom solved this problem years ago by keeping the bathroom under lock and key and forcing the customer to ask for the key (which is usually attached to something big......like a truck tire (lol).......to keep from losing it or it being stolen) so that only one person at a time could use the bathroom. I was at an ultra cool record store in Houston (massive stock of vinyl records) just last week and they had one bathroom and the key came attached to a heavy, wooden, foot long version of the "Kip's Big Boy" restaurant statue which absolutely cracked me up.

Natasha_Lovegood

05-20-2016, 04:38 PM

There are no laws like this in Spain, but I think transgenders should be allowed to female bathrooms.

Rhonda Darling

05-20-2016, 05:31 PM

Is the single greatest thing that can happen to defeat these, clearly unenforceable, laws. This week a woman from Michigan was removed from a restarant bathroom because she looked mannish enough to make a hater think they were rightly enforcing some rule.

http://www.advocate.com/business/2015/06/17/detroit-woman-kicked-out-restaurant-bathroom-looking-man-sues

the more that this happens, as sad as it is for those affected, the better it is for those hoping to end these laws.

Of course it's important to remember that these laws are not really about bathrooms and more about legal discrimination in general but the face of these laws is bathrooms.

Meghan and Jennifer: just an FYI, I note that the article about the Detroit woman has a dateline from June 2015, and the incident occurred in January of 2015. People have dreged up an older event and republished it now because the BATHROOM controversy has become a daily news item and everyone is scrambling for examples to prove their case. I've been hoping for updated information on the woman's lawsuit against Bonefish. Hitting establishments in their pocketbook is a good way to foster change.

Lisa: no bathroom rights law makes legal assault or battery, peeping, rape, fondling, molesting or any other crime against the person. This just perpetuates the myths that play on people's fears.

Rhonda

Paula Siemen

05-20-2016, 08:17 PM

Mayo

05-20-2016, 09:49 PM

I don't find any citations on that. Please either post links to these stories or proof. If we start making up things or spreading rumors we will be no better than the people who are planing the seeds of these laws....thank you
The article about a trans woman being shot in a public bathroom is a fake (see Snopes link below). The one about the security guard being arrested and at least one story of a cis woman being roughed up for appearing 'too masculine' are, as far as I know, true.

http://www.snopes.com/transgender-shot-death-restroom/

But it's only a matter of time.

flatlander_48

05-21-2016, 04:55 AM

Out of curiosity,how many of us actually carry a copy of our birth certificate on us.

This is not a good instrument to use as Idaho, Kansas, Ohio and Tennessee do not change gender markers on the Birth Certificate for people who have transitioned. And as you said, you need to have the gender marker so that it can be referenced for other documents. Basically, if you are from one of those 4 states, you are screwed...

DeeAnn

mechamoose

05-21-2016, 05:31 AM

TL,DNR

WTF

Why is this even an issue?

So, some teenage MtF is forced into a M locker room??

Rape bait anyone?

So, some teenage FtM is forced into a F locker room??

Embarrassment.

Sorry, males are usually jerks and predators.

PretzelGirl

05-21-2016, 08:54 AM

Unisex bathrooms are not a solution. Discrimination can be determined by being held separately. Having a bathroom for us so that we don't use the men's or woman's is being held separately. I discussed this with work when I transitioned and they agreed and therefore I used the ladies room. The additional problem with saying "use the unisex room" is that it feeds into the argument that we are neither men or women. If my co-working women go in one restroom and I go in another, I therefore am not a women. No, I don't find unisex acceptable as a solution. I will certainly opt to use one at my choice just as I did pre-transition, but it is only another option.

flatlander_48

05-21-2016, 09:27 AM

S:

This statement is particularly telling as it has further application...

The additional problem with saying "use the unisex room" is that it feeds into the argument that we are neither men or women.

The combined image at the right of this sign has a similar vibe to it that is not unlike schizophrenia. At first thought, this was felt to be a novel way of representing transgender people, but at second thought, MANY have been very uneasy about the message it sends.

DeeAnn

Jenniferathome

05-21-2016, 09:40 AM

You're reading too much into this. It's a combination of two simple, generic images, which means "anyone in between". One could argue that the female symbol is not correct as wearing a dress is not required to be female (although it does seem to be required if you are a cross dresser:heehee:).

The effort is clear and should be applauded.

flatlander_48

05-21-2016, 10:28 AM

No, I'm not...

http://lgbtweekly.com/2015/02/19/a-restroom-pictogram-that-sends-the-wrong-message/

DeeAnn

Jenniferathome

05-21-2016, 10:44 AM

sorry, I should have written that both you and lgbt weekly are reading too much into this.

flatlander_48

05-21-2016, 10:56 AM

This opinion is MUCH broader than you think. I can't say that it is the majority opinion as I just don't have that information, but it is significant. It leaves an indeterminant quality that isn't good. Granted, it has less effect on me as a non-transitioning Transgender person, but for those who are on that path, it has a "not this, and not that but something else" quality. The last of the 3 images in the article seems like a better way to bring things together.

DeeAnn

Robin414

05-21-2016, 11:06 AM

Reading a LOT about CIS women not looking femme enough to use the ladies room but NOT A PEEP about a CIS male looking too femme to use the men's room.

Does this somehow speak to the 'male privilege'?

Just a random 'shower thought'

Genny B

05-21-2016, 02:08 PM

Yesterday in Washington, DC, a trans woman attempted to use the ladies room in a local chain food store. A female special police officer (armed contract security licensed by local PD) followed her in and told her to get out, going so far as to follow the woman to the front of the store and push her out of the building. The trans woman rightly called the police, who responded and ARRESTED THE SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER for assault. She will likely also be charged with a civil rights violation under DC's long standing trans protective bathroom laws.

see: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2016/05/dc-security-guard-charged-with-assault.html or Google it yourself.

Rhonda

What if this happened in Virginia though? This issue has me very concerned. At the last soiree I left early as I was afraid to use the restroom. Everyone seems so high strung. You know what I mean?
Genny B

Brenn

05-22-2016, 02:44 PM

Unfortunately, I think the problem started with the overzealous activists in the broader LGBT community who pressed for the passing of laws to open up restrooms, force bakeries to make cakes for gay couples, etc. The NC law and its cousins are a response to that. I don't think I ever heard of this being an issue until the activists started making it an issue. I don't recall tons of posts on this site or anywhere else that recounted a confrontation when a MTF went into a women's restroom. I did it loads of times in my days of trying to "pass." While I welcome the greater attention to our community, that attention has also drawn out the bigots. Change in society takes time and is not something that can be legislated (you can make the law, but you can't change peoples attitudes overnight). In the short-term, I thing the activism has actually hurt our community and portrayed it in an intolerant light (intolerant of those who do not understand us or have different views). We need to take a step back and recognize that there are in fact people who are scared of the possible (but extremely improbable) case where someone might use the laws creating open bathrooms for something bad and simply do not understand what being trans or CD is (we can thank Jerry Springer and similar programs for the bizarre stereotypes out there).

Lorileah

05-22-2016, 02:55 PM

Overzealous. Hmm...OK So you suggest that we take things as is and not try and change them because we poke the bear? Point, the LGBT community didn't start the "bathroom wars" we had been using the restrooms without incident for years. So I don't think we were overzealous at all. We were just...there. You blaming the L&Gs for asking for equality? Marriage, property, medical care? As a "T" and especially a "T" who goes back and forth many here don't see shy this is important to us. You can can go back into being a man. A lot of us cannot. Overzealous? What would be your timetable? 10 years? A generation.

Famous quote (we will attribute it to Hillel the Elder but RFK and JFK get credited for it too" If not now, when? If not me, who?" Personally laying the blame on being overzealous bothers me. It smacks of "Things were ok until you..."

Lauri K

05-22-2016, 02:58 PM

Brenn the problem started when conservatives introduced over 190 such anti-trans bills / laws across the nation.

NC went bezerk over Raleigh passing LGBT protections within the city of Raleigh.

All I hear is this silly talk about people using the law for invasions of men going in to the ladies room.

Many cities have had these protections in place for over a decade and there is no record of it being a problem. (facts)

I have not heard any one talk about restricting pedophiles from public bathrooms, or convicted sex offenders, or child abusers, or convicted kidnappers, or XXX or XXX and the list goes on.

The conservative base needs education, and I hope all this backfires on them bigtime come time to get in the booth

Anneliese

05-22-2016, 02:59 PM

A...caller...to a local sports-talk show this morning likened Native Americans wanting a name change for the Washington Redskins to "those who think men dressed as women should able to use the ladie's room". With Caitlyn and bathroom laws etc, is it my imagination, or are we, in all forms, becoming a focal point in the future of the country? I sure hope "the people" are ready to make the right choices.

While I welcome the greater attention to our community, that attention has also drawn out the bigots.

This is so true. The bigots have had everything else pulled out from underneath them. We're their last stand. Unfortunately, there could be violence as a part of this, .

flatlander_48

05-22-2016, 03:45 PM

B:

Factually, there are some mistakes in what you say.

Why shouldn't gay people be perceived as any other customer? They didn't ask for someone to change their views. All that was asked is for the person to perform their service.

Regarding restroom related laws, this is PURELY political. Folks saw an opportunity to roll back or remove laws that benefitted the LGBT community AND draw voters to the polls. In their minds, it is a potential Win/Win. The political terminology is Wedge Issue and is something that works to polarize voters.

Laws are NOT about changing attitudes. Laws are about defining acceptable behaviors and assigning penalties when those defined standards are not met.

Certainly, without activism there would not be Marriage Equality, but remember this wasn't an overnight deal. Folks have been working on that since the 70's. Do you think that this would have happened WITHOUT the issue being raised often and loudly?

However, there is something that you don't understand about activism at a fundamental level. Typically those who HAVE rights and protections tend not to want to grant those rights and protections to others. If you want to try to wait for that, we will all be dust 3 times over. You need people to put the issues in front of the populace, dispel the myths and lies and explain the logic behind it. That is how it happens. Unfortunately conservatives tend to paint rights and privileges as a Zero Sum Game. In other words, in order for me to Have, it would mean that you have Less. In the case of Marriage Equality, it was said that because Lesbians and Gays can legally marry, in some way that translates to the marriages of opposite sex couple being diminished. That is patently a lie as the requirements for opposite sex couple DID NOT CHANGE.

DeeAnn

Alice Torn

05-22-2016, 06:24 PM

Just from what i have heard, from the few people i interact with, the people i have listened to, and what i have heard, people seem to think all trans people and crossdressers who go into womens rooms, are heterosexual pedophiles, rapists, and stall peeping toms. None understand.

PaulaQ

05-23-2016, 03:20 AM

Unfortunately, I think the problem started with the overzealous activists in the broader LGBT community who pressed for the passing of laws to open up restrooms, force bakeries to make cakes for gay couples, etc.

Negative. The answer for why all this happened is Obergefell v. Hodges, i.e. the case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage. We are seeing the backlash from that action. Many wanted to see gay, lesbian and bisexual people as a groups they could feel superior to, by disallowing their relationships the social legitimacy offered by marriage. When they lost this case, they went berserk, and they went hunting for the softest target under the LGBT umbrella - the much neglected and under defended T. Because if they can beat us down, they can start back on in limiting the rights of gay people. And that is definitely their goal, to ensconce them as permanent second class citizens.

What you are seeing here is backlash from a court case. I predicted this well before the ruling, and it's playing out about like I expected. NONE of the gay leadership I had spoken with predicted this, and that is why they were caught so flat footed. (Well that, and many didn't even bother to get to know us prior to Obergefell.)

Bathroom access has been an issue for a long time - many of us were harassed at different times while trying to access a public restroom, long before Obergefell.

The reason they use this tactic is that it couples people's fears about men as predators with the idea that WE are men, and ties it into bathrooms, where people feel vulnerable anyway. The dialog about "men feeling like a woman that day", is an attempt to invalidate trans identities, as is the talk about us being "confused." Those side effects, and the vigilantism encouraged by these laws are actually the intended consequences, as without a large miracle, none of the existing bathroom bills are liable to survive a supreme court challenge.

Helen_Highwater

05-23-2016, 01:17 PM

The REAL problem with making this such an "In your face" issue and talking about passing laws and making it legal for trans people to use the bathroom they identify with is that this gives the true, real sicko perv the "legal right" to dress and enter these bathrooms with the sole intent and purpose of molesting/assaulting a victim, young or old. Mark my words........making this into the Big Deal that they have GUARANTEES that these assaults WILL happen!!!!

This is one of the arguments used by the haters and it doesn't hold water. Even if someone does dress up for such purposes, even if they have a legal right to be there, assault of any description is a crime and there are numerous laws to deal with the perpetrators. If someone is intent on assaulting/molesting another person what's to stop them simply walking into a bathroom in male clothing to carry out said deed.

In the UK it's not illegal to dress in public in the clothes of the opposite gender UNLESS the intention is to deceive others as part of a criminal enterprise. I see no reason why law makers on the other side of the pond can't draft laws allowing bathroom access that include such provisions. Do you sack all sports coaches/priests/politicians/care workers just because a small minority are sexual predators. No, you weed out those who are and punish as necessary.

It is wrong to punish many for the actions of one.

Judith96a

05-23-2016, 02:47 PM

Helen,
The problem with your solution is that it's pragmatic and reasonable. "Pragmatic and Reasonable" doesn't grab headlines in an election year! I'm just glad that I live on this side of the sheugh (now there's a good Irish word for ye)

Tabitha_Sinn

05-23-2016, 06:04 PM

It's interesting. I was *taught* to use the men's room. Since I never considered myself a female, it just seemed natural. But I can certainly understand a trans person wanting the right to use the bathroom appropriate for their gender identity. I really don't understand what the problem is.

I was at a picnic recently (presenting myself as a man) with people who had no idea about my cross dressing. Someone stated that there is no way they would let a man (no matter how feminine) use the restroom with their daughters. I thought to myself...this is so stupid. Number one, you have stalls, everyone has their privacy. Number two, aren't we all there for the same reason? I mean...who cares!

Shelly Preston

05-24-2016, 04:24 AM

Valerie1973

05-24-2016, 07:04 AM

Trans folks have been using the ladies restrooms for years. Something that should help us is hurting us. All of a sudden my "12 year old daughter" is a victim, we'll maybe so because the predators will use this as an excuse. Riding on the coat tails of the trans peopls struggle. That's all we need now, stereo types, gender profiling. It's hard enough plucking up courage to step out on the house for some of us who don't dress offten and my sister's who dress full time now have to use more caution, be more on edge. Real trans/ crossdressers, etc, we are just minding our own business, not bothering anyone, we're not out to hurt anyone. Now it's an issue because of the press,the media. BTW, I really do have a 12 year old daughter, Ive explained to her that some folks who are trans arnt out to hurt her, they are probably just as nervous about being in there. A predator won't make the effort to get dolled up correctly or will look really fake. But nonetheless use caution, because sickos will hide behind the transgender struggle. It sucks, I really enjoy going out in public dressed up. Now im extra extra cautious. Peace ladies be safe out there.

- - - Updated - - -

Trans folks have been using the ladies restrooms for years. Something that should help us is hurting us. All of a sudden my "12 year old daughter" is a victim, we'll maybe so because the predators will use this as an excuse. Riding on the coat tails of the trans peopls struggle. That's all we need now, stereo types, gender profiling. It's hard enough plucking up courage to step out on the house for some of us who don't dress offten and my sister's who dress full time now have to use more caution, be more on edge. Real trans/ crossdressers, etc, we are just minding our own business, not bothering anyone, we're not out to hurt anyone. Now it's an issue because of the press,the media. BTW, I really do have a 12 year old daughter, Ive explained to her that some folks who are trans arnt out to hurt her, they are probably just as nervous about being in there. A predator won't make the effort to get dolled up correctly or will look really fake. But nonetheless use caution, because sickos will hide behind the transgender struggle. It sucks, I really enjoy going out in public dressed up. Now im extra extra cautious. Peace ladies be safe out there.

Tracii G

05-24-2016, 09:33 AM

This is so true. The bigots have had everything else pulled out from underneath them. We're their last stand. Unfortunately, there could be violence as a part of this, [/QUOTE]

Funny that you think this way Anneliese so who is the bigot here?
A lot of us trans people are armed too.

Mayo

05-24-2016, 10:04 AM

I support unisex bathrooms. Eventually people will get used to the idea, as they have in other countries, and we can grow up and move on.

Anneliese

05-24-2016, 01:02 PM

I too support unisex bathrooms.

AllieSF

05-24-2016, 01:39 PM

Just remember that unisex bathrooms is the ideal perfect target, but reaching that target is way out in the future. In new construction it is a smaller added cost to the final total cost. However, to retrofit all existing buildings will take many, many years and a lot of money that could be used for other purposes, like maintenance and other needed "green" upgrades. As an example, those neat little sloping handicap/disabled ramps that transition from the sidewalk to the street level are still a work in progress after so many years being mandated by law. Here in California, AKA "Earthquake Country", seismic retrofitting is still many years away from being completed just on public buildings, let alone on private ones. So, the bathroom issue for us needs to be resolved in another manner for today, not 50 years down the road when our favorite bar or restaurant finally gets around to changing their bathroom configuration.

flatlander_48

05-24-2016, 02:44 PM

A:

An even better example is the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). It isn't logical that people would feel that differently abled people are not deserving of being able to enter buildings easily, have usable restroom facilities, etc. yet there was pushback as the legislation was being considered. My wife uses a wheelchair and we've found many places that would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) for her to enter without assistance. Note that this is 24 years after the ADA became enforceable.

The point is that I think having unisex restrooms is going to a long time.

DeeAnn

PretzelGirl

05-24-2016, 09:18 PM

Wow, let's turn the restrooms into the OK Corral. That will fix the problem. :facepalm:

Sarah Doepner

05-25-2016, 11:07 AM

Things have been changing quickly for the Transgender world. In fact it seems that in terms of visibility, acceptance as well as becoming the target of both legislation and misguided hate we have been on an incredible fast track. This kind of speed of change in a society creates a lot of turbulence and I'd suggest we are near the confluence and experiencing some of what may still get worse. But down the stream things will calm down as everyone gets used to the new order of things.

I'm not saying it will all be perfect, don't get me wrong. But it will likely be more grounded in reality as the truth seeps into the mainstream. There will be the folks who never accept us, just as there are people who still believe their race or religion is superior to everyone else, there are those who will be raised to see Transgender folks as wrong or evil incarnate. Too bad for them. But the laws that are being proposed are clearly unconstitutional and will be overturned. Companies who support and even embrace us will continue to stay in business and prosper ( as will some who don't like us ), and slowly we will finally become part of the main stream. In the long term the outlook is good but will take attention, work and some sacrifice to make sure the result is the best possible one. We need to take care to show appreciation to allies, educate without alienation or being condescending and occasionally even listening to others so we can address their concerns.

We need not give up or settle for anything less than being full members of society, but honestly, after generations in the closet the last few years has been a trip on a rocket. I'm wanting it to end and be settled, but patience is in order as the details are worked out and the truth is shared and shared and shared until, all of a sudden, it becomes obvious to the majority. Keep aware, be careful in this tumultuous time, keep working and be patient.

Lorileah

05-25-2016, 01:35 PM

Dear members: While we are allowing some laxity (and very little of that) with religion and politics in this thread only, the rest of the FAQs still apply. If you need a refresher

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/faq.php?faq=main_rules#faq_content

lisa_vin

05-26-2016, 03:00 PM

This is one of the arguments used by the haters and it doesn't hold water. Even if someone does dress up for such purposes, even if they have a legal right to be there, assault of any description is a crime and there are numerous laws to deal with the perpetrators. If someone is intent on assaulting/molesting another person what's to stop them simply walking into a bathroom in male clothing to carry out said deed.

In the UK it's not illegal to dress in public in the clothes of the opposite gender UNLESS the intention is to deceive others as part of a criminal enterprise. I see no reason why law makers on the other side of the pond can't draft laws allowing bathroom access that include such provisions. Do you sack all sports coaches/priests/politicians/care workers just because a small minority are sexual predators. No, you weed out those who are and punish as necessary.

It is wrong to punish many for the actions of one.

I never said that committing a crime of any kind was or would be made legal. I said that this law could give a sexual predator the idea to dress (disguise themselves) as the opposite sex and enter that sex's bathroom with their sole intent being to pursue a victim and commit a crime. I know that laws do not ALLOW these types of crimes to be committed and that the perpetrator would be severely punished if caught. But that doesn't hide the fact that a sex crime can still be committed and an innocent victim and their family will end up suffering long and hard because of it no matter what happens to the perpetrator. It just gives these predators a "legal" mode of access to commit their evil.

emma5410

05-26-2016, 06:51 PM

As I understand the laws, trans men will have to use women's bathrooms so sexual predators will not even have to dress as women. This has nothing to do with protecting anyone. It is designed to attack trans people. It is disappointing to hear people on these boards repeating the haters arguments.

Alice Torn

05-26-2016, 09:11 PM

i grew up in farm country, and often, we had to use the only bathroom nearby- an outhouse. Worked fine. No mens or womens outhouses, just the one. Say, maybe that would solve the whole blasted problem! Just have one big bathroom, for all! But with totally private stalls, with walls from ceiling to floor, and no places for anyone to try some tricks.

LydiaL

05-26-2016, 09:29 PM

i grew up in farm country, and often, we had to use the only bathroom nearby- an outhouse. Worked fine. No mens or womens outhouses, just the one. Say, maybe that would solve the whole blasted problem! Just have one big bathroom, for all!

I agree with Alice Torn,

A single (or parallel) group of non-generic specific outhouses available for public use.

But beware, a waiting Black Widow spider (or other toothed or forked tongued critter) ready to inflict impending pain on one's posterior!

just saying....

Rhonda Darling

05-26-2016, 10:26 PM

I never said that committing a crime of any kind was or would be made legal. I said that this law would allow a sexual predator to dress (disguise themselves) as the opposite sex and enter that sex's bathroom with the sole intent of pursuing a victim and committing a crime. I know that laws do not ALLOW these types of crimes to be committed and that the perpetrator would be severely punished if caught. But that doesn't hide the fact that a sex crime can still be committed and an innocent victim and their family will end up suffering long and hard because of it no matter what happens to the perpetrator. It just gives these "predators" a legal mode of access to commit their evil.

I'm so sorry, I missed the grography lesson identifying the land where criminals wait for a law to be passed that allows them to commit a crime. It is utter nonsense to argue that a law that is intended to trample the right of transgender and transsexual individuals who desire to peacefully go potty in a bathroom where they look like others using the bathroom is somehow a law that will allow criminals (e.g., those who don't obey the law) to somehow now lawfully perpetrate their crime.

We are not the criminals, we are the ones who will be beaten to a pulp if we go into the men's room when presenting as women.

The idea that a birth certificate as I.D. will clear those who "belong in the women's restroom" is fallacious from the start. Our sacred medical scrolls for trans health require a real life experience of a year before the medical gods will allow HRT to begin. No birth certificate change during that. Can any of you hold it for a year?

Come on, get on the right side for the fight.

Stepping off soapbox.

Rhonda

Candice June Lee

05-27-2016, 07:54 AM

I have not read through all of this thread. However, we have to be polite, concerned, out standing citizens. Not if just our community but the entire population. Usually we are. Foul words to a naysayer or hater only gets more negativity. It's sad we must exercise more caution than we did before. But we can and will get through this. I have always hated restrooms, period. Then to be told I can't the one that Identity with sucks. I've gotten to where my outings have to be timed to mother nature if I'm going alone. Otherwise multistall restrooms are always accompanied with my wife or close friend. That stinks but it's necessary for protection. As of yet, ive not had a bad experience in a restroom but, I don't want that chance to arise.

flatlander_48

05-27-2016, 12:24 PM

The idea that a birth certificate as I.D. will clear those who "belong in the women's restroom" is fallacious from the start. Our sacred medical scrolls for trans health require a real life experience of a year before the medical gods will allow HRT to begin. No birth certificate change during that. Can any of you hold it for a year?

Note that if you are were born in Idaho, Kansas, Ohio or Tennessee, you CANNOT change your original gender marker. In the case of M2F, theirs will always read M. Further, any document that uses the gender marker from the birth certificate will also necessarily read M.

DeeAnn

Anneliese

05-27-2016, 03:33 PM

There is no more serious issue. Period.

Saikotsu

05-27-2016, 04:46 PM

The irony of these laws is that they force people who have transitioned to use the bathroom of their birth gender. Which means you're still going to have men in women's restrooms and women in men's.

heatherdress

05-30-2016, 10:42 AM

I can't recall an news stories of a real trans person committing any crime in a bathroom....Has there ever been a case of a true trans person caught doing anything improper? Doubt it.

Unfortunately - yes, there are crossdressers arrested in public bathrooms:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/cross-dressing-man-arrested-for-exposure-at-walmar/nQddG/
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/cross-dressing-man-busted-trying-to-spy-in-female-college-dorm/
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Dressed-as-Woman-Arrested-for-Spying-Into-Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/02/man-in-barbie-costume-attacks-woman-in-bathroom/
http://www.snopes.com/transgender-filming-women-restroom/

Crossdressers who are voyeurs have always preyed upon women and children in bathrooms. They are difficult to catch and arrest. Crossdressers who were prostitutes also used to be frequently by arrested in public rest rooms in the inner city area I used to work.

Helen_Highwater

05-30-2016, 01:00 PM

Heather's research does make a case that the haters can and will use. However I would suggest that the last sentence should read Voyeurs who are cross dressers, because that's what they primarily are, voyeurs who's reason for dressing is as we all know, different to ours. Looking at some of those cases it does seem that the person is more in need of psychiatric help than incarceration.

Laws cannot be formed around a small number of cases because if you do then statistically you'd need to ban many other groups, priests/pastors/care workers/doctors/dentists etc. given the well documented and numerous instances were they're been convicted of serious sexual assaults against both adults and children.

Enfemme I've walked into public toilets, made my way into the stall. I could just as easily done the same dressed in drab without being challenged and if I were a sexual predator laid in wait for a victim. And surely that's the point. Unless the toilet is extremely busy a sexual predator can access female toilets in order to carry out their criminal act. There needs to be rational debate and argument and not focused on small number of sad individuals.

Lorileah

05-30-2016, 08:07 PM

Unfortunately - yes, there are crossdressers arrested in public bathrooms:

Every one of those links were not a a person claiming to be crossgender. You comparison is like when a guy in a monkey mask robs a bank...he wasn't a monkey So these examples are not really true.

flatlander_48

05-30-2016, 09:13 PM

While that is an accurate distinction, somehow I don't think that anyone who would use that information negatively would point that out...

DeeAnn

lisa_vin

05-31-2016, 12:43 PM

Every one of those links were not a a person claiming to be crossgender. You comparison is like when a guy in a monkey mask robs a bank...he wasn't a monkey So these examples are not really true.

Ah, and therein lies the rub......in these articles, they were all men "disguised as or pretending to identify as female". They were not even true crossdressers per se, only labelled as such by the media. They were not in there just to perform a normal body function or to "freshen up". They were predators and were in there under the guise of "female or trans" in order to perpetrate their crime! I don't care how you slice it.......these types of predators will always exist and even though they are a very low percentage of the overall population, their acts will always cause problems for the TRULY trans community. These types of incidents will be streamlined into, at least for the foreseeable future, "headline" news and therefore presented as prime examples of the "consequences" of legalizing the transgender bathroom issue! This IS the fear that many, many people cling to and identify with to justify their feelings and opposition to legalizing transgender bathroom usage. Because you can't single out and eliminate the "pervs", the issue will remain extremely hot button and divisive for the foreseeable future.

By the way, these are definitions of the members of our community from the GLAAD website. I thought this might be pertinent to this discussion as to one of the sources of confusion surrounding the identity/terminology of each individual within the trans community. (Using this definition, a crossdresser is not considered to be identifying as a woman so, therefore, he or she should not be legally allowed in the bathroom identifying to their style of dress!) This is just food for thought but does signify that there is a looooooong way to go on this issue.

From the GLAAD website........
Transgender woman:
People who were assigned male at birth but identify and live as a woman may use this term to describe themselves. They may shorten to trans woman. (Note: trans woman, not "transwoman.") Some may also use MTF, an abbreviation for male-to-female. Some may prefer to simply be called women, without any modifier. It is best to ask which term an individual prefers.

Cross-dresser:
While anyone may wear clothes associated with a different sex, the term cross-dresser is typically used to refer to heterosexual men who occasionally wear clothes, makeup, and accessories culturally associated with women. This activity is a form of gender expression, and not done for entertainment purposes. Cross-dressers do not wish to permanently change their sex or live full-time as women. Replaces the term "transvestite."

PLEASE NOTE: Transgender women are not cross-dressers or drag queens. Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment. Be aware of the differences between transgender women, cross-dressers, and drag queens. Use the term preferred by the individual. Do not use the word "transvestite" at all, unless someone specifically self-identifies that way.[/I]

Tina_gm

05-31-2016, 01:07 PM

If the purpose of these bills is to keep predatory men out of the women's bathroom, then they should do the right thing by keeping men out of the men's bathrooms as well.

Lorileah

05-31-2016, 01:33 PM

PLEASE NOTE: Transgender women are not cross-dressers or drag queens. Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment. Be aware of the differences between transgender women, cross-dressers, and drag queens. Use the term preferred by the individual. Do not use the word "transvestite" at all, unless someone specifically self-identifies that way.

I am going to reference you to the sticky about definitions; Your thinking not only is wrong, it divides us into smaller marginalized parts. Now let's ask the question "How in real life, do you tell a crossdresser from a TS (NOt transgender they are all in that boat?) You see your OWN prejudices are showing. You make an assumption before you know any facts. The articles posted were after tyhe facts hd been established, these me were criminals, perverts who used the guise to get what they wanted.

I am amazed here how many crossdressers don't see that a law against one section of is a law against all of us. Partly because crossdressers know they could in teory fade away to being "just men" so they feel that the law would not impact them.

The point I am making about the quote is if we don't get OUR own language together, how in the hell can we communicate with those who aren't in our circle. All the infighting I get to see going on in this forum is frustrating. So many want to play the game but don't want to follow the rule.

THe "Rub" as you call it is that not one...no one...in this community stood up to the media or the police and said "Listen...don't lump us with them, they are not US." Again, a bank robber isn't always blue collar low paid worker. Every minority had a hill like this to climb. How did they? They educated and informed. WE don't we hide. (excluding thos who cannot hide). There's the rub, we are not self supporting, we are in fact self destructive. Not caring is as bad as promoting wrong.

Stand up

Tina_gm

05-31-2016, 01:47 PM

As guarded as I am, as much as in the closet as I am, on social media I have defended crossdressers and trans everyone against these bathroom laws. There are lots and lots of people who soak up all the babble about predators and etc etc. I know I do not do hardly as much as some, but I felt very good about what I did do. I also went against the grain of many people that I know in my area, who feel and believe that trans anyone should not be in a bathroom that is opposite their physical gender.

Saikotsu

05-31-2016, 06:19 PM

I am going to reference you to the sticky about definitions; Your thinking not only is wrong, it divides us into smaller marginalized parts. Now let's ask the question "How in real life, do you tell a crossdresser from a TS (NOt transgender they are all in that boat?) You see your OWN prejudices are showing. You make an assumption before you know any facts. The articles posted were after tyhe facts hd been established, these me were criminals, perverts who used the guise to get what they wanted.

I'd like to point out that Lisa said they were posting the definitions from GLAAD to demonstrate how it can be a source of confusion in this issue.

To your other point, Lorileah, I agree. I think it's important to take on an educator role in this sort of thing. People fear the unknown. So long as we aren't known, we WILL be feared. But if we can educate people, show them that we have much more in common than not, maybe people won't fear us as much. There will always be people who won't try to meet us halfway. Who will hate us. Just as there will always be sickos victimizing others. We can't educate everybody, and we can't stop all the criminals. But we can make a difference if we try. If not us, then who?

Lauri K

05-31-2016, 09:28 PM

:hd: Embarrassed by the lack of unity / consensus on this serious human rights issue, starting to look like the keystone cops here.

flatlander_48

06-02-2016, 12:09 AM

The point I am making about the quote is if we don't get OUR own language together, how in the hell can we communicate with those who aren't in our circle. All the infighting I get to see going on in this forum is frustrating. So many want to play the game but don't want to follow the rule.

THe "Rub" as you call it is that not one...no one...in this community stood up to the media or the police and said "Listen...don't lump us with them, they are not US." Again, a bank robber isn't always blue collar low paid worker. Every minority had a hill like this to climb. How did they? They educated and informed. WE don't we hide. (excluding thos who cannot hide). There's the rub, we are not self supporting, we are in fact self destructive. Not caring is as bad as promoting wrong.

Stand up

L:

I'm glad you said this; all of it. Reason being, because when I have, it is followed by a half dozen folks jumping on me saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. The point is that one does not need to transition in order to see this. There seems to be this prevailing opinion that all that humans have learned in the past 100 years or so regarding rights movements and social change somehow does not apply here. Well, guess what...

It's funny. On aggregate, this is an exceedingly intelligent community. Sadly, it is also true that we suffer from some awfully powerful tunnel vision.

WE CAN DO BETTER.

DeeAnn

bimini1

06-02-2016, 07:14 AM

The president of the Georgia Chapter of the ACLU has resigned in protest of the chapter's challenging of the NC law. Says the group's move smacks of special interest pandering and goes on to talk about her young daughters encountering 3 "transgenders" over 6 feet tall with deep voices in a bathroom where her daughters were visibly upset and frightened.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/06/02/georgia-aclu-director-resigns-over-transgender-fight/

Lorileah

06-02-2016, 01:24 PM

Poor hot house flowers. And yet I doubt they are upset over foul language on TV or violence in the city (near where they live)

Leslie Langford

06-02-2016, 08:20 PM

Trevor Noah, the current host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and heir to John Stewart absolutely nailed the absurdity of the Great Bathroom Bill debate in a recent broadcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyquX-frUSY

Absolutely brilliant, and this segment should be made compulsory viewing for all of the legislators still attempting to either pass or defend these odious bills. The Cartesian logic by which Noah makes his points and systematically demolishes the arguments of the "haters" should have them hanging their heads in shame for even thinking of going down this road in the first place.

Marcelle

06-02-2016, 09:37 PM

Sorry Robin,

This is the same argument that haters use to discriminate against trans folk. The YouTube video is pure hyperbole and has no fact. It talks about one woman getting a group together to protest because there are 209 registered sex offenders in the area. My question is . . . how many of those registered sex offenders are men who prey on young boys . . . going to keep them out of the men's bathroom? To be honest I get seriously tired of people using terms like pervert, peeping tom and sex offenders and pairing those words with the trans community. It is like some "seven degrees of field of dreams" moment where if you say it enough people believe it . . . trans equals perverts. That is all this video does . . . drums up images of creeping men lurking in the ladies room and then says "transgender rights". It is just an excuse to discriminate against the trans community.

Goodness women are more likely to be harassed or assaulted by a man they know in a social setting then by some dude lurking in the bathroom. Should we enact laws which say that men and women cannot socialize because men are incapable of controlling their libido? So where do you suggest I as a trans woman go pee . . . the men's room? I suppose I could stand a chance of getting out with my skin in tact but what about the 13 year old trans girl . . . who is protecting her? Oh . . . I guess that doesn't matter to the idiot who made the You Tube video because the safety of .03% of the population doesn't matter . . . very nice.

Marcelle

Stephanie47

06-02-2016, 09:43 PM

With reference to Lisa's comment at #56 there has never been any concrete manner to bar a man from entering a woman's restroom or locker room to assault a woman or girl. Washington State has had anti discrimination/hate crime law in place since 2005. I live in the most populated area of Washington State. I can recall one instance of a pervert masquerading as a woman to gain access to a women's restroom to "up skirt" females using the facility. He was caught and busted. That about it for the last ten plus years. On the other hand there have been numerous cases of perverts concealing cameras in shopping bags and going up escalators behind women to take pictures. There have been many cases of coaches and others installing cameras in drill holes in the walls of locker rooms.

When this became an issue in North Carolina and elsewhere the troops were mobilized in Washington to modify the law as it relates to bathrooms and locker rooms. The proposed law never made it our of committee during the "regular session," but, the proponents said they'll be back next session.

And, how will they protect our little boys from the perverts in the men's room? I have it on good authority from my wife there are no urinals in the ladies' room. It seems women have the privacy of a locked stall, while men shake it at a urinal or line up at a trough in the bathrooms at a sports arena or bar.

Unfortunately, I think this is going to be a big campaign issue this election, and, will divert attention away from issues that have a very wide consequence.

Zooey

06-02-2016, 10:07 PM

I am going to reference you to the sticky about definitions; Your thinking not only is wrong, it divides us into smaller marginalized parts. Now let's ask the question "How in real life, do you tell a crossdresser from a TS (NOt transgender they are all in that boat?) You see your OWN prejudices are showing. You make an assumption before you know any facts. The articles posted were after tyhe facts hd been established, these me were criminals, perverts who used the guise to get what they wanted.

I am amazed here how many crossdressers don't see that a law against one section of is a law against all of us. Partly because crossdressers know they could in teory fade away to being "just men" so they feel that the law would not impact them.

The point I am making about the quote is if we don't get OUR own language together, how in the hell can we communicate with those who aren't in our circle. All the infighting I get to see going on in this forum is frustrating. So many want to play the game but don't want to follow the rule.

THe "Rub" as you call it is that not one...no one...in this community stood up to the media or the police and said "Listen...don't lump us with them, they are not US." Again, a bank robber isn't always blue collar low paid worker. Every minority had a hill like this to climb. How did they? They educated and informed. WE don't we hide. (excluding thos who cannot hide). There's the rub, we are not self supporting, we are in fact self destructive. Not caring is as bad as promoting wrong.

Stand up

Lori, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here - I'm getting mixed messages, and I'm not sure I agree with your viewpoint here.

Robin414

06-02-2016, 11:20 PM

OK, as many of you know I've been watching way too much you tube lately and realizing the importance of knowing your enemy I've seen a few 'NC supporting' ones as well, to better understand their POV. That said, don't bring a bag of pollen for 'show and tell' to a hayfever support group, we can analyze it just fine on paper (I tossed out the bag of pollen BTW, sure it did have a small flower in it but for the most part, yah it was kinda...phlegm inducing) 😳

Now I've snuck out of the bad guys secret lair and reflecting, I know an LGBT inclusive law won't cause any harm to anyone (that's just crazy brainwashing paranoia, like the WBC, yah look that one up on you tube for a laugh 😂 )

All that said though, I did keep that small flower from the bag of pollen I tossed out earlier, it reminds ME at least that no matter how nuts the law makers are, I can still 'think' that in their minds it's not about US...it's no solution but it helps ME deal with it 😐

lisa_vin

06-03-2016, 01:39 PM

I'd like to point out that Lisa said they were posting the definitions from GLAAD to demonstrate how it can be a source of confusion in this issue.

To your other point, Lorileah, I agree. I think it's important to take on an educator role in this sort of thing. People fear the unknown. So long as we aren't known, we WILL be feared. But if we can educate people, show them that we have much more in common than not, maybe people won't fear us as much. There will always be people who won't try to meet us halfway. Who will hate us. Just as there will always be sickos victimizing others. We can't educate everybody, and we can't stop all the criminals. But we can make a difference if we try. If not us, then who?

Thank you very much Saikotsu! That is exactly what I was doing so thank you kindly for understanding. I've seen "GLAAD" referred to in numerous articles and even on TV over the last few years as THE reference site for trying to gain education for an "understanding" of the trans community. I've even seen it in referred to in "Dear Abby" columns in the newspaper in the past.

You know what friends, I am NOT a hater! Why are others on here so fast to attack ME when all I have provided IS food for thought on this subject. Read and digest what I said THOROUGHLY.....DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS! I don't need an "education" on definitions! These are not MY feelings, beliefs or understandings and I NEVER ONCE said they were. Y'all wanted a "discussion" on this subject and, quite frankly, ya' got one! I was merely pointing out some of the sources of misunderstanding and explaining WHY there is such discourse over this subject. I've heard some of this same hater crap from members within my own family and friends. (For purposes of further understanding, I am not "OUT" to anyone in my family or circle of friends except for my wife who is strictly DADT........it's a tough crowd!). Lashing out at someone simply because you fail to read or understand what that person really said makes "the lasher" no better than those who attack our community relentlessly from the outside who don't bother to "gain an education" before inserting their foot into their mouth! Stop wearing your feelings on your sleeves and toughen up!

So damn, people.......CALM DOWN! :confused2::noidea2::Poke:

BTW......I went ahead and "italicized" the statements from the GLAAD website so people could understand that these were not MY statements or feelings!

Saikotsu

06-03-2016, 04:55 PM

You're welcome, Lisa.

Let's all try to take a deep breath here ladies and gentlemen. Its a contentious issue and upsetting for sure, but if we lose our heads we only make things worse.

flatlander_48

06-03-2016, 05:06 PM

So damn, people.......CALM DOWN! :confused2::noidea2::Poke:

"Welcome To The Jungle!" - Guns N Roses...

DeeAnn

Leslie Langford

06-04-2016, 11:31 AM

"Just Pee!" - the cast of the Broadway version of "Kinky Boots" provides their spin on the great Bathroom Bills controversy with a new twist to their signature song... ;)

http://www.newnownext.com/the-cast-of-kinky-boots-tackles-bathroom-bills-with-new-original-song-just-pee/06/2016/

lisa_vin

06-04-2016, 01:17 PM

"Welcome To The Jungle!" - Guns N Roses...

DeeAnn

Great song DeeAnn! :dance:

Angie G

06-04-2016, 03:35 PM

I don't see why it should be a issue issues like this is the brean child of small minded morons. I don't see it as a big deal.HUGS.
ANGIE

Lorileah

06-04-2016, 09:19 PM

T I've seen "GLAAD" referred to in numerous articles and even on TV over the last few years as THE reference site for trying to gain education for an "understanding" of the trans community. I've even seen it in referred to in "Dear Abby" columns in the newspaper in the past.

I appreciate what you are saying but that IS the issue in the world right now. WE can't can't even agree on definitions. BTW GLADD is just an organization and they don't speak for the whole LGBT world. The word "transgender according to Human Rights Campaign

Transgender | An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth. Being transgender does not imply any specific sexual orientation. Therefore, transgender people may identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. It does include Transsexuals but it covers everyone here. Thus when we talk we need to define the usage. It confuses the lay people when we flip back and forth and even here we have a number of people who believe that if they are referred to as transgender they think it means transsexual.

The dictionary even has this
Transgender is a less clinical term, referring more to gender identity and gender expression than to sexual orientation or physical sex characteristics. It is also a more general and inclusive term: a transgender person may be gay, transsexual, transvestite, or even genderqueer.

Again the point is to have everyone use the same terminology so that we aren't mixing messages. Some crossdressers here feel that any law that is applied to the TG community doesn't effect them. So when one person says "This is a transgender issue" they think that in the big scheme of things the CDs and gender-queer aren't going to be effected.

On this site we have definitions (not that most people follow them) up in the stickies. When you speak, especially to people in your sphere, it helps to all have the same point of reference (thus why medical and law use Latin...it doesn't change). It was "hater" speech, it was trying to get everyone here to use the same terms in the same context. Sorry you took it so personal. Honestly I think this section has remained calm.

lisa_vin

06-07-2016, 04:10 PM

I appreciate what you are saying but that IS the issue in the world right now. WE can't can't even agree on definitions. BTW GLADD is just an organization and they don't speak for the whole LGBT world. The word "transgender according to Human Rights Campaign
It does include Transsexuals but it covers everyone here. Thus when we talk we need to define the usage. It confuses the lay people when we flip back and forth and even here we have a number of people who believe that if they are referred to as transgender they think it means transsexual.

The dictionary even has this

Again the point is to have everyone use the same terminology so that we aren't mixing messages. Some crossdressers here feel that any law that is applied to the TG community doesn't effect them. So when one person says "This is a transgender issue" they think that in the big scheme of things the CDs and gender-queer aren't going to be effected.

On this site we have definitions (not that most people follow them) up in the stickies. When you speak, especially to people in your sphere, it helps to all have the same point of reference (thus why medical and law use Latin...it doesn't change). It was "hater" speech, it was trying to get everyone here to use the same terms in the same context. Sorry you took it so personal. Honestly I think this section has remained calm.

Hi Lorileah!

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was merely in a "sharing and explanation" mode......specific events, websites, etc......and when it seemed as if it was being implied that these were MY stances, thoughts or ideas and that I was wrong about everything, I became a little defensive. I'll be more careful in the future to be understood as to WHERE what I say comes from.

:) No worries!

heatherdress

06-07-2016, 09:11 PM

Every one of those links were not a a person claiming to be crossgender. You comparison is like when a guy in a monkey mask robs a bank...he wasn't a monkey So these examples are not really true.

Sorry Lorileah - you can't have it both ways. Each of those people were transgender individuals, by your own definition - crossdressers. These examples are definitely "really true" examples of transgender individuals - crossdressers - arrested in women's rest rooms dressed and presenting as female. Unfortunately we have seen examples of voyeurism in this forum and it does exist to some degree in crossdressing and thus in the transgender community. And crossdressers who are voyeurs have just as much right to every linger in ladies rooms as any other member of our transgender community - by definition.

- - - Updated - - -

I was in an older restaurant in DC which converted both rest rooms to "gender neutral". It was not a very efficient system because they eliminated urinals from the former men's rest room which reduced capacity significantly. An elderly woman also complained to the restaurant owner that there was now always urine on the toilets and on the floors in both bathrooms which was disgusting to her. It was, however, rather meaningless due to the single capacity both rest rooms had.

But for those who really think that gender-neutral bathrooms are the solution, let me ask what protection is there from the "bathroom bullies" who will follow a transgender person into open-gender bathrooms simply to harass them? Guess what - the comfort or security you used to have using the ladies room would no longer exist. Is that really progress?

Lorileah

06-08-2016, 01:30 PM

They were transgender? OK let me refer you to a book, "Black like me" he wasn't black but presented as such. Didn't make him black. There have been other examples of this in other situations. THese MEN dressed to break a law. They didn't identify as being TG in any form except when they were caught. If those men had dressed as police, would they then be police? Yes I can have it both ways. One member here years ago said "just because you have frosting on your head doesn't make you a cupcake" If a man wears a mask to rob a bank does not make him the Lone Ranger.

Why would single room restrooms be meaningless? It seems a very good solution to me. You have a room to yourself, you have a door that locks, you can feel safe. Why would that be meaningless? Because it doesn't open up a large room to everyone? This isn't "separate but equal". This is "Everyone has the same opportunity" . Seems logical in this day. No one gets, more. No one gets less. And no one gets to be concerned who else in there with them. I think for a small venue, this is an ideal situation.

Comfort and security to...? There was never security. The doors swung no matter who was in there. It was "Perceived" security. Still is. There are laws supposedly protecting everyone from attacks in these rooms, and yet...as the old saying goes, one could walk right through that piece of paper and do your damage.

Zooey

06-08-2016, 10:55 PM

But really, how can you not see that if all public rest room facilities are genderless, those of us who feel comfortable using ladies rooms - as we always have without difficulty - will no longer have the comfort of a female environment when we are dressed as females. There will very definitely be more occasions of uncomfortable exchanges when jerk guys can harass those of us who look like men in a dress when we have to use the bathroom.

I'm sorry, but why do you need the "comfort of a female environment" just because you're wearing stereotypically women's clothing?

You need a safe bathroom, not the female environment.

Lorileah

06-09-2016, 12:32 PM

for the same reason a man in a monkey mask robbing a bank isn't a monkey. Wearing certain head gear doesn't make you part of a religion when you do it to commit a crime (do you know my family?...they think it does) Dressing to commit a crime and SOLELY for that purpose (and so far none of what you point out have been Transgender in real life at all) does not make you transgender. You have to look at INTENT. It makes you an opportunistic criminal (refer to Aurora shooter, he wasn't the Joker). None of the links has shown that these men crossdressed for any reason than to commit a crime. You can defend them all you want. But they dressed to commit the crime, not because they are transgender. Besides every link you posted was for bank robbery. Shall we make it illegal for transpeople to bank? (or men in certain clothes that aren't three piece suits?) And even if we agree they are, so WHAT? They are criminals, you cannot paint a whole society (i.e. race, gender, religion) for the actions of the few. Think about it. Since men known to women are the most likely to sexually assault a woman, you can't ban ALL men who know women. Your argument is spurious and unfounded. Again, I will refer to every stereotypic reason that anyone has ever used to marginalize every minority in history. Segregation laws have been effect in the US for 50 years.

Weak and false argument on your part.

JayeLefaye

06-10-2016, 01:42 PM

Some crossdressers here feel that any law that is applied to the TG community doesn't effect them. So when one person says "This is a transgender issue" they think that in the big scheme of things the CDs and gender-queer aren't going to be effected....

...Honestly I think this section has remained calm.

"Some crossdressers here feel that any law that is applied to the TG community doesn't effect them"...Then those crossdressers are being a tad narrow-minded/short-sighted. As a human, any law that negatively affects someone, ANYONE, also affects me. It's sad if that's not the way someone, Cis or otherwise thinks.

"...Honestly I think this section has remained calm"....Thankfully, I believe that I agree. Especially considering the sensitivity of this discussion.

Thanks for starting this thread, Lorileah!

Jaye

Rachelakld

06-11-2016, 01:23 AM

did you guys PANIC when Gays started getting rights, about how your young boys would be molested in toilets and then they would grow up gay....

Apart from a famous singer trying to hook up with an undercover policeman, nothing news worthy happened. I think the actual fallout from gay rights is extremely small.

Personally I think people just like to think the worse of everyone else - it makes them feel better about themselves.

Alice Torn

06-11-2016, 01:34 PM

Using the word haters may be a bit too much. Are there people we hate, on the right? I dare say there are a lot. Hate is such a hot button word, implies blood thirsty murderous monster people. i would simply say the opposition . There are people with young girls, who do not want men coming into locker rooms, changing, and showing their genitals around girls. Can you blame them for caution!

Lorileah

06-11-2016, 02:14 PM

Yeah, I can. Especially when the threat is virtually non-existent. Those young girls are in more danger from an uncle or a neighbor or ex-boyfriend.

Shelly Preston

06-13-2016, 11:12 AM

Hi Heatherdress

I would suggest that members of the transgender community are no more likely to be criminals than any other group in society.

On a side note "Prostitution" is not a crime in every country.

I have also been in places where the bathroom is unisex. This means everyone, Male, Female & TG/CD all use the stalls provided.

sabrinaedwards

06-15-2016, 01:53 PM

I have always used the bathroom associated with my appearance. If I am dressed as a female, I use the Ladies bathroom. I have never had an issue doing this. One issue that does trouble me is the feelings from the general community regarding this issue. Many lump us in with pediphiles! I thought that the world was changing and we would be more accepted, but I guess not.
Love, Sabrina

Martha G

06-16-2016, 06:59 AM

When I am dressed as a woman I used the ladies room.

I am a very passable woman and have developed many feminine traits and gestures.

I have never had any trouble.

Lorileah

06-16-2016, 12:58 PM

back on track here. This isn't where you can proclaim what restroom you use, that gets discussed in the regular boards. This is where you discuss laws and regulations :)

flatlander_48

06-16-2016, 01:31 PM

As I understand, HB2 is a misdemeanor class and that there is no defined penalty. Assuming that to be true, does that strike anyone else as odd? It feels like they were trying to minimize/eliminate blowback.

DeeAnn

JayeLefaye

06-17-2016, 09:52 AM

Yes, Dee Ann, it is odd. And if the wording was an effort to prevent blowback, it failed miserably! Bottom line, with regards to HB2 and other similar ploys...Please, everyone, keep in mind that this is an election year here in the U.S....The major metro areas are not the target audience...
The outlying areas, with relatively small, isolated populations scattered throughout the various states are the target audience(voters)...It is, sadly, easier to inflame fear than to deal with issues that should be focused on.

Someone called it a "smokescreen". I agree...But I have seldom seen a smokescreen that brought out ignorant hate the way that this has.

Shame on them...

Don't let them win.

Be kind. Be true....

Jaye

flatlander_48

06-18-2016, 01:46 AM

JL:

I understand what you say, but the blowback I was thinking about has to do with things like False Arrest. Sorry that wasn't clear.

DeeAnn

Mayo

06-18-2016, 10:37 AM

Sorry - If a man wears a dress and presents as a woman, he is crossdressing and is called a crossdresser. Crossdressers are part of the transgender community, as you always remind us. You cannot eliminate crossdressers from the transgender umbrella who are voyeurs, or drug dealers, or prostitutes or even bank robbers.
Yes, you can. Just because someone puts on a dress once (for Hallowe'en, or on a dare, or to sneak into a college bathroom and snap pictures of women, or for a bank robbery) doesn't make them a crossdresser except in the most technical sense of the word, in which case you also have to consider any women who has ever worn a pair of pants or a man's shirt to be a crossdresser. In other words, you can't assume that, just because someone puts on a dress, that they are a CD or trans person. A person who dons a disguise (something intended to conceal their identity) to commit a crime is not the same as someone who dresses to acknowledge and express their identity and is not committing a crime. No law, much less one with minimal or non-existent penalties, will prevent people from donning disguises and entering the women's washroom to commit offences (that are already illegal!) if they really want to do so.

No Unequal Rights, Breitbart, and other organizations have published several lists of 'men who entered women's facilities' in order to bolster their discriminatory agendas. If you read through them with a critical eye you will find very few examples of people who are 'real' crossdressers or who identify as transgender. In the vast majority of cases they are cis men who have put on dresses as disguises, rather than as expressions of identity.

The NUER list contains 48 reports of crimes committed in five countries between 1991 - 2014 by 'men in women's clothing' (hereafter MIWC). Of those, there were only 7 cases in the US of men dressing as women &/or claiming to be trans in order to enter women's facilities to commit some sort of sexual offence (the majority of which were of a voyeuristic nature, e.g. peeping, taking pictures), or (on average) roughly one case every three years throughout the entire country. Even if you take all of their reports at face value, there are at most 25 cases of sexual offences by a MIWC in the US in those 24 years in any location (not just women's facilities, and therefore irrelevant from the perspective of these bills), or one per year on average. Remember, this is from a list compiled by an organization that has a vested interest in finding and publicizing as many such cases as it possibly can. And again, a significant number of the 'MIWC' in these reports are probably cis men in disguises.

If you are serious about 'protecting women and children', consider the 127767 reports of forcible (i.e. penetrative) rape that were reported to the FBI in 2012/2013 alone (realizing also that ~90% of sexual assaults go unreported). Oh, and don't forget the 31 trans women murdered in 2012/2013 simply for being who they are. 'Bathroom bills' are a joke, a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Focusing on them is a way for lawmakers to curry favour with bigots while continuing to do nothing whatsoever about real issues and that should be recognized for the baseless and hateful attempts at pandering that they are.

Mayo

06-20-2016, 02:47 PM

If you can show me any aggregated statistics from national police associations, the DOJ, or the FBI, on sexual offences committed by TS/CDs ('real' or otherwise) I'd love to see them. In their absence, we have to go with what we have and, as I said, the NUER campaign at least has a motive to assemble as many cases as they can to support their argument. Given (as I showed above) that they fail to present any substantial numbers, I call BS on them and their campaign in its entirety.

I'm sure a lot of older people, women, and even those with spiritual beliefs were upset when same-sex marriages were made legal, or when gays started coming out of the closet, or when schools were integrated, or when women got the vote. Gays, blacks and women have always been with us and laws giving them the same rights as cis/het white men does not create any issues that weren't there before - they just become more visible. To pass laws banning TS/CDs because once every three years someone who's genetically male and wearing a dress commits a sex offence in a women's washroom is ridiculous. There are far more crimes committed by than TS/CD people, yet we don't call for their rights to be rescinded or limited. We don't ban men from associating with women because women are raped (by men, of course), and I'm sure victims of sexual assault are triggered by the presence or actions of many more cis/het men in a year than by the sight of TS/CDs. There is a point beyond which such attempts to control people are pointless for any practical reason, especially when there are issues that are hundreds or thousands of times more important in terms of number of people who are affected.

These laws are simply attempts to push TS/CD people back in the closet so that nobody needs to be confronted by a reality that may make them uncomfortable.

- - - Updated - - -

[I](For some reason, none of the 'Reply' options will let me post a new comment, but instead force me to add to this one. So here goes.)

In reply to some of the posts above and, more specifically, to one that followed my last post (i.e. the one above the 'Updated' line) but has since been deleted:

Most objections to allowing TS/TG people to use the washrooms of the gender with which they identify, if not rooted in religious interpretations (which I will not discuss herein), seem to me to boil down to the issue of 'comfort'.

People who are not GGs should not enter women's washrooms because of 'privacy'.
The presence of TS/TG/CDs might make sexual assault survivors feel uncomfortable.
We should not upset people with 'strong spiritual beliefs'.
There are many things that make people uncomfortable. The sight of two men kissing apparently upset someone enough that they recently shot over a hundred people, half of them fatally. When people make their own 'comfort' more important than the rights of others, the result is discrimination, oppression or worse. Beyond the obvious impact of deliberate hate crimes, discrimination has consequences that seriously affect peoples' lives. I could point you to any number of studies on how not being straight, white and/or cisgender in America has negative effects on almost any measure of well-being. Any 'agenda' that seeks to reduce discrimination sounds like a good one to me.

Bathrooms have stalls for privacy. If no crime is being committed, the fact that someone in the next stall over might have different genetics than you is solely a matter of comfort, nothing else. Your comfort, like your religious belief, does not entitle you to deny me my rights as a human being.

I am a supporter of unisex bathrooms, though I concede that there will inevitably be an adjustment process as the country adapts to it, just as it takes time to adapt to any other change. The adjustment to out LGB people, for example, is still going on and, as Orlando showed, still has a long way to go (I give it another two generations or so). The acceptance of TS/TG/CD/nonbinary people is only just beginning. I have no doubt that there will be some sexual offences committed in women's (or unisex) washrooms over the next 50 years, though I rather suspect the vast majority will be by cis/het men and/or against TS/TG/CD/NBs. Our society needs to change the way it thinks about gender and all of the toxic BS that goes along with it.

If you object to the presence of TS/TG/CD/NBs in washrooms because you are truly concerned about the safety of the wimmins 'n chilluns, why not actually do something constructive about that instead of further marginalizing already-marginalized people. If you really want to reduce rape, sexual assault, and violence against women, passing pointless legislation that discriminates against a specific group in the name of preventing offences that are already illegal is a waste of time and resources and only disseminates misinformation in the service of promoting hatred. Rather, you need to educate people about consent and toxic masculinity and rape culture, make resources available to assault survivors, and reform the way the justice system treats rape victims and punishes offenders. And work on accepting people who are not like you.

Zooey

06-21-2016, 04:37 AM

People who are not GGs should not enter women's washrooms because of 'privacy'.

I think there's another viewpoint that you missed... There are a whole bunch of "moderately concerned" folks out there who, when pressed to elaborate on their views, say "People who are not women should not be allowed to use women's restrooms". The distinction being that they are fine with full-time transitioned women, but are not fine with "men in dresses".

When it comes to AVERAGE people - not the most hateful activists - relatively few are actually vehemently pushing for trans women to be kicked out of the women's room. A larger number are concerned about men who declare that they're a woman while they're wearing a dress. This is the case that the anti-trans groups constantly bring up. I don't agree with those groups on almost anything, but I honestly do not understand why people who consider themselves "not a woman" (or especially "a man") feel as though it is their "right as a human being" to access women's rooms. Everybody should have the right to access a safe bathroom, but that is a very different statement.

I'm all for converting bathrooms to be gender neutral, but I don't think men should have the RIGHT to use women's rooms as they're currently defined. I know lots of women who are uncomfortable with the idea of men in there. I'm one of them, I understand their reasoning, and I've got a host of other reasons that they can (mostly) only imagine. I know the statistics, but I've also seen "how the sausage is made", so to speak. I can't in good conscience tell other women that some of their concerns are unfounded. I've seen the supporting evidence, and continue to see it more or less daily.

Mayo

06-21-2016, 11:01 AM

Zooey ~ I understand your point, and the back-and-forth about it was well-illustrated in your thread about women's spaces. If I haven't already made myself clear, I fully support an individual's right to use the facilities that match their gender identity, and I also support the restriction of "women's spaces" to those who identify as women. Washrooms, however, are a bit of a special case. These are issues that need to be addressed and the status quo will not suffice. Unisex bathrooms are a desirable end goal, but it will take time to reach that point and some people will inevitably be made uncomfortable in the interim.

As long as we continue to insist on binary gender designations, anybody who does not present exclusively as one or the other is going to have (and cause) issues on entering any washroom and will need to weigh various factors (including their appearance ['passing privilege'] and considerations of personal safety) in making the decision to choose one of the two doors. For many whose gender markers do not all match one of the binary options - including most CDs as well as some trans people - I think the individual has to make their own decision on a case-by-case basis. There is no answer that will satisfy everybody until unisex bathrooms become the norm, but I don't really see why CDs should not have the same 'right' as other gender-nonconforming individuals to make that choice for themselves.

It should go without saying in this discussion that anybody who enters any gender-segregated facility should be doing so simply to take care of business and not do anything untoward. Changing and showering facilities also present more of a problem, which is why I've stuck to talking about washrooms.

Lorileah

06-21-2016, 02:52 PM

. I can't in good conscience tell other women that some of their concerns are unfounded. I've seen the supporting evidence, and continue to see it more or less daily.

OK, I know this is your view but I am curious. What evidence are you seeing? Because that would go to proof on one side or the other. I too have seen both sides of the paper (and in women's rooms recently it is floating on the last urination someone diod and did not flush atfterward...ewww) What are the concerns? Are you seeing an increase in sexual assaults? An increase in men who don't really want to stand in line? Guys leaning against the sink? I really don't understand your statement. I am, to be honest "pee shy" but it has NOTHING to do with the gender of the person near me. But exactly how are you seeing supporting evidence and how is it increasing on a daily level?

(Addendum: this weekend I visited a gay bar here that recently opened. They really cater to the leather,hankie, and industrial male crowd. Having just walked 5.1 miles -that's what my phone said- in 100 degree heat, I had to pee. This place doesn't cater to women OR Trans as a draw. They don't keep us out either but it is a MEN'S bar. The restroom had two stalls (yes THE RESTROOM there was just one) and no sign. So I went in a stall, sat down...did my thing while one man went in the next stall and stood to pee. Wow, I wasn't attacked. Also I was in the fair city of SF two months ago at a public venue which said anyone could use either restroom at anytime. It was not a one holer, they were 3-4 stalls in each...no one was harmed. In fact I had a pleasant conversation with a man who was washing up...so tell me...what is your evidence? My anecdotal will equal your anecdotal I'm sure)

Katey888

06-21-2016, 03:27 PM

Please tell me that non-US members are allowed to contribute here.... :)
(Or just delete it if we're not.. :p)

I appreciate how fortunate I am to live in a nation of 60 million people where any gender can use any public convenience (toilet, in common parlance) at any time and the gender designations are considered to be advisory only and not subject to prohibitions or constraints other than those for behaviour of anyone in a public place. Of course, most of us Brits are exceedingly polite and only use the most appropriate of toilets unless an emergency arises... I'm struggling to see how mandating behaviour helps or protects anyone, other than in their imagination - your restroom legislation is simple bigotry aimed at a 'soft' target (trans rights being easier to attack but related to LGBT in general - divide and conquer...) and should be universally opposed by anyone under the LGBT banner because it might be the thin end of the wedge...

I think Mayo is talking a lot of sense in this summary...

If you really want to reduce rape, sexual assault, and violence against women, passing pointless legislation that discriminates against a specific group in the name of preventing offences that are already illegal is a waste of time and resources and only disseminates misinformation in the service of promoting hatred. Rather, you need to educate people about consent and toxic masculinity and rape culture, make resources available to assault survivors, and reform the way the justice system treats rape victims and punishes offenders. And work on accepting people who are not like you.

Out of interest I did a quick Google research of the UK for crimes occurring in 'restrooms' here. Overwhelmingly the majority of incidents were male-on-male common assaults, sexual assaults, or sexual assault on a child. I couldn't find one instance of any TG/TS involvement, and while there have been male-on-female assaults in ladies' restrooms, they are very much in the minority and still do not feature assailants crossdressing...

And while a proven rapist may receive a sentence of 7-8 years, a lesser sexual assault (which may be only slightly less traumatic) only receives an average sentence of 2 years in custody - which might only be half of that with remission (parole) and some offenders spend nearly all that time on remand (awaiting trial). Not much of a deterrent, IMHO.

I agree with Mayo wholeheartedly. Someone should point out to the lawmakers that more severe sentencing for offenders and a higher investment in community policing (perhaps even CCTV?) is the real way to provide a safer environment for everyone. I can't think the USA is too much different from us in general... this is all one, big, red herring... :)

Katey x

flatlander_48

06-21-2016, 05:54 PM

K:

Don't neglect the political aspect of this. It was intended to be a polarizing issue and was timed to help certain people get elected. If this was really the significant issue that some want to believe, why didn't this happen a long time ago?

DeeAnn

Zooey

06-21-2016, 06:35 PM

OK, I know this is your view but I am curious. What evidence are you seeing? Because that would go to proof on one side or the other. I too have seen both sides of the paper (and in women's rooms recently it is floating on the last urination someone diod and did not flush atfterward...ewww) What are the concerns?

The concerns I was talking about are not safety concerns. I know the statistics, and I'm not arguing them.

The concerns I'm talking about have to do with the motivations of men using the ladies room, and whether they're getting some kind of pleasure out of the experience. Even in many (though certainly not all) of the more "normal" cases here, there are undertones to what they do and why. In just as many or more cases, there are pretty overt sexual motivations and/or feelings from the experience. That's not even getting into the caricature image of women so often discussed/pursued here and the uncomfortable feelings that come from that.

I cannot in good conscience tell women that men in dresses have only pure intentions and a need to pee. There's more to it than that in far too many cases. That is what I see evidence of every day, much of it here.

Men in dresses may be "safe" statistically speaking, but that's only part of the concern. Nobody wants to be an unwilling participant in someone else's kink.

Helen_Highwater

06-21-2016, 06:54 PM

A person who dons a disguise (something intended to conceal their identity) to commit a crime is not the same as someone who dresses to acknowledge and express their identity and is not committing a crime. No law, much less one with minimal or non-existent penalties, will prevent people from donning disguises and entering the women's washroom to commit offences (that are already illegal!) if they really want to do so.

As Katey quiet rightly points out, in the UK public toilets are just that and the Male and Female signs are a nod to social norms not a legal standing. Also CD'ing in public isn't a crime unless as Mayo describes above, that the person does so with the intention of enabling them to commit a crime.

I'm drawn to compare what's happening with the debate over here re the EU vote to what we witness from our more distant perspective regarding these bathroom bills. It's very difficult to find a politician of either persuasion who will make an argument based on real facts, solid evidence.

Perhaps one way is for the groups campaigning for Trans rights to take out bill board and news paper ads and simply put up the stats mayo quotes referring to rape cases and sexual assaults along with those for CD'ing incidents and asking why so many tax dollars are being spent on these useless laws and not on preventing sexual crimes that effect women on a daily basis. It's about getting the message across, starting a debate and getting other parts of the community on board and questioning what the politicians are doing.

One bill board in the right place will create a stir, the media will pick it up and it will soon find it's way onto national TV.

Mayo

06-22-2016, 10:46 AM

I cannot in good conscience tell women that men in dresses have only pure intentions and a need to pee. There's more to it than that in far too many cases. That is what I see evidence of every day, much of it here.
There is some truth in this. All sorts of things go on in men's washrooms that are unrelated to the primary reason such facilities exist, and sometimes those things are sexual in nature. I'm sure women do kinky things in public toilets too, sometimes, but honestly, the problem is men in general, not just CDers. And mixing genders in washrooms will inevitably cause some problems.

Part of my reasoning that unisex washrooms are ultimately a good thing is that it may ultimately contribute toward reversing the sex-shaming that is so prevalent in North American culture. Part of the reason men are so :edit: up about sexuality is, IMO, due to how they're socialized about gender and gender roles - in other words, that unhealthy cocktail of misogyny, toxic masculinity and rape culture. A significant part of that is the puritanical/Victorian attitude toward sex and bodily functions that makes them something to be treated furtively and with shame, and that discourages frank acknowledgement of and honest discussion about sex in the misguided belief that ignoring it will make it go away (tell that to all the teen mothers in abstinence-only states). We need to move toward a more European attitude toward sex. on consent and on the non-binary nature of gender will go some way toward changing this. Sharing bathrooms is one step in this process.

Ultimately, then, I see the 'bathroom wars' and the current battles against LGBTQ (and particularly trans) people as opportunities to change our entire culture, to get rid of old ideas and to encourage respect, tolerance and acceptance where gender and sexuality are concerned. If we can discard a lot of the 18th century baggage we have around those issues, I think we can reduce the hyper-inflated emphasis we put on sex and change how people relate to each other in that domain. This alone should reduce sexual violence. (Conservatives may call it 'social engineering, and that's exactly what it is - just as seatbelts and no smoking laws were.) It will take a few more generations, but we need to keep going in this direction.

Lorileah

06-22-2016, 01:19 PM

] mixing genders in washrooms will inevitably cause some problems. Because????Maybe I am totally naive here. The only time I have ever witnesses and male-male inappropriate behavior has been in gay clubs or venues. And I have also witnessed the same behavior by women in the women's room. Inevitably? I doubt you will see an increase of said behaviors outside that venue, and to be honest I know hetero couples who have grabbed a bit of nookie in public restrooms too (never saw it though). As noted frequently here, there be laws arreddy fer that. Public indecency is illegal. Having sex in a public place...illegal. None of that is changing over these new laws.

Ultimately, then, I see the 'bathroom wars' and the current battles against LGBTQ (and particularly trans) people as opportunities to change our entire culture, to get rid of old ideas and to encourage respect, tolerance and acceptance where gender and sexuality are concerned. and that will take at least one and probably at least two generations IF people try and change. The Civil Rights Act in 1964 wanted the same thing, and yet we still have discrimination based on color and gender. Away from large cities, the mindset isn't much different and in some cases worse.

Oh and by the way, remember the main rules of what you can post here still stand. All we are allowing is general political and religious views to be relaxed.

Mayo

06-22-2016, 04:16 PM

I'm suggesting that, during the evolution toward unisex washrooms, some men, because of how they've been socialized, will inevitably take the existence of these spaces as opportunities to act inappropriately toward some women therein. Obviously I hope that this doesn't happen but, in a society where a woman's clothing has been used as an 'excuse' for rape, I'm not optimistic. Fortunately this is less the case than it was even a few years ago, and is just one example of how we need to move toward a mind-set in which there is no 'excuse' or 'justification' for sexual assault. This is why, concurrently, we need to promote education and a less dismissive approach to sexual violence. And yes, it will take a generation or three.

Helen_Highwater

06-22-2016, 07:17 PM

I acknowledge that politics is a no-no on this site but I couldn't help but compare what needs to happen in the US with regard to Trans rights, which is undoubtedly a political issue which is why there's this special thread, with what happened in the House of Representatives recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736

Setting aside the reason for this particular action this is the sort of direct action that the Trans community via it's supporters needs to take.

I'm old enough to remember the anti war university protests, the civil rights protests. The coming together of people, who lets face it started as a minority, growing into a movement that changed society.

If you're continually on the defensive you'll never win the argument. I know from what I read and see in the media that there's a huge level of support and acceptance for the LGBT community within America. It's time to stop being defensive and logically, methodically and strongly above all else make the case for Trans folks.

As we say in the UK, it's time to "grow some" (which applies to both MTF and FTM I guess)

flatlander_48

06-22-2016, 07:38 PM

H_H:

No disagreement with what you said; particularly in the next to the last paragraph. But, the problem that this is a community that largely wishes to remain in the closet (closet in this case being not externally claiming a Trans identity). Specifically, this refers to the "I just want to live my life", "I don't want to be an activist" and other similar statements. Certainly there are clear reasons for this, but it just doesn't align very well with expectations of progress.

DeeAnn

Mayo

06-23-2016, 08:44 AM

While the vast majority of any group will simply try to mind their own business and muddle by, some people will always step up and advocate for the rest (we have a few on this forum). Activists are necessary because, if nobody speaks up, nothing will change. The activists are the ones who push curriculum changes, repeal of discriminatory laws, and all the other things that are necessary for change to happen. And it is happening.

Helen_Highwater

06-23-2016, 11:41 AM

DeeAnn,

Guilty as charged, I'm someone deeply in the closet.

There's a group in the UK called 38Degrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBzh7d1xL5U
It gets it's name from the angle at which an avalanche can commence. It campaigns on all sorts of political and social issues but isn't aligned to any political colour. It's supported by donations from ordinary folk. And this is how the CD/Trans community can get behind a group to front their arguments in the public arena. These many small donations in the case of 38Degrees has run newspaper ads, organised online petitions, lobbied Parliament and big business and it has worked.

What's needed is the willingness of a few to organise and the many to financially support.

flatlander_48

06-23-2016, 12:32 PM

H_H:

The quotes that I included have come from some who have transitioned.

DeeAnn

Lorileah

06-23-2016, 01:19 PM

I'm old enough to remember the anti war university protests, the civil rights protests. The coming together of people, who lets face it started as a minority, growing into a movement that changed society.

) Did it? The surface changed but little else. If it had changed, this undercurrent now would not be an issue

MissDanielle

06-23-2016, 06:36 PM

Chicago City Council passes an ordinance (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-ordinance-transgender-people-bathroom-rights-40056020) to allow for those using the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

bettyloop

06-25-2016, 03:43 PM

WHy does it even have to matter if we go in the bathroom of our biological gender? It's natural for people to want privacy when they use the toilet. Nobody wants to be in a public bathroom anyway. Clearly something unplanned came up that caused them to have to go in there. If women can wear flannel and jeans and boots, then by golly, I can wear a summer dress. I'm still a man. I'm not fooling anyone. I'm just a man who like to look girly. No ammount of surgery or hormones will remove my Y chromosome. I'm fine with using the mens room. But for those super hot trans women that put most real women to shame, use whatever bathroom you like. Nobody could tell the difference.

Zooey

06-25-2016, 04:39 PM

While I'm personally happy to hear that as a man in a dress you feel it's appropriate to use the men's restroom, the last half of your post makes me very sad. It's the kind of language that simultaneously erases trans women AND is incredibly demeaning to all women (cis and trans alike).

I am a woman. A real woman, who doesn't appreciate men talking about and valuing our appearances above all else.

I'm also a woman who happens to be trans.

PretzelGirl

06-25-2016, 04:43 PM

All I can say is WOW. First, chromosomes are irrelevant. Have you ever heard of intersex? Have you ever heard of transgender? You might be fine using the mens room but many aren't. And it has zero to do with looks! Really? You think any "super hot trans women" could put anyone to shame? That is very insulting to women everywhere to be playing comparisons to how they prefer to present. I don't care if they are dressed up or casual, hot looking or looking like me, we all get to be who we are and those kind of comparisons are down right demeaning.

Edit:
In reference to chromosomes, I am just going to drop this here.

https://sheactuallywritesblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/coming-out-and-owning-my-intersexuality/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/science-doesnt-support-sex-binary/

PaulaQ

06-28-2016, 01:02 AM

At just about everybody in the thread save Sue and Zooey, the concept of binary biological sex is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. That's right. The male / female binary is every bit as much a social construct as the gender binary. There are hundreds of intersex conditions. The human body is composed of a number of organs that are sexually dimorphic. That is - they are different between males and females. The thing is - not all of these organs differentiate at the same time during pregnancy, and so some people have organs, some male, some female. There are numerous genetic variations that result in someone being intersexed as well - for example, what sex is someone with XXY chromosomes? (Answer - although most will appear to be male, sorta, some will appear to be female based on external examination.) What about someone who's cells contain a mosaic of XX / XXY? On top of all that, there are developmental conditions that can cause the genitalia to be ambiguous at birth.

This idea we have of what sex someone is, comes from a cursory 30 second (if that) examination by a doctor when the person is born. There's no genetic testing. There's no sonogram looking for additional internal organs (some people have both testes and ovaries, for example), there's just some doctor, looking at a baby, and if it looks like it has boy parts, he declares "Male", girl parts "Female", and in many places, if he has to guess because of ambiguity, they make a fairly arbitrary decision, or worse, try to surgically remove the ambiguity of the baby's genitalia.

Bottom line, because of the exceptional conditions that sometimes happen in the development of a child, sex is a social construct. The idea that there are "only" males and females is simply false. There are people who are neither, or arguably both, or something in between.

263192

Mayo

06-28-2016, 09:17 AM

And if that's demonstrably true physiologically, why can't it be true psychologically as well?

/rhetorical question

Babbs

06-28-2016, 07:17 PM

MissDanielle

06-28-2016, 07:27 PM

Babbs, only about some 20ish percent of people that are transgender and have transitioned are able to afford GRS. That includes those who started before puberty, I believe.

PretzelGirl

06-29-2016, 10:37 PM

flatlander_48

06-29-2016, 11:21 PM

Daryl

06-30-2016, 01:44 PM

Today the Secretary Of Defense has come out to allow TG's to openly serve in the military.
Another step forward.

Marcelle

06-30-2016, 04:32 PM

I know most here won't agree but if you have a penis, use the men's room. If you have a vagina, use the ladies room. If its a unisex bathroom then all use it. I myself do not care who uses my bathroom but I just want to respect the rights of others who do care. sorry if this opinion was previously mentioned and I'm just repeating.

Babbs,

I have read through your past posts and while you have gone out once or twice in public it seems you spend most of your time closeted. When you live 24/7 as a trans woman you don't have the luxury of switching back to male or holding it until your shopping trip, restaurant visit or late night working en femme fun is done. When I have to go I have to go and as Sue said . . . me an my penis will go where we feel safe . . . the women's restroom. Your thinking just demonstrates a lack of empathy for those of us who live this everyday and not just as a dress up game.

Marcelle

Lorileah

06-30-2016, 06:38 PM

I know most here won't agree but if you have a penis, use the men's room. If you have a vagina, use the ladies room.

Technically I still have vestiges of both and my birth cert says ...boy.

Now, who is going to check?

julia marie

07-01-2016, 09:09 PM

I'm sorry if I missed a post in trying to read through 130+ posts. However, something I haven't heard addressed in the general media: Other than the laws passed in places like North Carolina recently, what are the typical state laws about who can use which bathroom? Obviously "lewd and lascivious' applies if you go into either bathroom and you show everyone Mr. Happy (as Robin Williams called it). However, do many states have long-standing laws saying who should/can use which bathroom? I have yet to hear/read about anyone who can cite such a law, and can cite the definition for man and woman, even in the states that have stepped up with "public facilities" protections for TGs. I suspect that in most places it's just assumed that a penis excludes you from the women's room, but, is that really a law?

ReineD

07-02-2016, 03:41 AM

Lambda Legal (http://www.lambdalegal.org/), a large organization whose mission is to achieve full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV, has a great website and FAQ about equal access to public bathrooms. These are people on the cutting edge of this country’s bathroom debates (along with all the other legal issues for LGBT). They influence policy by winning court cases, and they have an impressive staff and board of directors. Read the Transgender section under "Our Work", and also the Strategic Plan section under "About Us".

But since this thread is about bathrooms, this is their Restroom FAQ page:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/restroom-faq

The first question:
Q - How do you know which bathroom a transgender person should use?
A - A transgender person should use the restroom that corresponds to his or her gender identity.

The second question:
Q - What if someone doesn't look masculine or feminine enough to use a particular restroom?
A - There is no rule that a person must look a certain way to use a certain restroom. This kind of “gender policing” is harmful to everyone, whether a transgender person, a butch woman, an effeminate man or anyone dressed or groomed in a way that doesn’t conform to someone else’s gender standards. Moreover, courts have increasingly found that discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination.

So it predicates on gender identity, which is rather fundamental. The gender identity of nearly all the transitioners I know is unmistakable. MtFs identify as women, and FtMs identify as men. I don’t know what to make of the folks who are transitioning but who identify as "trans" because I don’t know what this means. Maybe they can elaborate.

The focal question to the bathroom debate (the question over which people have loudly protested and the intended focus of the bathroom bills) is who should use the women’s bathrooms particularly. So logically the answer is, the people who identify as women.

Do crossdressers fundamentally identify as women? No. (Else they are not crossdressers?)

And the people who have an identify outside of the binary - the genderqueer, bigender, genderfluid, etc, do they fundamentally identify as either men or women? Again, no, not if they identify as something other than male or female.

This does not answer how to regulate any of this, for example how can a transitioner prove that he or she does indeed have a fundamental (unchanging) gender identity within the binary, other than a birth certificate (we are talking about existing binary male and female bathrooms). Many states require SRS before changing birth certificates while only about 25% of MtF and and 5% of FtM transitioners get bottom surgery. But, don't transitioners pretty much all live (or are in the process of living) full time? Do they work somewhere in their transitioned gender? I don't know the percentage who are on hormones under medical supervision (I imagine a majority?) so maybe there is or could be a way to take all of this into account and produce a document that would be recognized as satisfying the legal requirements, if a birth certificate has not been changed and if bathrooms laws are to eventually all state that people should use them according to their gender (and not sexual) identity.

This also does not answer how to make crossdressers feel safe and/or comfortable while going out dressed. For now, gender neutral bathrooms seem the best bet in contentious areas since crossdressers are free to choose where and when they will go out dressed. Gender neutral bathrooms also seem the best option for non-binary folks who do not identify as either men and women, unless of course they feel comfortable using the bathroom that matches their birth sex.

And hopefully, eventually we will remove the notion from our collective consciousness that any bathroom should be a gendered space, although I agree with Mayo. This might take a few generations.

But realistically, since I cannot imagine having gender police posted at every bathroom in this country, I think in most states it is pretty safe for crossdressers to use the women’s bathrooms judiciously as long as they don't present as hulking males wearing a dress in contentious or sensitive areas. Use your spidey senses in your area … is it fairly open-minded (CA vs NC); is it a small town vs an urban area; are you out in the evening with mostly adults or is it a daytime place with lots of kids; is the bathroom fairly quiet or is it hugely busy; etc. Or if in doubt, ask. Or find a single-user space.

what are the typical state laws about who can use which bathroom?

Have a look at this interactive map by state: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-your-state

It has been clarified in some states, and not addressed in others. So when in doubt, use common sense (see my last paragraph above) or ask.

PretzelGirl

07-02-2016, 09:13 AM

Reine, I agree that a person should use it corresponding with their identity. And even that description falls short for those who are non-binary. Producing any type of documentation is a complete no-no. That was done for the jews in Europe. It is what North Carolina wants to do now as an alternate to their current hate laws. We don't codify people and then go "you go this way and you go that way". This speaks nothing of the cost and difficulties of implementing such a thing. Additionally, anything that requires a bureaucratic process discriminates against the most marginalized. So we set up more barriers for those having the hardest time getting through life.

There wasn't a problem until it became a political tool. And that is all this is as the marriage battle was lost and people went looking for the next "soft underbelly" and went for us because no one knew who we were, so it is easy to create fear and hate. The only way this will settle (other than time, which will be needed in any solution) is to allow people to go where they feel safe. If we don't do that, there are too many other side issues that go unaddressed.

ReineD

07-02-2016, 04:22 PM

Reine, I agree that a person should use it corresponding with their identity. And even that description falls short for those who are non-binary.

But think about this. If they truly have a non-binary gender ID - neither male nor female - (unless you mean something different than this?), then why would they object to using the bathroom that corresponds to how others see them. If this person does NOT identify as a female (or a male), why would this person insist on using the women's bathroom specifically. They could use the men's room if they are perceived as male. Or the women's room if they are perceived as female, although this is a major feat for a birth male who is not transitioning. Or, if it is distasteful to use the men's room because they also don't identify male, then they could use a gender-neutral bathroom.

But realistically, I'm guessing that most people do identify fundamentally as one or the other gender. If we took a survey of the 4,000 people (who are mostly birth males), who have logged into this forum in the last 3 months, and asked them how they think of themselves when they are naked, I'm guessing all the MtF TSs would say women, and the vast majority of CDers would say men. If a CDer says they are a woman, then this person is not a CDer. And if this person is indeed internally a woman but chooses to live as male and not transition, then they cannot expect others to know how they feel internally, begin to see them as female, and accept them in the women's bathroom (especially in contentious or sensitive areas currently). Still, gender-neutral facilities are always an option.

... and if you are thinking mostly of CDers who identify as women when dressed but men while not dressed, and who expect to be accepted as women in women's bathrooms (in contentious and sensitive areas), it doesn't work that way especially if they have not undertaken the steps that TSs undertake when they transition. Still, how can a fundamental gender ID fluctuate like that. Either a person identifies female, or male, or non-binary (neither). A combination of the two is still not binary (male or female).

Producing any type of documentation is a complete no-no. That was done for the jews in Europe.
Well, we all need to produce documents: driver's licences, registrations, and insurance cards when stopped for traffic violations, passports or green cards when crossing borders, SSNs (which link to databases about us) when we pay taxes, apply for jobs, open bank accounts. IDs when we apply for college, rent apartments, get a library card, cash a check, enter some government buildings, get gym memberships, and proof of age to get under 18 or over 65 discounts at a variety of places.

But again, there is no gender police posted at the door of any bathroom. A transsexual using the appropriate bathroom who encounters issues (which would indeed be a rare occurrence except perhaps in some areas in the few contentious states), would need only provide proof of her identity, just like any one of us who needs to prove who we claim to be when doing any of the things in the above paragraph.

There wasn't a problem until it became a political tool.
I'll agree with you there. But, you will appreciate that it is only in the last generation that people with a non-cis-hetero gender and/or sexuality have come out into the light. And we don't live in a world where everyone has equal ability to accept a fairly new reality in the collective conscience. Right? People have varying deep-seated beliefs about what is right or wrong. And the process of change through education is slow (establishing new laws and having them enforced through the legal process is a form of education) ... especially when we are talking about bringing into public awareness the things that are not clearly visible when just looking at a person naked, and that go against a collective historical perception that our population is comprised of men and women who are into each other. And because we do live in a democratic society, the process of getting everyone to accept a fairly recent discovered reality that is additionally a reality for only a minority, involves making some laws clear that previously didn't account for any gender and sexual variance. In the process, this requires debate especially when it comes to expanding the definition of who should use women's private spaces, just as it took years to define the parameters for what defines "marriage". It would be nice if the debate could be civil, free from purposely inflammatory media input meant to further political goals, but that's a different matter.

Do you think that slavery stopped, women became emancipated, and gay marriages were legally recognized overnight without debate, without enacting specific laws, and without the slow acceptance of pockets in our society about these new realities? And there is still discrimination against women in some areas as there is against African Americans, some people still rail against gay marriage, and abortion and birth control are still being debated.

PretzelGirl

07-02-2016, 09:22 PM

But think about this. If they truly have a non-binary gender ID - neither male nor female - (unless you mean something different than this?), then why would they object to using the bathroom that corresponds to how others see them. If this person does NOT identify as a female (or a male), why would this person insist on using the women's bathroom specifically. They could use the men's room if they are perceived as male. Or the women's room if they are perceived as female, although this is a major feat for a birth male who is not transitioning.

Bathrooms and non-binary individuals are an interesting discussion. One of the problems is we tend to think in two ways. One is presentation and the other is documentation. Neither should matter. A person should be able to go where they feel comfortable and safe. We know documentation doesn't work (more later on your other comment) as birth certificates can't always be updated. What everyone else thinks is already broken as women have been run out of the women's room because they didn't look femme enough. Both looking at people and using documentation are about controlling other people. Whenever we head down that road, it is fraught with problems.

Or, if it is distasteful to use the men's room because they also don't identify male, then they could use a gender-neutral bathroom.

Gender neutral restrooms aren't always available. The first offer at work when I came out was for me to do that. I explained to them how I was being held separate (a nice way to say they were discriminating) and they backed off.

But realistically, I'm guessing that most people do identify fundamentally as one or the other gender. If we took a survey of the 4,000 people (who are mostly birth males), who have logged into this forum in the last 3 months, and asked them how they think of themselves when they are naked, I'm guessing all the MtF TSs would say women, and the vast majority of CDers would say men.

I would say that it would be problematic to take a survey at *crossdressers*.com and try to size up the non-binary community. This site basically represents those who are crossdressers, those that may have thought they might be crossdressers, and those that stumbled on this place. It is far from representative of the community.

One of my observations, speculative based on what I see obviously, is that those of us that come out when older, tend to be binary at a higher rate. When we look at our youth, I am seeing a large increase of non-binary identities counter to those of my age. What I take from that is that we waited so long to be ourselves, that there can be an effect of snapping from one extreme to the other. But our youth are getting more encouragement to be themselves and therefore, explore more and can exist in a way that we didn't see before.

So if you did a survey and added age to it, I would absolutely believe that you would see a lot of binary at let's say, over 40. As you went younger, the numbers of non-binary would start increasing at a fair rate.

If a CDer says they are a woman, then this person is not a CDer. And if this person is indeed internally a woman but chooses to live as male and not transition, then they cannot expect others to know how they feel internally, begin to see them as female, and accept them in the women's bathroom (especially in contentious or sensitive areas currently). Still, gender-neutral facilities are always an option.

I am going to kick this can down the road a bit. How someone identifies and if they can identify as a man or woman can be a whole separate discussion. In my mind, it shouldn't matter. No one can see how someone identifies, so by trying to enforce some separation, we would create a problem of people trying to judge other people to determine if they belong.

But again, there is no gender police posted at the door of any bathroom. A transsexual using the appropriate bathroom who encounters issues (which would indeed be a rare occurrence except perhaps in some areas in the few contentious states), would need only provide proof of her identity, just like any one of us who needs to prove who we claim to be when doing any of the things in the above paragraph.

Let's look at what North Carolina is doing with what is referred to as HB2.0. HB2 said you had to use the restroom according to your birth certificate. So there is documentation and it is not appropriate for the transgender community as we know. For one, it doesn't often match us in many ways and we also know that in many states, you can not alter it. So what NC wants to do is create a document where you can be officially declared legal to use the woman's restroom because you had surgery. Why is this problematic?

1. It creates a registry of transgender individuals.
2. Only transgender individuals require this document creating a "separate but equal" standing
3. It outs the transgender person because if a document exists, you may need it someday. So if you have to pull it out, you are trans.
4. The numbers of those who get surgery are low. What about everyone else?

Do you think that slavery stopped, women became emancipated, and gay marriages were legally recognized overnight without debate, without enacting specific laws, and without the slow acceptance of pockets in our society about these new realities? And there is still discrimination against women in some areas as there is against African Americans, some people still rail against gay marriage, and abortion and birth control are still being debated.

I am with you on this. Change doesn't happen quickly. When people of color received legal rights, everyone didn't jump up and shake their hands and pat them on the back. Women entering the workplace didn't get widespread acceptance. This has been true for those who are gay and lesbian (bi is way behind and roughly as stigmatized as transgender individuals). One of my sayings is that Education brings Understanding, Understanding brings Acceptance, and Greater Acceptance brings Social Change. But none of this happens fast. It is very common for legislation to be a leader for this change. It is also about people seeing it more in media where they learn. Finally, it is about getting to actually know someone as once you know someone, it is harder to hate them.

Back to the bathrooms, we are stuck. It wasn't a problem before it became political and now it is. We can't turn back the clock on it. But if we accept anything short of what it should be, we will never win. Once you give ground like that, it is hard to win it back. So we must push through and win it properly for all identities. And the only way to make that truly happen, is a solution that isn't identity based.

flatlander_48

07-03-2016, 12:04 AM

When people of color received legal rights,

People of Color refers to anyone who is not white. That probably wasn't your intention.

DeeAnn

ReineD

07-03-2016, 03:12 AM

1. It creates a registry of transgender individuals.

That’s not going to happen. Even if the GOP tries to pass such measures, they will be struck down in Court.

That said, there is no shame in transitioners carrying ID that reflects their transitioned gender, in fact most of the TSs I have seen have been darn proud when obtaining new ID, and the states that currently require SRS before effecting the changes simply need to modernize their laws and follow CA’s lead.

Back to the bathrooms, we are stuck. It wasn't a problem before it became political and now it is.

It wasn’t a problem for some people, but it has always been a problem for others. Look up the statistics on gay and TG hate crimes (all over the country), plus how many are denied employment, housing, and healthcare. This is why we need protective laws. And hate crimes have happened in bathrooms too.

But if we accept anything short of what it should be, we will never win. Once you give ground like that, it is hard to win it back. So we must push through and win it properly for all identities. And the only way to make that truly happen, is a solution that isn't identity based.

So your solution then, is that everyone who dons a female presentation (and a non-binary presentation too?) should use the women’s bathrooms, even if they don’t identify female? Good luck with that and honestly, this is not what the LGBT legal advocates are fighting for. Did you read the Lambda Legal bathroom FAQ? They are fighting for transwomen to be recognized as, and given the same rights as natal women. If you think that Lambda Legal and other LGBT advocates should expand who they think should use the bathrooms, then you need to contact them and let us know how that goes. :)

Joking aside, yours is an admirable goal, it really is, but it is an idealistic goal and it will not solve any immediate problems. The immediate issue is to protect the 1.4M TSs, who cannot pick and choose which bathroom to use, from potential harm at the hands of non-believers. And so they need mechanisms in place (laws) to prosecute the non-believers if the non-believers break the law and harm the TSs. This is particularly true in bathrooms where misgendering takes on greater importance (than in the middle of a food court, for example).

I cannot see convincing legislative bodies, courts, and most people in this country especially the staunchly conservative folks, that male-identified individuals who only dress part time should use the women’s bathrooms because they feel more comfortable there than in the men’s bathrooms … especially when they can pick and choose where and when they dress and instead find neutral bathrooms to use. Sorry.

My SO and I live in a small town in the middle of nowhere, and we have no issues finding single-user spaces. But again in the real world (outside of the rhetorical arguments here), the crossdressers who have used women’s bathrooms in the past can continue to use them if they use common sense like they always have … except maybe if they live in the one or two states that are contentious right now. Look at the sticky in the media section about all the wins.

As to the people who do not identify as either male and female, we can continue the discussion about them in a separate thread because the spectrum there is too large with too many different ways to express gender and at this rate we’ll never get through it all.

Zooey

07-03-2016, 03:45 AM

The only reason I haven't been jumping in here is because my personal viewpoint is already being (more or less) represented, and Sue (whom I love) and I have already had pretty much exactly this discussion with each other at least a few times, so we don't really need to have it with each other again. :)

PretzelGirl

07-03-2016, 07:44 AM

People of Color refers to anyone who is not white. That probably wasn't your intention.

It was exactly my intention. I spend a lot of my free time advocating in the community. I recognize the multipliers to the discrimination that occurs by someone being a transgender woman, and then add on being a person of color (in no particular order). I realize rights have come at different paces depending on race/culture and many are still missing. We don't need to be in depth in a bathroom thread as we should understand the general point as it impacts this discussion.

That’s not going to happen. Even if the GOP tries to pass such measures, they will be struck down in Court.

Our states are proving anything can happen. It might get struck down in court later, but we have to live with it in the interim. All it would have taken is one vote in NC and the Governor was ready to sign it.

That said, there is no shame in transitioners carrying ID that reflects their transitioned gender, in fact most of the TSs I have seen have been darn proud when obtaining new ID, and the states that currently require SRS before effecting the changes simply need to modernize their laws and follow CA’s lead.

It is one thing to get a birth certificate updated (not edited) to say female and another to get an extra identification that says I am transgender, have had surgery, and therefore are permitted to use the restroom that I am presenting. It is horribly demeaning and sets us apart unnecessarily. And if anyone doesn't think that they won't have a database of those they issued a certificate/ID too, then I don't know what to say because that is how our government works.

A great sign of how this is considered from the human rights perspective is that as soon as word got out NC was considering this, HRC and NCTE flew right out to lobby against it.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/breaking-nc-lawmakers-double-down-with-hb-2.0-legislation

https://www.facebook.com/TransEqualityNow/posts/10153558157491990?pnref=story

It wasn’t a problem for some people, but it has always been a problem for others. Look up the statistics on gay and TG hate crimes (all over the country), plus how many are denied employment, housing, and healthcare. This is why we need protective laws. And hate crimes have happened in bathrooms too.

I agree that there isn't such a thing as no problem. But the incidences of hate crimes and discrimination have skyrocketed since this lens came out.

So your solution then, is that everyone who dons a female presentation (and a non-binary presentation too?) should use the women’s bathrooms, even if they don’t identify female? Good luck with that and honestly, this is not what the LGBT legal advocates are fighting for. Did you read the Lambda Legal bathroom FAQ? They are fighting for transwomen to be recognized as, and given the same rights as natal women. If you think that Lambda Legal and other LGBT advocates should expand who they think should use the bathrooms, then you need to contact them and let us know how that goes. :)

Being smarmy isn't usually what I expect from you Reine. I didn't say they shouldn't use what they identify. I did say that there aren't gender neutral restrooms restrooms. So what do you allow for those that have mixed identity? You have to let them use what they are comfortable with. Anything less and they can be attacked.

Ultimately, the only real solution has beed discussed with Zooey and I and that is removing gender from restrooms. Every other solution leaves people open to discrimination and violence. You send a crossdresser in a men's room (and they are men, so by identity they go in the men's room), and they are at high risk. Yet as long as a woman's restroom is a gendered space, they are invading that space (and I am guilty of that in my past because of safety). So just saying identity drives the solution falls short and doesn't cover everyone. Non-binary identities complicate it further.

flatlander_48

07-03-2016, 10:32 AM

I'm surprised that no one has commented on the image of Michael Hughes in #133. If he were to show up in a women's restroom in North Carolina, what do you think the reaction would be? Unfortunately when people do things by knee jerk, they often don't think about all of the ramifications. I would suspect that women would be quite surprised to find him in the restroom, but by HB2 and others, that's where he would be.

DeeAnn

I Am Paula

07-03-2016, 10:42 AM

It was May 9, that the Dept. of Justice said that they were stepping in on behalf of transgender people being discriminated against in (primarily) N. Carolina.
Talk about throwing us a bone to keep us quiet. Not a goddam thing has happened since, and the situation in N.C. gets worse/stupider/more expensive every day.
Nothing is going to happen until they get Gov. McCrory out of office.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch promised she had our backs. Sure...but when?

Please discuss.

Lorileah

07-03-2016, 03:12 PM

I am with you on this. Change doesn't happen quickly. When people of color received legal rights, everyone didn't jump up and shake their hands and pat them on the back.
Like 35 years legally. Loving v VA 1967...Alabama legalizing it 2000...:thinking: and yet the Feds didn't press very hard)
Women entering the workplace didn't get widespread acceptance. with still a wage gap
This has been true for those who are gay and lesbian (bi is way behind and roughly as stigmatized as transgender individuals). I don't see this. I know no one who was fired, withheld credit, refused to be served, denied health care or in any way discriminated against because they are bi. I am not even sure it is an issue and honestly other than keeping the L and G from bumping into the T and Q I don't even know why they are in our acronym. I say this and I AM bi. Not once was I ever told I was strange for that. Not "gay enough" maybe.
Finally, it is about getting to actually know someone as once you know someone, it is harder to hate them. you haven't met the people in my hometown

That’s not going to happen. Even if the GOP tries to pass such measures, they will be struck down in Court.

See Loving vs VA above. That can and will take years. In the meantime...you have record and it will never ever go away if someone challenges us and we need documentation. Luckily most people really don't care.

That said, there is no shame in transitioners carrying ID that reflects their transitioned gender, in fact most of the TSs I have seen have been darn proud when obtaining new ID, and the states that currently require SRS before effecting the changes simply need to modernize their laws and follow CA’s lead. ID like driver's license? Um...NC wants a birth cert (which brings up another matter so hold on) MOST states won't change it until after surgery, some will AMEND it after surgery and several won't change it at all (even if if was mistyped). Now in RE: Birth Certs...I know a couple people who don't HAVE one because they were born at home and the only record is baptismal. So what about them?

It wasn’t a problem for some people, but it has always been a problem for others. Look up the statistics on gay and TG hate crimes (all over the country), plus how many are denied employment, housing, and healthcare. This is why we need protective laws. And hate crimes have happened in bathrooms too. To quote the Dixie Chicks
"Well, she finally got the nerve to file for divorce
She let the law take it from there
But Earl walked right through that restraining order
And put her in intensive care" Laws and paper don't stop hate, it just makes the penalty higher and most people don't care at that point A woman was killed here in Denver last week who had a protective order...didn't work well.

OH BTW hate crime laws often specifically EXCLUDE trans. (NE is one of those)

Georgette_USA

07-03-2016, 04:28 PM

I'm surprised that no one has commented on the image of Michael Hughes in #133. If he were to show up in a women's restroom in North Carolina, what do you think the reaction would be?
DeeAnn

I know some FtM TS that have had that problem already, and that is in Maryland which is very progressive, and they don't look as rugged as him. The bathroom vigilantes won't worry about laws/rights.

flatlander_48

07-03-2016, 04:51 PM

I know no one who was fired, withheld credit, refused to be served, denied health care or in any way discriminated against because they are bi.

While you would not need to actually self-identify, I believe "men who have sex with men" are prohibited from donating blood unless they have been celibate for 1 year. It's a holdover from the height of the AIDS epidemic when folks obviously knew a lot less than they do now. Currently there is work in progress to get this changed.

ID like driver's license? Um...NC wants a birth cert (which brings up another matter so hold on) MOST states won't change it until after surgery, some will AMEND it after surgery and several won't change it at all (even if if was mistyped).

Idaho, Kansas, Ohio and Tennessee. This always surprised me as I used to think that my home state of Ohio was a bit more relaxed than that, but evidently not.

I know some FtM TS that have had that problem already, and that is in Maryland which is very progressive, and they don't look as rugged as him. The bathroom vigilantes won't worry about laws/rights.

It's like an unintended consequence. People either didn't know enough about the variations in play or perhaps they thought it wouln't hurt their case. Clearly though, Michael Hughes would be perceived as male. For the record, the woman in the photo is a relative.

DeeAnn

ReineD

07-03-2016, 04:56 PM

I didn't say they shouldn't use what they identify. I did say that there aren't gender neutral restrooms restrooms. So what do you allow for those that have mixed identity?

+? There are no gender neutral restrooms? My small town (out in the middle of nowhere), does have single-user bathrooms. This means, there will be no one else in the bathroom who will object to anyone being there, no matter how they look or dress.

Here’s an app that maps out some of the single-user/gender-neutral spaces throughout the US, although they only map out one small search area at a time, and they do not have all of them in their database (they missed quite a few in my own town): http://www.refugerestrooms.org/. We cannot say there are no safe (free of potential controversy) bathrooms.

If however, your argument is that everyone should use all bathrooms, then as stated before, I agree. But, it will not happen in this generation.

That aside, this discussion seems circular because of the nebulous "mixed-gender identity" category or people. Right?

If we all agree there is no issue with people using the bathroom according to their gender identity (and for the vast majority of people this is either male or female), then we all agree on most of it: the people with a female ID (natal women & transwomen) should use the women’s bathrooms. The people with a male identity (the male-identified crossdressers who do form a huge part of this forum … and this is, after all, where we are having this discussion), should not; instead they can opt for the neutral spaces if they happen to be in a part of the country where the bathroom issue is contested. Or, as mentioned earlier, they can continue to do what they’ve always done (since there is no gender police in this country's bathrooms), which is to use their spidey senses to determine which bathrooms they feel comfortable using while they are dressed out in public ... which for most states in the US is not an issue. I think that likely, most CDers would avoid a busy mall bathroom on a Saturday afternoon (especially if they know they are read as men). And realistically, they can avoid these bathrooms because they do pick and choose where and when they go out dressed.

So now we are left with what has thus far been ill-defined in this discussion and which now appears is a group of people that we are mostly talking about: the people who are mixed-gender identity (and not the transsexuals or male-identified crossdressers). If so, then who exactly is a person with a mixed identity and how do they present - like this (http://www.androgynousgirls.com/), or this (http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/androgynous-editorials.jpeg), or this (http://cdn.salzburg.com/nachrichten/uploads/pics/2014-04/orginal/eurovision-song-contest-conchita-wurst-als-bondgirl-41-51776739.jpg)? (these are all people who do not attempt to mask the characteristics of their natal sex). And if they do identify as mixed-gender (which means not one or the other), then why would they particularly lean towards the women’s bathrooms and not the men’s. And why would they reject the neutral bathrooms.

So until we discover who exactly we are talking about, it will be difficult to conclude this discussion?

I’ve started a new thread asking folks about mixed-gender, so as not to derail this thread:

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?241247-What-is-a-mixed-gender-identity&p=3964570#post3964570

EDIT

ID like driver's license? Um...NC wants a birth cert (which brings up another matter so hold on) MOST states won't change it until after surgery, some will AMEND it after surgery and several won't change it at all (even if if was mistyped).

Yes, and this absolutely needs to change. States need to modernize their definition of male and female. They should follow what the more progressive states are doing:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations
There are a few states that do this, but click on California as an example. "Clinically appropriate" treatment I gather is counseling, hormones or other non-SRS surgeries. And certainly most of the people who take it this far are full-time, since it would be awkward to have "F" on a birth certificate or state ID when the person is not out to anyone?

So maybe this fight does need to also focus on state level basic definitions ... to focus on modernizing state laws about the requirements to change from "M" to "F" on a birth certificate or state ID. If a state recognizes that 75% of transwomen don't have SRS, this would surely improve the situation? All the transwomen who do live full-time would be recognized as the women they are and there would be no issues with using the facility of their choice.

MonctonGirl

07-03-2016, 09:23 PM

The two sides each pose solid arguments.

Some argue that birth sex genitals should dictate where you have the right to go, and it is as a courtesy for the others within the washroom, be it concern for safety, dignity or tradition.
Mind you, that discriminates those who were born with neither or both. (Yes there are folks like that)

The solution is simple:

Those who are POST-OP SRS/GC should be able to use the washroom in accordance with their post-op genitals, in any area of the country. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Publicly funded places should implement enough single-toilet all-purpose ( special needs / handicap / gender identity ) washroom facilities in accordance with expected volume of persons to accommodate those transgendered folks who have not had SRS/GC and I don't think that's unreasonable either for PRE-OP/NON-OP transgendered persons to comply, just to end the problems.

Privately owned businesses can do it optionally if they want business from transgendered ( and I guess crossdressing ) folks.
This would include universities, restaurants, theaters, ....even transportation which does not receive public funding.

flatlander_48

07-03-2016, 10:43 PM

So maybe this fight does need to also focus on state level basic definitions ... to focus on modernizing state laws about the requirements to change from "M" to "F" on a birth certificate or state ID. If a state recognizes that 75% of transwomen don't have SRS, this would surely improve the situation? All the transwomen who do live full-time would be recognized as the women they are.

Someone will always be screwed until Idaho, Kansas, Ohio and Tennessee change their posture about revising gender markers. Evidently a lot of documents reference the data from the birth certificate. As I understand it, you couldn't have a driver's license with F if your birth certificate read M.

DeeAnn

Zooey

07-03-2016, 11:04 PM

In my opinion, the solution is even simpler than that.

The federal government already has a standard in place for recognizing legal gender changes. That standard should be consistently applied at the state level as well (it's not, currently), and your legal gender according to that standard should be recognized everywhere that gender is a factor.

That standard does not require surgery, FYI, but it does require medical transition (e.g. HRT). Personally, I think we should be using California's standard, which also allows for a mental health professional to sign off in cases where they feel it's appropriate. In all cases, it does require a full-time gender transition.

ReineD

07-04-2016, 12:26 AM

Someone will always be screwed until Idaho, Kansas, Ohio and Tennessee change their posture about revising gender markers.

I don't understand enough about the balance of political power in the US to know if federally, it could be recognized that all people who live full time in their target gender should be able to get state ID that reflects their true gender. Certainly they were able to make same-sex marriage legal in all states. And NO ONE should have to put up with something that says, "Used to be male but changed to female".

So if all the transitioners were legally women, then much of the bathroom issue would disappear.

Edit
Zooey, I just saw your post. Yes, everyone should follow California's lead. I think Washington has the same too, but I didn't click down all the other states to see how many more are progressive.

flatlander_48

07-04-2016, 05:29 PM

Sometime in the last few months I saw a document that listed, state by state, what the requirements are for gender marker change. It was a patchwork at the state level, much like marriage equality was.

DeeAnn

MissDanielle

07-04-2016, 08:50 PM

it needs to be universal...heck, all the feds require is a document from a medical provider that one is undergoing HRT.

Lorileah

07-05-2016, 02:27 PM

The federal government already has a standard in place for recognizing legal gender changes. That standard should be consistently applied at the state level as well (it's not, currently), and your legal gender according to that standard should be recognized everywhere that gender is a factor.

Unfortunately there is a document called the Constitution that actually makes it a point that unless it is something that is really important to the country, the states have the right to do what they please. Sorta why the Civil War was fought. So until the US Gov't makes it a law (i.e. Amendment) you will have states making different rules. In the case of HB2 the feds couldn't say they couldn't pass that law they could only say "We'll make your life harder when you need federal money". Thus the law still stands. Getting 50 states on the same page would be tedious and time consuming. Even getting amendments through is almost impossible (thus ERA is still a mirage). Of course you don't NEED all 50 you need 2/3 but you can expect a fight to get that many. It only took 202 years to get the last amendment passed.

So now you have to make the argument to the country that less than 1% of the population needs this and that 99% of the them should stand behind it. I will assume you noted that gay marriage, although stated to be legal by the SCOTUS isn't really federally able to be enforced. Even Loving v VA took 30 years to finally be recognized by all 50 states. Up until that time interracial marriages were not seen as legal in Alabama.

I would think before we start on gender marker conformity, we need to get definitions set (hell we can't even agree here where we are all in the same boat...Oh sorry you don't like that analogy). Define what is needed to be transsexual... a simple declaration? If not what are your standards? A mental health letter? Being on hormones? Living 6 months -2 yrs as the gender? You need something that you can hang your hat on. You, yourself, have issues with what is trans and what isn't. Can a person change their mind? Hey today I'm a woman, tomorrow, not so much but now I can get my marker changed.

You only need to convince 230 million people.

ReineD

07-05-2016, 03:10 PM

Zooey

07-05-2016, 03:18 PM

Unfortunately there is a document called the Constitution that actually makes it a point that unless it is something that is really important to the country, the states have the right to do what they please. Sorta why the Civil War was fought. So until the US Gov't makes it a law (i.e. Amendment) you will have states making different rules. In the case of HB2 the feds couldn't say they couldn't pass that law they could only say "We'll make your life harder when you need federal money". Thus the law still stands. Getting 50 states on the same page would be tedious and time consuming. Even getting amendments through is almost impossible (thus ERA is still a mirage). Of course you don't NEED all 50 you need 2/3 but you can expect a fight to get that many. It only took 202 years to get the last amendment passed.

Except for that whole thing where any laws that DO exist at the federal level supercede any state laws. The federal government has a standard for legal identification changes on social security and passport registrations. The social security database is used as the verification engine for most state id issuers (e.g. DMVs). The fact that, in this case, states are attempting to overrule existing federal standards for identification is pretty dubious constitutionally, IMO. A US passport is ALWAYS considered legal identification within the US.

If you have a legal identity that counts you as female/woman, your legal treatment needs to align with that consistently. If you are able to change your US passport, that change should be consistently respected at the state level.

I would think before we start on gender marker conformity, we need to get definitions set (hell we can't even agree here where we are all in the same boat...Oh sorry you don't like that analogy). Define what is needed to be transsexual... a simple declaration? If not what are your standards? A mental health letter? Being on hormones? Living 6 months -2 yrs as the gender? You need something that you can hang your hat on.

As I have said many times, I believe that the federal standard (with the one relatively minor extension California has made) is the correct answer. If a licensed medical or mental health professional provides - under penalty of perjury - documentation stating that an individual is undergoing "appropriate clinical treatment" to support a gender transition, then said transition is recognized.

BTW, I have no problem with the boat analogy. I just don't agree that we're all actually on the same boat.

You, yourself, have issues with what is trans and what isn't. Can a person change their mind? Hey today I'm a woman, tomorrow, not so much but now I can get my marker changed.

What issues do I have with what is trans and what isn't? I think everybody here on this forum is transgender, at least according to the umbrella definition, although I could argue that some of the CDs here are in fact effectively cis men in dresses. I think a small fraction of the people here are women. I believe in the de-gendering of bathrooms, because I believe it is the path to providing safer bathroom access for everybody. I do NOT believe that the solution is to declare that people who are not women are still entitled to access women's spaces, because I do not believe in the devaluation of gender as a rule.

Also... No, there are no easy backsies on legal identity changes. It's a big deal, as it damn well should be.

If non-binary people (and I would include CDs in that) want more recognition, they should be fighting for legal recognition of that as a distinct identity - not trying to devalue the meaning of "man" and "woman" by simply declaring that they should be entitled to anything they want while cisgender and binary folks aren't. If there's a class of gendered space that they feel should not be gendered, then campaign for that.

People don't like it when you erase their identity and/or devalue their concerns. I think most transgender folks have experience with that, and especially non-binary people. Doing that to 99% of the population is not a great strategy.

flatlander_48

07-05-2016, 11:12 PM

If non-binary people (and I would include CDs in that) want more recognition, they should be fighting for legal recognition of that as a distinct identity - not trying to devalue the meaning of "man" and "woman" by simply declaring that they should be entitled to anything they want while cisgender and binary folks aren't. If there's a class of gendered space that they feel should not be gendered, then campaign for that.

That sounds exactly like one of the arguments used against marriage equality. The statement was that allowing same sex couples to marry diminished the marriage of opposite sex couples. The definition broadened, but the fundamental one did not change. As applied here, the definition would be broadened, not devalued.

DeeAnn

Zooey

07-05-2016, 11:40 PM

I disagree.

That logic DOES apply to trans men and trans women - we are asking for (and at the federal level and in many states have received, at least from my perspective) an expanded definition for what legally constitutes being a "man" or a "woman".

In the case of non-binary people, part-time people, etc., it is a rather very different situation. You are not saying "we are women" or "we are men" and asking for the according rights. You are saying, rather specifically, "we are something else, but we want access to e.g. women's bathrooms too (in addition to the men's)."

There is a problem. The problem is that we have facilities that are (mostly) unnecessarily gender segregated along the binary. The correct solution is not to give you legal recognition as women whenever you're "dressed". The solution is to remove the gender segregation in cases where it's unnecessary.

When same sex marriage was legalized at the federal level, it wasn't because e.g. one man is now considered a woman for the purpose of becoming a wife. We just removed gender from it entirely, because it wasn't necessary.

Lorileah

07-06-2016, 12:00 AM

The issue, Zooey, is HOW at any given time without having to show documentation, do you declare that the CDs here who scream from the highest tower are "men" when they need to use the facilities? I see what you say as actually discrimination. So do we wear something or get chips or tattoos? And I agree we all (including every nuance of the definition ) need to work to get things changed, but honestly unless it actually gores your ox you're not going to stand up. Fear and learned discomfort are hard to change. And adding fear or making something harder won't get you the support you need to change those laws. And NO the Federal Government laws don't supercede states otherwise HB2 would have already been gone. I will again refer you to Loving v VA and interracial marriage and how long it too many states to align with the Federal Government mandate. All the Feds can do is withhold support and funding. Nothing has changed in regard to the Constitution as to states rights (there are still dry areas of the US even though alcohol is legal in the US).

The founding Fathers were adamant about sovereign states. Federal Gov't would like a set speed limit...Montana doesn't have one on some roads. The would like helmet laws, Colorado doesn't have any. The non-discrimination acts of the Feds are for federal areas ONLY...those areas controlled by the Federal Govt or those contracts and jobs that are associated in some manner with the Feds (in my lifetime legal drinking age on military posts was 18...but you step out of the gate it was 21). In most cases states have to abide and respect what other states law say (i.e. now gay marriage). We saw that with marriages that were allowed for Federal reasons (taxes and such) but were non-binding in certain states. Colorado has still on the books a Constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage of same sex couples (we got around that with Civil Unions...good old separate but equal sorta thing) We still see this with voter laws and how some states are making laws to make being a voter harder. Wouldn't be marvelous if no matter where you went in the US the same laws applied? But they don't. Gee here in Colorado we legalized something that is illegal as far as the US Govt is concerned so your argument that states have to follow Federal mandates is wrong...even when it comes to laws

Zooey

07-06-2016, 12:11 AM

Lorileah, I don't want CDs getting arrested for using the women's room. Even HB2, which is a vile vile thing, leaves it as a non-convictable offense with no punishment on its own. Other safety issues involve things that are already crimes. I don't want people having to show ID to enter bathrooms.

There's a legal standard for recognition of gender, however, and it's what needs to be used consistently when resolving disputes over gendered spaces. When a situation arises, and you're in the ladies room as currently defined, then guess what? If you're legally a woman, you're in the legal right. If you're not, well, you're not.

I just don't want to go down the rather slippery slope of conferring people who do not even identify as women partial legal recognition as women. I want to resolve the issues that make non-binary people feel like they need that, chiefly removing gender as a factor when it's unnecessary.

flatlander_48

07-06-2016, 01:07 AM

In the case of non-binary people, part-time people, etc., it is a rather very different situation. You are not saying "we are women" or "we are men" and asking for the according rights. You are saying, rather specifically, "we are something else, but we want access to e.g. women's bathrooms too (in addition to the men's)."

I just don't want to go down the rather slippery slope of conferring people who do not even identify as women partial legal recognition as women.

From this one might conclude that the men's restroom would also not be appropriate.

DeeAnn

Zooey

07-06-2016, 01:22 AM

And I would agree, insofar as I think binary gendered bathrooms are inappropriate for non-binary gendered people. That's why we should de-gender bathrooms.

In the meantime, the one listed on your ID is probably a good (legal) bet.

Jazzy Jaz

07-06-2016, 01:26 AM

Just something I want to point out Zooey, often in your posts you state that non binary folks are "niether men or women" when infact many if not most are BOTH men AND women and being man and woman does not devalue the binary gender of man or the binary gender of woman. Someone who has dual US/CANADA citezenship is not niether American or Canadian, they are BOTH American AND Canadian and them having access to both Canadian and American rights etc does not make an exclusively American citezen any less of an American citezen or an exclusively Canadian citezen any less Canadian. Also, a cross between a rottweiler and a pitbull isn't "niether" rottweiler or pitbull, it is BOTH rottweiler AND pitbull.

Zooey

07-06-2016, 01:48 AM

I'll agree with you about dual citizenship (though that's a different concept IMO), but not your rottweiler/pit mix example.

In the case of non-binary identities, I would agree wholeheartedly that you are both masculine and feminine, but not both men and women.

ReineD

07-06-2016, 03:05 AM

Someone who has dual US/CANADA citezenship is not niether American or Canadian, they are BOTH American AND Canadian and them having access to both Canadian and American rights etc does not make an exclusively American citezen any less of an American citezen or an exclusively Canadian citezen any less Canadian.

Except when it comes to crossing the border. My kids are dual citizens. I'm a Canadian citizen and a Permanent Resident in the US. When we go to Canada we show our Canadian passports ... else the Canadian customs officials get confused. When we come back to the US, my kids show their US passports and I show my green card, else the US customs officials get confused. We can only be one citizenship-status at a time. And we only pay taxes in one country, which is the country where we earn income.

The point is, it's difficult to understand "both" in a world that is biologically binary. If you can find a way to get 320 million people in the US to agree there is indeed a third gender-state ("both") that is equally entitled to use the women's and the men's facilities, then you'll win the prize. :) And after you do that, how will you convince the other 7 billion inhabitants of this planet, should you wish to travel. Which gender will be on your passport.

It's difficult enough to get the voting public to understand that transitioning TSs who unwaveringly and permanently identify as the gender opposite their birth sex are indeed that gender and not inherently the gender matching their birth sex, let alone convince them that a birth male can be a female while dressed as one, and a male while not dressed as one, especially if this person has made no effort to transition, has employment records as a male and not as a female, pays taxes as a male, and if he isn't out to his wife, is surely not out to the rest of the people in his life. That won't work. The voting public will see this person as a male because he lives as one.

The most important issue right now is the need to change how this nation legally defines males and females - should it continue to be based on genitals (birth or post-op), or should it also include people who live and work full-time as their target gender. The Courts do need to define this because during the last decade or two and for the first time in this country's history, transsexuals have come out en masse. They ARE transitioning and living publicly in their target gender, they demand to stop being treated as the gender they are not and to be in the same places as the cispeople who identify as the same gender. And they deserve to be there with an absence of hate crimes. Legally redefining what is "F" and "M" in our country to include the people who have transitioned, will then grant TSs protection against hate crimes and the right to be in the correct bathrooms.

The next issue is to decide who should be legally defined as "F" or "M" (other than cispeople). Well, the proof is in the pudding. MtF transitioners go through multiple steps in order to transition, all of which are documented (electrolysis, hormones, therapy, name change, changing employment records and other gender markers, and some have FFS, BAs, plus additional therapy before potentially SRS). Crossdressers have nothing on record.

Jazzy Jaz

07-06-2016, 03:34 AM

In Webster's Dictionary, the definition of 'man' is an adult male. The definition of 'male' is someone who can produce usually mobile gametes (sperm) that can fertilize a female egg. The definition of 'woman' is an adult female. The definition of 'female' is someone who bears young or produces usually immobile gametes (as eggs). With these definitions, MTF TS's also would not be considered women, they would fall under the 'man' category. Likewise, FTM TS's would not be considered men, they would fall under the 'woman' category. However, I do consider MTF TS's to be women and FTM TS's to be men because I understand that internally as well as possibly physically (but not genetically) that is who they are. Under the same logic, someone who is a non binary GM may not technically be a woman or a female (same as MTF TS's according to the dictionary) but internally, we are a mix of both man and woman and can consider and identify as such just as a MTF TS can consider and identify themself as a woman. To suggest that a non GG can be a woman but a non binary person cannot be 'part woman' along with being 'part man' (which essentially means being both) demonstrates a lack in understanding of gender as a 'spectrum'.

Respectfully, Jasmine

Many great points Reine, I guess thats the dillema isn't it. I respect TS's as a group for being out in the open pushing for the rights and respect they deserve and I agree with those who say that us non binary folks as well as CDers need to stand out and push for our needs if we want the rights and respect that we seek. I have come out to a few people and I feel that this is something that will build momentum over time, and I educate and promote through discussion when oppertunity arises and I proactively teach my children about the diversity of gender and sexuality, however I recognize that I have the potential to do more and I encourage myself to live up to that potential at the pace that I am meant to.

Zooey

07-06-2016, 03:57 AM

Hormones are funny things, insofar as how deeply they can change things. I'm a woman, but I didn't start feeling it was appropriate to refer to myself as female in certain situations (and they're still rare) until my doctors did. If you do medical tests on my body and expect male results, you get lab reports that look pretty scary and physical examinations that don't really go as planned.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the gender spectrum. As I understand it, the spectrum runs from masculine to feminine, not from Man to Woman. Man and Woman are gender identities generally located near the very ends of the spectrum (the binary), each covering a range considered normative. Non-binary identities are "non-conventional" combinations of masculine and feminine characteristics that fall somewhere in the middle. They live between Man and Woman, but are not part-Man and part-Woman, except to say that they share characteristics with each.

Lorileah

07-06-2016, 12:31 PM

I wouldn't hang my hat on those definitions. Lots of females don't reproduce, some don't make eggs (esp after menopause) and many mals are infertile and even can make sperm but are not active.

ReineD

07-06-2016, 12:46 PM

However, I do consider MTF TS's to be women and FTM TS's to be men because I understand that internally as well as possibly physically (but not genetically) that is who they are. Under the same logic, someone who is a non binary GM may not technically be a woman or a female (same as MTF TS's according to the dictionary) but internally, we are a mix of both man and woman and can consider and identify as such just as a MTF TS can consider and identify themself as a woman. To suggest that a non GG can be a woman but a non binary person cannot be 'part woman' along with being 'part man' (which essentially means being both) demonstrates a lack in understanding of gender as a 'spectrum'.

This is all very logical, but a side note is that dictionary definitions change over time. For example, the word "gay" now pretty much means "homosexual". In my grandparent's day it meant "happy". That said, in a practical sense how will your point translate to the definition of sex on birth certificates or passports for example. The questions below deserve your serious consideration:

Do we replace "M" & "F" (male/female sex) with "M" & "W" (man/woman gender) to more accurately include transitioned individuals and add to these choices "PM" (part man), "PW" (part woman), or "PM&W" (for both), for people who do not transition. It might be best to simply use "O" (other) or "NB" (non-binary) for people who are not "M" or "W" (see Jamie Shupe, last point below). And if we change the designations according to gender (and not sex), would this require cispeople to no longer recognize themselves as male or female (see the third point below). And how do we convince everyone that a sex designation on birth certificates is not important. Birth certificates do form the basis for future identity documents and we cannot designate gender on birth certificates because we do not yet know how some children will identify.

Maybe we should dispense with noting sex or gender on any ID altogether (no matter how someone identifies) beginning with not noting sex on birth records. A growing sentiment is indeed that gender is no longer relevant to do all the things we need to do in our society (apply for school, get jobs, get bank accounts, pay taxes, get married, get social security, etc). Except for sports. How would we determine which sports team someone should compete on in order to keep things fair if we do not know their sex. Should we only test sports participants for hormone levels or chromosomes. Also, medical research. How do we accumulate data to conduct research for things that specifically benefit either the male or female sex, like drugs or medical procedures that affect sexual characteristics.

Whether we eliminate sex designations and focus on gender-based ID, or eliminate both entirely, how would we stop children from naturally identifying themselves as the male or female sex in their process of gender differentiation. From an early age, kids place themselves in either the male or female camp as a precursor to eventually mating, because there is a biological difference between the two. Even if kids were not socialized as "male" or "female", or "girl" or "boy", even if we stopped assigning sex on birth certificates and if we could get everyone to make a concerted effort to dress all kids the same, would there be any kids who would think of themselves as neither boy nor girl, or both. And if there were such children, would they still feel separate from those who do solidly think of themselves as either male or female. And while growing up, would they still be looked upon differently by their peers.

However, eliminating sex is not what The National Center for Transgender Equality (http://www.transequality.org/issues/identity-documents-privacy) is doing. They're working on allowing trans-people to change their sex designation (within the existing "M" or "F") without needing SRS. Should they stop doing this and instead work on getting the federal and state governments to use a gender-based designation (including part woman/part man) on documents instead of sex-based. And if so, how would we determine gender-based designation for everyone ... by say-so only and if so, at what age and at what cost if this cannot be accomplished at birth. Also, how would this make the trans-persons feel who do not feel whole unless they do have SRS or mastectomies and are recognized as the opposite sex. Or, should the organization instead begin to advocate for the elimination of any sex or gender designation on all identify documents (birth certificates, passports, state-issued photo IDs). And if so, how would this affect any TS for whom the opposite-gender binary designation is important enough to risk losing everything when they transition, even if they don't have SRS.

On another note and back to having sex or gender designation on documents, interestingly for the first time in the US (as far as I know), an Oregon Judge last month allowed Jamie Shupe to change gender identity - not to "female", but to "non-binary". See, Neither Male Nor Female: Oregon Resident Legally Recognized As Third Gender (http://www.npr.org/2016/06/17/482480188/neither-male-nor-female-oregon-resident-legally-recognized-as-third-gender). This might be the best and fairest possible solution rather than eliminate gender designation altogether.

But here's where we get back into the bathroom discussion: Until such time as we do desegregate all existing gendered bathrooms, should a person like Jamie be recognized as a female in order to use the women's bathroom. Jamie does not identify as a woman nor did Jamie want a Female or Woman designation. Or should Jamie use the men's bathroom, since Jamie does not identify as a male or man either. Or should Jamie use both bathrooms according to how Jamie feels on any given day but again, Jamie is quite clear that Jamie is neither M or F and some of our bathrooms are currently gender-segregated. Or should Jamie use the neutral bathrooms.

Jazzy Jaz

07-06-2016, 03:46 PM

In the Oregon article Shupe says that they "still don't feel fully female", which indicates that Shupe does feel part female. As far as gender markers, I'm not saying that we need to have PM&PF or anything else complicated like that because NB (Non Binary) covers the wide range of gender mixtures between the binary poles. Zooey, while you consider man and woman to be exclusively the poles of the binary, I consider exclusively man and exclusively woman to be the poles, non binary generally being any kind of mix between the two or neither if thats how someone identifies. I'm not saying that we should stop also having M or F as gender markers, I'm just saying that if a MTF TS can use the term female/woman whether the dictionary definitions are up to speed or not, then there is no reason that a non binary person shouldn't be able to declare themselves part woman and part man. Again NB as a gender marker would cover this. I consider myself to be non binary and when I tell someone what this means I say that I am not 'exclusively' man or woman, but rather a mix of both.

Zooey

07-06-2016, 04:00 PM

Okay, if that's the terminology you want to use, let's go with that for a second.

Do you then feel that as somebody who is "part-man/part-woman" that you should be entitled to 100% of the (ordinarily mutually exclusive) spaces currently associated with both binary genders? That is to say, do you believe you should have more entitlements than binary-gendered people by way of addition?

As another example with a bit more levity...

I'm 36 years old (true), which puts me about halfway between being a little kid and being retirement-age, so I identify as 50% child and 50% retiree.

Am I entitled to the children's and senior discounts at restaurants? Am I entitled to both of them at the same time? Maybe I can only use one at a time, but I can choose which one to be based on which one is a better deal that day? Do I get half of each discount, and then add them together?

Or do I get no discount at all, because I'm not a child and I'm not a senior, even though I still play videogames and sometimes my joints get stiff?

ReineD

07-06-2016, 04:23 PM

In the Oregon article Shupe says that they "still don't feel fully female", which indicates that Shupe does feel part female.

I'm not saying that we should stop also having M or F as gender markers, I'm just saying that if a MTF TS can use the term female/woman whether the dictionary definitions are up to speed or not, then there is no reason that a non binary person shouldn't be able to declare themselves part woman and part man. Again NB as a gender marker would cover this.

I think the issue here is, I'm actually trying to determine how the legal determination of who should use the women's bathrooms will be accomplished in real life and how this should be debated in legislature and determined in Court. What's the wording. How do you describe the people who are "F" or "M" legally and if we do introduce a third gender "NB", then how is this third gender different than "F" or "M". If it is the same as "F" or "M", then which one is it and why bother coming up with the third gender "NB".

But I think you are discussing how you would like to think of yourself privately, irrespective of how this translates in Court? So for you this is more of a philosophical discussion? You certainly have full rights to do this, but how will this translate to what bathroom you can use in real life.

So let's dissect your quote a little. Yes, Shupe believes she/he is part-female (and don't forget, part-male as well). This is not the same as "female" because she/he didn't want to be recognized as female. Or male. She/he wanted to be recognized as "non-binary", this is his/her conscious choice! "Non-binary" and "female" are two different gender identifications, they are not the same. MtF TSs, however, do most definitely identify "female" and not one bit "male", just like the ciswomen who identify "female" and not one bit male.

Doesn't this make sense? Why do you believe that "non-binary" is the same as "female". Certainly you will agree that "non-binary" is not the same as "male". So why one and not the other.

Dana44

07-06-2016, 04:32 PM

Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Maine, Louisiana, Utah, Georgia, Mississippi and Kentucky.

They have have all asked a Federal judge to block the Obama administrations directive on transgender students before the school year begins in August.

www.statesman.com/news/news/texas-seeks-to-block-transgender-rule-before-schoo/nrssk/

Jazzy Jaz

07-06-2016, 06:34 PM

Reine, I can't comprehend how you got the impression that I believe that non binary = exclusively female as my main point has clearly been that non binary is not exclusively M or F but rather a combination of both (if individuals feel that they are niether I respect that). If someone is half ethnic African and half ethnic European they don't cease to be either of those ethnicities, to the contrary they are a mix of both of those ethnicities. Would that person differ in charachteristics from someone who is exclusively ethnic African or ethnic European, sure, but they would differ because they are a combination of both, not neither. As for gender markers, non binary folks are not exclusively "M" or "F", they are often "M/F" which would fit nicely under the inclusive non binary gender marker of "NB".

As far as your question Zooey, do I think non binary folks should be entitled to 100% of the spaces that binary folks are entitled to, no. I think it totally depends on the distinction between 'gender' and 'sex'. Do I think that a non binary person should have access to public binary bathrooms with private stalls, for the most part yes. Do I think that a non binary person should have access to public binary change rooms where ones physical sex is exposed, no, but by default this would include pre op TS's. These folks too are in a unique situation because they may have gone through partial transition eg HRT but still have thier birth parts and would likely find themselves in a no person's land. In general though, I think if it's a binary space where your sex is exposed, non binary folks should be in spaces that align with thier sex. If circumstances have more to do with gender, then yes non binary folks should have access to both spaces generally speaking.

julia marie

07-06-2016, 10:27 PM

I'm still trying to figure out. There have been some responses to this post about public accommodation laws passed in recent years. Those are great, and laws like the new North Carolina bathroom bill, not so great. But what are some of the existing laws (pre public accommodation and pre NC bathroom bill) laws that prevent a man (dressed as woman or not -- common sense should rule) -- from using a bathroom labeled "women" or a woman from using the mens room? I can't find find reference to any long-standing laws or policies that define who can use which room.
For years I only used the "women" room when dressed as a woman. What law was I breaking?

ReineD

07-06-2016, 11:06 PM

Zooey

07-06-2016, 11:12 PM

As I understand it, you would generally be charged (if you were charged) under one of the catch-all laws - public indecency, disturbing the peace, etc.

ReineD

07-06-2016, 11:25 PM

Yes, but that was eons ago right? CDers are no longer arrested for public indecency or disturbing the peace. And up until North Carolina's stupid law, it wasn't specified anywhere that users of women's bathrooms had to have female genitals?

Zooey

07-06-2016, 11:30 PM

I think it's unlikely that anybody has actually been arrested in recent times, though I can't say for sure. That said, if it was going to happen anywhere, it'd be a bathroom or changing room. You'd be asked to leave though, and that would certainly be the threat.

Mayo

07-07-2016, 09:54 AM

And up until North Carolina's stupid law, it wasn't specified anywhere that users of women's bathrooms had to have female genitals?
Even HB2 doesn't say that. It simply defines sex as what's on your birth certificate. So if you live in a state that allows you to change your birth cert (sometimes with just a letter from a doctor confirming your gender identity) then HB2 doesn't prevent you from going into the women's in NC even with male genitalia. So the stupid law doesn't even do what its proponents claim it's trying to do (keep 'men', i.e. people with penises, out of women's washrooms).

flatlander_48

07-07-2016, 11:45 AM

It intent was to cause a lot of outrage and gain votes. Creating a logically written piece of law wasn't part of that intent. I don't think that they ever considered the possibility of someone looking like Michael Hughes and having documents that said F either.

As is not uncommon, stupidity doesn't have a long view.

DeeAnn

MissDanielle

07-07-2016, 11:34 PM

Even HB2 doesn't say that. It simply defines sex as what's on your birth certificate. So if you live in a state that allows you to change your birth cert (sometimes with just a letter from a doctor confirming your gender identity) then HB2 doesn't prevent you from going into the women's in NC even with male genitalia. So the stupid law doesn't even do what its proponents claim it's trying to do (keep 'men', i.e. people with penises, out of women's washrooms).My home state won't let me change without having GRS. Other states might require even the smallest amount of surgery.

We need a uniform standard but that's not gonna happen with Congress.

ReineD

07-08-2016, 12:39 AM

Even HB2 doesn't say that. It simply defines sex as what's on your birth certificate.

Right, but in NC and I believe also still in most states, you can't alter your birth certificate unless you've had SRS. So NC HB 2 effectively says that only persons without penises can use the ladies room.

I hope that trans advocacy organizations are working on this, because this is the most fundamental issue of all. Transitioned TSs who have not had SRS (about 70%) still cannot be legally recognized as women on their birth certificates unless they live in CA, Washington, DC, and a handful of other states. Here's the list, I have not clicked on each state to see how many: http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations.

If all states amend their birth certificate requirements to also include all persons who are living full time as their target gender (instead of just having had SRS), then there wouldn't be any bathroom issues.

And CDers can still use the women's bathrooms (using common sense as they always have), but not in NC right now, not until HB2 is reversed. Still, as mentioned multiple times here, there's no way to enforce HB2. There's no gender police posted at each bathroom door.

Mayo

07-08-2016, 09:52 AM

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_States) (based on information from Lambda Legal (http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations)) about a third (~18) of US states will amend or change a birth certificate without surgery. This means, at the very least, that visitors from any of these states can legally use the ladies' in NC even if they still have a penis. Thus HB2 is inconsistent and therefore ineffective in accomplishing what it was intended to do (which - let's not fool ourselves - was never about 'protecting women and children', but simply about keeping people with penises out of the women's washroom on the assumption that any such person was obviously a 'man').

Until all washrooms are gender-neutral, there will be no consistent method of legally deciding who gets to use which one without reverting nationally to an immutable as-designated-at-birth-by-some-doctor-with-an-opinion. There is no method that can consistently identify someone as biologically 'male' or 'female' without making certain assumptions about what it means to be one or the other because sex is not an absolute binary, and to attempt to do so will require identity documents and enforcement by bathroom police and will still allow (even require) some people who may look like one to use the facilities of the other. For these reasons, I think we have to fall back on some combination of self-identification and presentation, which largely leaves it up to the individual's choice.

flatlander_48

07-08-2016, 11:02 AM

There is no method that can consistently identify someone as biologically 'male' or 'female' without making certain assumptions about what it means to be one or the other because sex is not an absolute binary, and to attempt to do so will require identity documents and enforcement by bathroom police and will still allow (even require) some people who may look like one to use the facilities of the other.

Basically that gets at the question posed by Michael Hughes. On face value, his going to a women's restroom would certainly attract attention, but by law that is where he is supposed to go. People just don't realize the full range of problems they created.

Act in haste, repent at leisure...

DeeAnn

Pat

07-08-2016, 04:19 PM

Just worth noting, today Massachusetts' governor Charile Baker signed our transgender identity protection bill into law. As of October 1st, TG people in Massachusetts are protected in the usual civil rights categories (housing, employment, etc.) and TG people may select a bathroom based on gender identity not birth certificate or driver's license. It does specify penalties for anyone who falsely claims to be TG for fraudulent purposes and says that proof of identity can be established with a history of consistent assertion of being transgender (so none of this "guy wakes up in the morning and decides he's a girl" rhetoric of the haters will wash. ;) )

mykell

08-01-2016, 08:42 AM

“We hope that this discriminatory law's days are numbered," advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal said in a statement ahead of the hearing, where they will seek a preliminary injunction.

hopefully he judge will see past the hate and offer the injunction until the trial can be heard....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-north-carolina-idUSKCN10C25H

also a video...http://myfox8.com/2016/08/01/lengthy-legal-battle-over-controversial-house-bill-2-begins/

(http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-north-carolina-idUSKCN10C25H)

reinasblack

08-02-2016, 03:19 PM

A transsexual was asked are they postop in order to be allowed to use women's rest room
https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurenstrapagiel/bar-bathrooms?bftw&utm_term=.ruqGm6yqx#.dtK3AlL95

The bouncer's side of the story

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/medicine-hat-bouncer-quits-after-transgender-washroom-controversy-1.3007428

All that River Rising had to do to access the women's bathroom was to say that she was post-op. Apparently, she was coy about it, so the bouncer assumed that she still had the meat and two veg. And, to protect female customers from harassment, the bar had a "no schlongs in the ladies' room" rule. Seems reasonable to me. (I know that trans women think that public establishments have no right to concern themselves with the safety of mere women, but you do realize that most of the populace disagrees with you, right?)

If Ms Rising was concerned about her safety in the men's room, staff was willing to serve as her personal bodyguard. But this wasn't about safety, was it? Not about women's safety, which Ms Rising couldn't GAF about, and not about her own safety, which staff was willing to guarantee. It was about giving peens full access to women's spaces - in other words, about violating women's boundaries.

arbon

08-02-2016, 03:40 PM

If someone asked me if I was post-op before allowing me entry into a womens room it would not go very well for them.

Added: it is never okay to do what that guy did you linked to. You don't ask that. Trans women have the same rights as any other women. What he did was to deny her her identity and dignity.

Mayo

08-08-2016, 08:17 AM

What Arbon said. It's an offensive question and nobody else's goddamn business. We don't ask women if they've had breast implants at the washroom door to determine if they're 'worthy' to enter, or for guys to provide length and circumference to see if they're 'real men'. The specious 'counter-argument' about 'protecting women and children' has been so thoroughly demolished by this point that bringing it up in defence of transphobic laws and policies demonstrates nothing more than a willful desire to ignore reality. And if 'women's boundaries' will be violated by a penis in the ladies' washroom, those boundaries must obviously extend beyond the walls of the stalls, in which case why bother having them? Why not simply line up the toilets side by side and do your business out in the open? Finally, while 'most of the populace' disagreeing with something may make it a law, it doesn't make it either true or right.

Rhonda Darling

08-27-2016, 08:40 AM

May I politely suggest that we cut through the disagreement and get to a solution that allows all of us to just pee. Since 2006, Washington, DC has had the following law in place. There have been no notable instances of "men in dresses" upsetting the social order. If you present as a woman, you may use the woman's restroom for its intended purpose. Likewise if you present as a man, the men's room.

Here is the pertinent portion of the law:

"LOCAL LAW: District of Columbia law, in effect since 2006, provides: District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR)Title 4 (Human Rights and Relations),Chapter 8 (Compliance Rules and Regulations Regarding Gender Identity or Expression), Section 801 – General Prohibitions of Gender Identity or Expression DiscriminationPart 801.1 states: “It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, including agencies of the District of Columbia government and its contractors, to discriminate against a person in employment, housing, public accommodations, or educational institutions on the basis of that person's actual or perceived gender identity or expression. Such unlawful discriminatory practices shall include but not be limited to the following in: (c) Public Accommodations: refusing to provide goods or services of any kind; engaging in disparate treatment in the provision of goods and services; engaging in verbal or physical harassment; creating a hostile environment; and denying access to restrooms and other gender specific facilities that are consistent with a customer's or client's gender identity or expression.” Section 802. – Restrooms and Other Gender Specific Facilities Part 802.1 states: “All entities covered under the Act, as amended, shall allow individuals the right to use gender-specific restrooms and other gender-specific facilities such as dressing rooms, homeless shelters, and group homes that are consistent with their gender identity or expression.” Section 805. – Gender-Specific Facilities Where Nudity in the Presence of Others is Customary Part 805.1 states: “All entities covered under the Act shall provide access to and the safe use of facilities that are segregated by gender.” Part 805.2 states: “In gender-specific facilities where nudity in the presence of other people is customary, entities covered by the Act shall make reasonable accommodations to allow an individual access to and the use of the facility that is consistent with that individual’s gender identity or expression, regardless of whether the individual has provided identification or other documentation of their gender identity or expression.” Part 805.3 states: “Requiring documentation or other proof of an individual’s gender is prohibited, except in situations where all persons are asked to provide documentation or other proof of their gender for a reasonable business or medical purpose.” Section 899 – Definitions Part 899.1 states: “When used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed:” “Entities” - include all employers, housing providers, public accommodations, educational institutions, and government agencies and their contractors that come within the jurisdictional reach of the Act.“Gender identity or expression” - a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.“Transgender” - an adjective that refers to any individual whose identity or behavior differs from stereotypical or traditional gender expectations, including transsexual individuals, cross-dressers, androgynous individuals, and others whose appearance or characteristic are perceived to be gender-atypical."

In addition, last week the U.S. General Services Administration clarified its regulations such that transgender individuals may use the restroom appropriate to their gender identity in any federal building operated by GSA -- Federal buildings, Federal Courthouses, most federal agencies.

If everyone would just mind their own business when going in and using a toilet, 99-44/100 of the problem would be solved.

Rhonda

ReineD

08-28-2016, 01:58 AM

I may as well post this update here too. It's in the "Legal Status" sticky in the Media section.

Governor McRory, who signed the North Carolina House Bill 2 (the controversial bathroom bill), is up for election in the fall. It seems that he is currently behind the polls precisely because he has been defending HB2. Apparently, a majority of voters in North Carolina are against HB2. lol.

The links to articles and polls are in this post:
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?238503-Legal-status-for-TGs-in-the-US&p=3987759#post3987759

Leslie Langford

08-28-2016, 01:49 PM

...here is the enlightened (and humourous) way in which the officials running the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) - which takes place annually in Toronto this time of year - have dealt with this issue:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/08/27/new-ex-washrooms-are-a-we-dont-care-dream-keenan.html

Sounds like a win-win for all concerned, whether cis- or trans-... :thumbsup:

Kim_Bitzflick

08-28-2016, 04:12 PM

If someone asked me if I was post-op before allowing me entry into a womens room it would not go very well for them.

I've had several surgeries so technically I'm post op....... But none of them were for SRS :). I'm just saying - answer the question asked. I'm not trying to belittle those who have had SRS, I'm just gonna mess with the person asking the question.

And the ONLY way to solve this issue is to have EVERYONE use gender neutral bathrooms. I doubt this is ever going to happen in my life and personally I hate sharing a restroom with men because some of them are soooo messy (if you know what I mean).

Lorileah

08-28-2016, 04:27 PM

So are women's rooms

Leslie Langford

08-28-2016, 04:45 PM

Amen to that, Lorlieah...been there, and seen the carnage first-hand on too many occasions...

That said, don't even get me started about this compulsion that so many GG's (especially teens) have to take selfies with their BFF's in the women's restrooms. WTF??? If we did that and got caught, we'd be crucified on the spot by the "Bathroom Law" vigilantes.

ReineD

08-29-2016, 01:34 AM

I also echo Lori & Leslie. Women's bathroom stalls are not always pristine. I don't understand why people won't flush the toilet or why they have to leave trails of toilet paper all over the floor. Maybe just to be a pain.

brenda girl

08-29-2016, 12:00 PM

when i was in high school the girls locker room was worst than the boys

CrystalSparrowe

09-02-2016, 06:24 AM

I hear about the supposed danger we pose to GGs in the bathroom. What about the dangers posed to us while passing if we use the men's bathroom? I would rather face a questioning look for another woman, than thedirty looks or sexual harassment from a man. Especially if they actually think I am a real woman.

ReineD

09-02-2016, 07:54 PM

Huff Post has a good sense of humor.

Here's another humorous one, and this one has pictures! :)

http://towndock.net/newsextra/bathroom-re-opens-with-on-duty-compliance-officer

Jenniferathome

09-02-2016, 08:09 PM

This just in, regarding NC's Gov: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4b139b92-ec2e-3047-8f0d-8354db697e01/ss_nc-governor-won%26%2339%3Bt-release.html....

And here is the best quote: "A majority of North Carolinians say the law has hurt the state’s economy (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/pat-mccrory/)."

Goodbye nonsense laws.

ellbee

09-05-2016, 03:26 AM

I am amazed here how many crossdressers don't see that a law against one section of is a law against all of us.

I've come to see the light on that, in my own odd way...

One time a group of friends (GG's & gay males) & I were at a hetero bar. And I gotta admit that I was looking pretty "legit" that night.

But being a CD'er, I personally had no issue with using the men's room.

Well, apparently some male stranger did -- as he politely told me as I exited that this was the men's room, and that the women's was around the corner. Um, what?? LOL

One in my group saw what happened, and afterwards told me that I really should be using the women's room for the rest of the night. I thought they were kidding around, but three others who were part of the conversation genuinely agreed.

I honestly didn't want to, out of respect for the GG's. But looking back, I suppose there was no way in heck I was going to be able to pass as a *guy* whatsoever that night, ha!

And so, I used the women's room the rest of our time there. It was just a "single," so there was no issue with that. But one time as I exited, there was a GG outside the door, waiting her turn. We exchanged the "polite smile" thing -- I have no idea if I was read or not on that one. But nothing out of the ordinary that I felt, anyway.

So, 5 to 6 people (call it 5 & a half, to be safe?) "polled" -- basically everyone -- saw no issue with me using the women's room. Even though I didn't want to, I kind of had no choice, since that microcosm of society expected it in order to keep things running smoothly for everyone there.

Obviously I was going to defer to that -- and not some law that I may have apparently been breaking. I suppose it's all about using good judgement in these situations. And trying to legislate that as a "one-size-fits-all" just doesn't work!

PeggyNell

09-22-2016, 12:15 PM

Lana Mae

10-20-2016, 07:49 PM

Have not read the thread in depth, but know that NC's HB2 is not only about the bathroom. It was designed to stop any recourse against the state for firing anyone! That is right if you were female they could fire you for that and you would not have a leg to stand on in a court case. Yes it was mostly directed at the LGBTQ+ community but also all state employees. They are using Charlotte's nondiscrimination law as an excuse. THe state says that Charlotte has overstepped because they have a stronger nondiscrimination law than the state. BUT,using their logic they overstepped because of federal laws that they are ignoring. If this bill(HB2) did not become an issue nobody would have thought twice about a transwoman using the ladies room-how many had used it before the bill even existed. This is just a bunch of political manuevering. IMHO Hugs Lana Mae

Futurist

10-26-2016, 08:08 PM

What I don't understand is why the media is targeting transwomen? I heard nothing about CD men, I honestly haven't stayed on top of the topic either . I have not personally had to face this decision yet. But I agree that if in a vanilla bar, restaurant Etc. If you look like a female go to the women's room, this would make you less of a target than obviously going to the men's. But the problem is not us it is "Them". The general public doesn't and in my opinion do not want to under stand CD and TG people. That is my 2cents
Question--are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for cross-dressing men to use women's restrooms?

Also, out of curiosity--if a man is a transvestite and/or a cross-dresser, how likely is he to eventually get beaten up if he uses the men's restrooms on a regular basis?

Any thoughts on this?

Rachael Leigh

10-26-2016, 09:49 PM

Was reading today that the Texas legislature is planning on doing a similar bill in Texas in the 2017 session. Small business
groups have come out against any such bill saying it will hurt business. This being such a conservative state I fear they may
pass this discrimatory bill.
I hope that others will recognize the damage this has done in NC and keep this from happening here
Leigh

kkaye

10-27-2016, 08:12 PM

Before any of this, I just used it before, I left. Really, I had to because of the maximum tuck, I do, But never the less. I am a man, I belong in the mensroom,

Rachael Leigh

10-27-2016, 09:00 PM

I agree with what your saying and I too try to avoid needed to go when I'm out but if nature calls when I'm dressed I just don't feel comfortable in a men's room

Judith96a

10-28-2016, 11:13 AM

Question--are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for cross-dressing men to use women's restrooms?

Also, out of curiosity--if a man is a transvestite and/or a cross-dresser, how likely is he to eventually get beaten up if he uses the men's restrooms on a regular basis?

Any thoughts on this?

I wonder what male legislators imagine goes on in a ladies restroom - specifically what a man in a ladies restroom might see that he's not meant to!
If I'm dressed as a woman then I use the 'ladies'. I go into a stall like everyone else, do what needs doing, wash up, possibly tidy hair / makeup and exit (stage left?, never with pursuing bear). The one and only time on which I attempted to use the 'gents' while wearing a dress, the 6' 4" linebacker attendant redirected me to the 'ladies'!

Interesting anecdote - make of it what you will... A couple of weeks ago I was driving up to Milton Keynes and needed to 'go'. So i pulled in at the Motorway services and headed for the 'ladies'. As I walked into the 'ladies' a youngish woman (30s?) was coming out. We were close enough that she must have known that I was a cross dresser, she couldn't possibly have been fooled. She met my glance and smiled, broadly. And went on her way. No drama.

ellbee

10-28-2016, 01:26 PM

"The one and only time on which I attempted to use the 'gents' while wearing a dress, the 6' 4" linebacker attendant redirected me to the 'ladies'!"

This is why I had started to use the women's after my 1st experience, as noted above. I really didn't want any trouble from anyone -- including those who could potentially & erroneously think I might be using the men's room to do certain, um, things with guys. Even if by some chance the guys in there at the time didn't have any issue with me going into the men's, I still wouldn't have wanted someone who saw that to go complaining to an establishment's management that there was "some chick who keeps using the men's room" and turning it into this big embarrassingly awkward scene.

For the times I looked pretty legit (which was fairly often :battingeyelashes: ) when all dolled-up, I just used the women's. Get in, get out, don't be a weirdo creep. Maybe I was just lucky, or maybe they thought I looked "convincing enough" and/or thought I was transitioning or something, and there were never any obvious outward issues from others with me doing so. And that doesn't mean I particularly cared to use the women's, but it was pretty much the lesser of two evils for me.

I will say it again for anyone reading: There will always be pros & cons to whatever you decide, so take it on a case-by-case basis, and use your good judgement. And if you're out with friends or whatever, ask their honest & genuine opinions first.

Dana44

10-28-2016, 01:52 PM

Only when I am non binary would I ever consider using the men's room. I have had a few stares when I do. But as a fem guy one can get away with it. But if I have makeup on, a skirt heels, boots,bra and ladies top I use the ladies room and go and do my brininess and get out. Never got called for it anytime.

Zooey

10-28-2016, 03:12 PM

I wonder what male legislators imagine goes on in a ladies restroom - specifically what a man in a ladies restroom might see that he's not meant to!

I don't really care what male legislators think, but have you considered that the issue may not always be what the man in the ladies room is going to see, but rather what their presence means to the women inside? I have personally observed CDs (and various other types of self-identified "transfeminine" people) in women's restrooms behaving inappropriately, and frankly, in pretty discomforting ways typical of men. I was uncomfortable, and so were the other women in there. if a man was behaving that way on the street, I'd walk away as quickly as possible, and it doesn't get more comfortable when that's in my bathroom.

Editing to add/clarify... I know not all CDs/etc. would behave that way. I'm just pointing out that ENOUGH do such that the concern is not completely unfounded, and it's worth discussion.

I'm 110% for trans men and women who have legally/medically transitioned using the appropriate facilities for their gender, and having their legal gender marker respected. When it comes to situations where men can self-identify as a woman any time it's convenient for them... Not so much.

Only when I am non binary would I ever consider using the men's room.

Non-binary typically refers to an identity, not a mode of dress. Which are you talking about?

mykell

10-28-2016, 03:41 PM

the supreme court has decided too go forward with a case from Virginia, its such a shame this youth has to go through all this at all, personally i feel we just have to forgo the whole mens and ladies designation and just have bathrooms, first come first served, will solve a whole bunch of silliness.....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/28/supreme-court-transgender-bathroom-virginia-schools-gavin-grimm/92267210/

ellbee

10-28-2016, 05:25 PM

I have personally observed CDs (and various other types of self-identified "transfeminine" people) in women's restrooms behaving inappropriately, and frankly, in pretty discomforting ways typical of men. I was uncomfortable, and so were the other women in there. if a man was behaving that way on the street, I'd walk away as quickly as possible, and it doesn't get more comfortable when that's in my bathroom.

Editing to add/clarify... I know not all CDs/etc. would behave that way. I'm just pointing out that ENOUGH do such that the concern is not completely unfounded, and it's worth discussion.

Understood, Zooey. :)

I've read about stories, usually more often with dressing rooms, with that kind of stuff going on. And believe me, it pisses me off.

It can make things that much more difficult, adding fuel to the fire, and help push those who are on the fence, over to the wrong side. Because oftentimes, it's the negative stuff that usually makes the news -- not all the non-incidents. And this is just when it's regarding trans-people, who absolutely have every right to be there... But never mind someone like me who *isn't* transitioning, which I also try to keep in mind when doing this.

Prior to my incident of a guy with a surprised look on his face & telling me the women's room was around the corner, I honestly had no qualms with using the men's room when I would go out & present as female -- but others could & even sort of did once have an issue.

Personally, I'd rather make the guys uncomfortable than the women, ha! At other times I've used the men's room like that, but it was Halloween at a hetero club, for example, and there were a couple guys in there (I used a stall), as the women's room had a line. Nobody said or did anything. Again: In, out & not be a weirdo creep, even in there. And I think maybe it was in that particular scenario where it was like, "Eh, whatever, I guess maybe that *wasn't* a chick? :strugglin ," to them.

But when all your friends (GG's & males), even the level-headed ones, tell you that you *need* to be using the women's room the rest of the night, yeah, you might want to take that into consideration. :o

LelaK

10-29-2016, 08:09 PM

Has anyone else read this?

Why You Shouldn’t Use Transgender Pronouns
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/18/shouldnt-use-transgender-pronouns

I think everyone has the right to identify as they choose, partly because the mind is the realm of identity; the body isn't. I also think as the author emphasizes that everyone has the right to use whatever pronoun they choose for others, although it's dangerous to intentionally insult anyone. We have free speech, so we have the right to insult others, as long as it's not slander etc.

The author thinks TG pronouns threaten to disconnect language from reality, which I think is absurd. He also apparently finds it important to identify people by the sex of their physical bodies, but I fail to see any importance in that.

To me it looks like making mountains out of molehills (which I think means imagining molehills to be mountains).

Briannax20

11-04-2016, 11:51 PM

After reading this, I do not care what the law says. As long as I look legit I'm going into the ladies restroom. I will do my business and get out, but I won't be beaten up because it having to use the restroom.

You all know how cruel people can be especially men au is rather just go into the ladies when I look like a lady

Zooey

11-05-2016, 01:47 AM

Define "legit".

Becky Blue

11-23-2016, 08:34 PM

Here in Australia it seems to be a non-issue. people here simply use the bathrooms of their choice and no one seems to be troubled by this. i think that because it has become a political issue in the USA that it now is on lots of people's agenda (no pun intended) its really DADT here and seems to be fine.

I have used the ladies when dressed in Australia as well as in San Fran numerous times and never had the slightest issue.

Tammie.J.Swenson

12-11-2016, 02:09 PM

DODT not familar with this term ...is it an AUSSIE acronym?

phylis anne

12-11-2016, 06:27 PM

Define "legit".

Hi Zooey,
In my mind legit would be defined as someone who is in true transition or a c/d that has gone the distance to present as female ,the non legit would be the obvious guys with the beard , and no effort what so ever of presenting as female which has all the fear mongers up in arms, there have been some alledged incidents reported but given when they occured ,as in during the early part of the lawmaking these were people most likely put up to it by the opposing party besides it takes a hell of a lot more than a cheap wig hasty makeup and a dress to impress me I am diagnosed as non binary and when i dress as a girl then it is a boots and jeans type of girl rather tomboyish if you will,now if I was to put the true effort in that many here do as to make up ,hair and clothing presentation I might come real close to passing as an older lady so I go the tomboy route to blend and still fee girly and as there is still a bit of a mustache I use the boys room , when trying on some clothes at our local targer recently the s/a said to go ahead and use the girls fitting room ,but I declined ,wehen she asked why I told her I was aware of the new laws here in wa,st but as I still had facial hair like a guy that I would use the mens fitting room so as to not cause an uneeded incident

Becky Blue

12-14-2016, 05:46 AM

DODT not familar with this term ...is it an AUSSIE acronym?

No Sorry it was a Typo meant to say DADT

Lilly 40C

01-11-2017, 05:51 AM

With all the REAL problems facing us these days, politicians who focus on bathroom bills instead of the REAL problems should be thrown out of office.

Mayo

01-17-2017, 10:11 AM

What I don't understand is why the media is targeting transwomen? I heard nothing about CD menI honestly think there are two main issues involved here:
1) an aversion to nuance - many people (conservatives in particular) find it easier to view the world as black and white. Thinking about things that fall in between is a lot of effort and, in some cases, may threaten their world-view,
2) an element of homophobia that stems from a very narrow definition of masculinity and what it means to be male (see #1 above) - men fear being 'tricked' by a 'guy in a dress', which would make them 'gay'.

The general public doesn't and in my opinion do not want to under stand CD and TG people. That is my 2centsYep. See #1 above.

With all the REAL problems facing us these days, politicians who focus on bathroom bills instead of the REAL problems should be thrown out of office.If you can gain the vote of an entire constituency by taking a stand on one issue, it may be worth it. Politicians are, after all, opportunists.

SometimesDiana

02-11-2017, 01:13 PM

At a public rest stop, I recently saw an interesting sign posted. It announced that an attendant of the opposite gender may enter the restroom to help the elderly or disabled.

It has been argued that transgender bathroom access creates a loophole that would allow men to enter a woman's restroom. One could make the same argument that elderly and disabled bathroom access creates the same loop hole.

Christina D

02-11-2017, 01:42 PM

What I don't understand is why the media is targeting transwomen? I heard nothing about CD men

This, I think, is indicative of an even larger perception that our society has about gay, transwomen, and gender non-conforming men: that such men are predatory and perverts. I know I don't have to tell anyone here that the majority of CD men are heterosexual, but a lot of the general public doesn't know that. Therefore, CD men and transwomen are also burdened with gay male stereotypes, like being overtly sexually promiscuous and unable to control their "perverted sexual urges."

CD, transmen, and gender non-conforming women do, of course, face hate and prejudices of their own, but I think the average uninformed/bigoted person doesn't associate them with acts of perversion.

Zooey

02-11-2017, 02:48 PM

Except trans women are not men. That's unlike CDs, who by definition are. CDs need the men's room to be safe for them, not to use the women's room. We need to start differentiating between the two groups loudly so that we can actually say that we are not talking about men in women's spaces.

Lorileah

02-11-2017, 04:56 PM

AllieSF

02-11-2017, 05:19 PM

Our puritanical culture here has created the problem and not tran people (umbrella definition). In Europe many times both sexes used the same facilities, though today they have drifted away from that concept. What Lori says is correct, there is no practical way to make it happen, and the actual problem women have with us invading their space, and they may consider you as part of the "us", is unfounded on the safety side. Now a women's locker room where partial or complete nudity comes into play is a different and more difficult issue compared to the non-issue, in my opinion, of a TG person presenting as female in the restroom.

Christina D

02-11-2017, 05:49 PM

Except trans women are not men.

No disagreement there at all, Zooey. I wasn't trying to imply that I think that. Many others in our society, however, DO think that, and it's a serious problem. Many uninformed people still think that a transwoman is just a man in disguise and thus associate them closer to gay men, which I believe is why the stereotype of the predatory gay male is also often applied to the transwoman.

Zooey

02-11-2017, 06:08 PM

Back to the initial problem then Zooey. How DO you KNOW a person is CD or TS? and where does one draw a line? Who is going to police that and what about people who are dysphoric but not ready to commit? Your idea of keeping CDs out of women's rooms has far too many holes to be enforceable (unless of course we should wear name tags or patches? yOu wanna go first?)

I don't need to know whether somebody is CD or TS until it becomes an issue, and - again - I don't think anybody should be checking anybody's undercarriage at the bathroom door, nor do I think they should wear a name tag or a patch. I think they should carry a driver's license or state ID with their legal name and gender on it, just like everybody else does, and whatever it says defines what side of the law you're on if it becomes an issue.

Legal identity is legal identity, and it's the only standard that is necessary/should matter when it comes to issues of legality.

Sara Jessica

02-11-2017, 06:24 PM

Sorry Zooey, I've been using the ladies room for years and it hasn't bothered the right-wing-nothing-better-to-do-than-write-public-restroom-law-writers. As such, it shouldn't bother you either.

I'm not going to fish out a driver license to use the restroom no matter what gender marker is on it.

Andrea Renea

02-11-2017, 06:29 PM

I think one of the problems is sex and gender are used loosely as the same thing.

I look at my Broward Co FL birth certificate, my NC issued DL, and my Federally issued passport and all say sex not gender.

All say male, which I'm.

Maybe some States say Gender.

AllieSF

02-11-2017, 06:56 PM

Andrea, my California drivers license use "Sex". I never paid attention to the difference between the two words until I found this site in 2007. As they sometimes differentiate here, sex is between your legs and what you may physically enjoy and gender is between your ears! LOL

Zooey

02-11-2017, 07:01 PM

I'm not going to fish out a driver license to use the restroom no matter what gender marker is on it.

Was I not clear? I don't want anybody to have to swipe/show a license to open the door. Cars don't make you swipe a license before turning them on, but I bet you fish out that license when you get pulled over while driving. That's exactly what I'm suggesting here. When and if there's an issue, your legal identity is what determines your legal rights. That is all I'm saying.

If your legal sex/gender marker is F, you are correct to use e.g. the women's restroom regardless of whether somebody complains. If you have an M then you were getting away with it. That's all there is to it. Right now, people in the trans community are pushing for legal sex/gender markers to not matter, which literally says that men are allowed to use the women's room, and I don't think that's an appropriate or defensible position. Trans women, by and large, pay the price for that position. I would love nothing more than to be able to honestly say "We are not lobbying for men in women's restrooms", but something's gotta give in order for that to be true.

AllieSF

02-11-2017, 07:16 PM

Why do we need rules for this? We MtF's have been using women's restrooms for years and never had any epidemic of issues. If someone causes a disturbance in a restroom, they only need an ID for identification and not the gender/sex one. If they are guilty of that disturbance they should be charged for that and not for using that restroom as a MtF whatever. We need inclusionary regulations and not exclusionary. If they write and pass a regulation, what happens if they say anyone with a penis uses a male room and with a vagina uses a female one? That is, they may pass a rule where one has to be post op to get in, or prove that they are post op if they cause a disturbance. So, a broader more inclusive regulation/law makes is more workable. "Presenting as female" should be good enough, because it has been working just fine until recently, and will work just fine from now on. Everybody compromises a little.

Gabriella111

02-11-2017, 09:35 PM

As a cis female, from the perspective of being in a public restroom, I don't see the difference between a TG who is post-op and one who is not. If someone is presenting as female, and they're using the restroom for its intended purpose, it makes sense for them to be in the women's room.

I'm more likely to be made uncomfortable by a FtM in the women's room, which is what NC's HB2 requires. I'm not expecting to see a male in the women's room. So someone presenting as a male, in my opinion, should be in the men's room, regardless of where in their transition they may be.

That said, ultimately which room anyone uses should come down to which they will feel safest using. HB2 prioritizes the perception of safety for cisgender citizens over the actual safety of transgender citizens (but, of course, had much deeper intent).

To say we're lobbying for men to be able to use the women's room is an oversimplification that does a disservice to those fighting this and similar laws. We're lobbying for citizens to be able to use the restroom that corresponds to the gender for which they are presenting. It's an important clarification.

Just my two cents.

Zooey

02-12-2017, 01:50 AM

To say we're lobbying for men to be able to use the women's room is an oversimplification that does a disservice to those fighting this and similar laws. We're lobbying for citizens to be able to use the restroom that corresponds to the gender for which they are presenting. It's an important clarification.

Emphasis added... Is that actually what we're lobbying for? Because I don't think that's what we're saying. That's certainly the wording of the laws that we keep demanding (which is the problem IMO), but every time we talk about it in public we talk about gender IDENTITY, because that's what ultimately defines actual transgender people. Gender PRESENTATION/EXPRESSION means next to nothing, and insisting upon that definition absolutely means that we are lobbying for laws that permit men to be in women's restrooms so long as they make even the most indefensible statement or effort towards declaring themselves conventionally feminine in some way. We say, "we're not talking about men in women's restrooms", but we propose legal language that seems to go out of its way to permit it.

Often, you will see language such as "sincerely held gender identity" pop up in these discussions, yet nobody is willing to define what it means. I'm of the opinion that we have to define it, because otherwise, we're getting nowhere. Every actual transgender person in need of legal recognition that I know has sought legal sex/gender changes. We need to make that the standard and move forward, because there is lots of actual work to be done in removing the class and location-based impediments to obtaining those changes when appropriate.

When it comes to fighting the heinous laws people are trying to pass now, neither side is making a terribly defensible argument at this point. If we could actually propose something reasonable and legally/medically defensible, which I believe standardizing on legally recognized sex/gender marker changes is, then I personally think we could be making a lot more progress for those who actually need it.

Lorileah

02-12-2017, 02:31 AM

I think they should carry a driver's license or state ID with their legal name and gender on it, just like everybody else does, and whatever it says defines what side of the law you're on if it becomes an issue.

so you need an ID to use a restroom. Or just IF you are challenged? What happens if the person is undergoing therapy and hasn't had the time, money or ability to get the marker changed? Some states require a lot more work or documentation than others. You are basically drawing a line without drawing a line. What is the limit? You are TS, how did you know and when did you know and how long BEFORe you got your documentation? You are setting perimeters that are discriminatory. OK so exactly WHEN is a person TS and what should be required for them to use the women's restroom? Do we go on what they say? You say you need a document..so now that person leaves their purse at the table and while in the restroom they get called out. You would say they should get the documentation and all will be OK...except in the meantime they are being held or they are being subjected to embarrassment in front of the patrons. You aren't making any sense. You want a hard line but you can't defend that line. You went through this yourself. Did you use the men's room right up until you got the letter from your therapist? Or did you wait until you got your driver's license. At this moment I have three friends, all TS who have started their journey, RLE as we used to call it. They have just started hormones, they haven't done legal name changes, they haven't been approved for surgery (one may never have surgery due to health issues). So where do they go? The men's room? They aren't men by your own definition. BUT they don't have documents. You don't get a learner's permit to be trans.

Thus I call BS on your stance. And I have to agree that you are a TS who sets the "you're not trans enough." bar that some here say the TSs play.

Zooey

02-12-2017, 03:01 AM

Shelly Preston

02-12-2017, 04:29 AM

No, I used the women's restroom when presenting female once I started HRT. I changed my legal sex/gender markers 7.5 months later, when I went full time. Past that point, I believe that I should have a legal right to use the women's facilities. Prior to that, IMO, I was getting away with using them. "Getting away with it" is what "trans" (in the umbrella sense) people have been doing forever, and I'm not suggesting they stop.

I'm saying that when there's conflict over a sex/gender segregated space, your legal sex/gender marker is what should determine your legal sex/gender. I'm saying that crossdressing men can probably continue to get away with using the women's restroom, but unlike trans women, they do not have a need to have the right to access those spaces. If we focused on ensuring/clarifying that legal sex/gender marker changes are recognized by treating them as the standard, THEN we can start to make meaningful legal progress on standardizing the requirements and process for obtaining them.

This sounds good but as it would give those who have the gender marker changed but you are still leaving behind those who are still at the start of transition. However forcing pre gender marker change individulals & crossdressers to use the male bathroom only achieves two things.

1. It screams to anyone noticing There is a Crossdresser as they wont care about the difference between CD & TS.
2. It puts them at risk as they are more likely to be attacked.

I'll also point out that at no point did I mentioned surgery, although I do personally think HRT (or at least the elimination of testosterone) should be part of it. I think the Obama-era passport requirements for sex/gender-marker changes are wholly reasonable.

Zooey, I have to strongly disagree with this point. Not everyone can take HRT and this is not a barrier to Transition.

Zooey

02-12-2017, 05:15 AM

This sounds good but as it would give those who have the gender marker changed but you are still leaving behind those who are still at the start of transition. However forcing pre gender marker change individulals & crossdressers to use the male bathroom only achieves two things.

1. It screams to anyone noticing There is a Crossdresser as they wont care about the difference between CD & TS.
2. It puts them at risk as they are more likely to be attacked.

I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions there, but regardless...

For crossdressers and early transitioners, I am arguing for precisely the status quo. Unless somebody in that position is asked to leave and/or authorities get involved, none of what I've said matters. If we want to make all bathrooms sex/gender-less, then great. But we should not allow men to be treated as women legally with no basis, part of the time, whenever it's convenient to them. That is exactly what the legal language that the community is pushing for does. I'm not in favor of these things being convictable offenses, but if they want to use the ladies room while "dressed" then so be it, so long as if/when it becomes an issue then (legally) they need to leave.

Zooey, I have to strongly disagree with this point. Not everyone can take HRT and this is not a barrier to Transition.

As I said, that's my personal opinion on what the standards should be. There are legitimate medical restrictions that would prevent somebody from taking HRT with doctor's documentation, but sufficed to say there are a variety of ways for eliminating male levels of testosterone. Testosterone is at the root of many of the worst problems with men in women's spaces.

Aunt Kelly

02-12-2017, 10:08 AM

Emphasis added... Is that actually what we're lobbying for? Because I don't think that's what we're saying. That's certainly the wording of the laws that we keep demanding (which is the problem IMO), but every time we talk about it in public we talk about gender IDENTITY, because that's what ultimately defines actual transgender people. Gender PRESENTATION/EXPRESSION means next to nothing...
Oh really? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a remarkably narrow-minded view. It may be true for you, and that's fine, but to suggest that only someone who has walked the same path as you, as far as you have, could possibly have valid feelings and needs borders on the absurd.
That said, I do agree with you in that there is a need for medically and/or legally defensible standard. I just believe that drawing the line where you've chosen to draw it is too extreme and would exclude to many who need the protection of a well thought out law.

Pat

02-12-2017, 10:42 AM

But we should not allow men to be treated as women legally with no basis, part of the time, whenever it's convenient to them. That is exactly what the legal language that the community is pushing for does.

Actually, the law in Massachusetts, which I think should be a model for other states, Does this: first, it leaves the selection of rest room / locker room to the individual as it has been up until this fight started. If there is a challenge, then the individual can cite their history with gender identity as justification. The law required the Mass Commission Against Discrimination to write guidelines that can be used in these cases (again, very smart in my opinion.) They say:

In most situations arising in employment, housing, mortgage services and places of public accommodation,
it will not be appropriate to request documentation of an individual’s gender identity. In the limited
circumstances where it is necessary, an individual’s gender identity may be demonstrated by any evidence that
the gender identity is sincerely held as a part of the person’s core identity. The evidence that the Commission
will review in cases alleging gender identity discrimination includes, but is not limited to, medical history,
medical/psychiatric care or treatment of the gender-related identity; consistent and uniform assertion of the
gender-related identity or any other evidence that one’s gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of one’s
core identity; provided, however, that gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.

That last part is very important -- it provides that gender identity cannot be falsely asserted (like Mike Huckabee's famous assertion that he'd claim to be transgender so he could shower in the girl's locker room,) nor, even if the claim to gender identity is true, can it be used to do something otherwise improper (voyerism, public exposure, etc. -- the things that get the anti-TG people worked up.) This arguably doesn't help the deeply-closeted folks, but it's hard to imagine scenarios where a deeply-closeted person is going into public restrooms.

There's quite a bit more to it and I encourage people who are interested to have a look at MCAD's guidelines (http://www.mass.gov/mcad/docs/gender-identity-guidance-12-05-16.pdf) if they're interested. There's also a guidance document from the AG's office that's pretty good reading: http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/policy/2016/ag-healey-gender-identity-guidance-for-public-accommodations-9-1-16.pdf

Mayo

02-12-2017, 11:02 AM

What are the options?

1) Gender-neutral facilities: this means that North Americans need to be more like Europeans and get over their Victorian-era inhibitions (only slightly more likely than Americans giving up their guns, at least without significant 'social engineering', but which I still see as a desirable end goal).
2) Use gender presentation and/or gender identity as a basis for who can use which washroom. This means that someone who seems to be of the 'wrong' gender will occasionally pass through those doors, and requires that we trust people to not engage in untoward conduct (which currently governs our bathroom behaviour, by the way).
3) Status quo. Does not eliminate ambiguity, as we have seen in the cases of people with non-stereoypical presentation, e.g. butch women.
4) Require ID and 'potty police'. Same problems as #2, depending on (inconsistent) state rules for changing gender markers. Even federal standards on who can claim which gender (which states may not accept) still fail at least some of the time because not everybody fits gender stereotypes (see #3).

The issue is a balance between current (North American) social mores and perceptions of harm vs tolerance of non-stereotypical expression/breaking down gender stereotypes. For this to advance at all, we need to 1) change the current social mores as they are embodied in an understanding of gender, 2) educate people on altering risk perceptions to match fact, and 3) work on reducing sexual violence of all types. It may take a generation or two.

Zooey

02-12-2017, 12:21 PM

Actually, the law in Massachusetts, which I think should be a model for other states...

I read through this, and I think it's a step in the right direction for sure. There are a few areas where I think the language is inappropriately "soft" from a legal standpoint - there is still too much up to interpretation, particularly in regards to the "initial test" of whether or not a situation allows for requesting documentation. That said, I do think that this law and these guidelines are effectively trying to codify the "getting away with it" situation that I've been describing, in a way that will be interesting to observe when/if it's tested, but which I think is potentially a good model. Thanks for sharing that!

Oh really? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a remarkably narrow-minded view. It may be true for you, and that's fine, but to suggest that only someone who has walked the same path as you, as far as you have, could possibly have valid feelings and needs borders on the absurd. That said, I do agree with you in that there is a need for medically and/or legally defensible standard. I just believe that drawing the line where you've chosen to draw it is too extreme and would exclude to many who need the protection of a well thought out law.

I'm confused... What part of what you quoted are you objecting to? The fact that I've said presentation/expression doesn't matter? They don't. Good laws and logic discuss gender identity and gender expression inversely. For example, in the Massachusetts law that Pat posted about, once past the vague first step in the process...

A woman cannot be discriminated against with respect to using women's facilities for presenting/expressing masculine
A feminine-expressing person cannot be barred from e.g. using the men's room if "man" is their sincere gender identity

Beyond the initial barrier to requesting documentation (which is significant in this law), there is (as far as I can tell) no specific protection for people who have a sincere gender identity of "man" but choose to use the women's facilities while "dressed".