Sorry Launa
If your going to dress as a woman you have no business in the mens room!
Sorry Launa
If your going to dress as a woman you have no business in the mens room!
I don't think people have a legal "right to pee where you want". There are reasons for seperate male and female restrooms and they are supported by law. Crossdressers and transgender people are the exception and may or may not be covered by laws allowing them to choose which restroom to use.
What is not clear in the OP's post is his/her degree of passing and without knowing that, there's no good answer to the question. I think if you are clearly a "dude in a dress" with bald head and a beard, you had better stick to the men's restroom. If you are trying your best to pass as a woman, the woman's room would be a better choice if there is no alternative.
They actually want us to use the mens if you identify as male. That means if you have a penis, drivers lic, male identity and are out dressing up then you're male.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caden Lane
I know but I'm not in RomeQuote:
Originally Posted by SANDRA MICHELLE
This is all I have ever done and nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Joanne~
Yeah, obviously I don't pass just like 90% + of the folks on this forum. And I do have a place to go, its going to be somewhere and I won't be looking around to find a security guard to ask him where. I'm looking to stand on the right side of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krisi
If the law says to go in there then I have all the right business to be using itQuote:
Originally Posted by bobbimo
I see you mention the word passing quite a bit in your posts. I do the best I can but not too many of us pass unless we are under 30, been on hormones for 4 years and petite. Looking my best as a lady is what I do. I sure as hell won't ever go out wearing a beard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krisi
Are you sure there is a law? Or is it something someone told you? I somehow doubt that a progressive place like Canada would have a law like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Launa
ouch. I think I do well thank youQuote:
I see you mention the word passing quite a bit in your posts. I do the best I can but not too many of us pass unless we are under 30, been on hormones for 4 years and petite. Looking my best as a lady is what I do. I sure as hell won't ever go out wearing a beard.
But that is neither here nor there. Judging you on passabilty is not right. Even the models from VS have days they don't look like models. Before you get too deep into this contact your local LGBT support group and find out EXACTLY what the law says. People cannot in any manner ever GUESS how you identify if you don't say anything. You do your thing, wash up and get out...no frills no extras. That should not be a problem. Security shouldn't really care unless you do something questionable.
What I did find in Wiki (for what it's worth)I know you don't want to make this a big fight but there have been several cases in Alberta that struck down discrimination of LGBT persons.Quote:
Accordingly, discrimination, including harassment, based on real or perceived sexual orientation or HIV/AIDS (and probably transsexuality and possibly transgenderism) is prohibited throughout Canada in private and public sector employment, housing, services provided to the public and publicity.
Here is the bottom line since you seem to have your mind set on the answer you want. Use whichever restroom you think you need to use. Your fight here with people who have been trying to help bothers me. The answers were given. Take them for what they were worth as presented. Contact your local (or provincial) LGBT group and get the real answer as far as law goes.
Launa, I think most of us though your original post was a request for help with this issue but apparently it was not. You are just arguing with those who are trying to help.
Using the men's restroom dressed as a female (or dressed as a crossdresser) is very likely to cause problems, especially in places where alcohol is being served. You found this out.
Rather than complain and reject all the suggestions that have been offered to you, think about your experience and what you might do to avoid it next time. Read through the suggestions and rather than thinking (and posting) about why they wouldn't work, think about how they might work.
There's a lot of experience here and while not every suggestion is good for you, certainly some are. It's up to you to decide.
In addendum, I would not patronize an establishment that neither took my safety into account, and did not recognize the gender that I'm presently presenting. They want to pretend that gender is a binary, it's simply not. Because while I spend a vast majority of my life as a male, I do not fully identify as male. And if I'm presenting as a female, it's disruptive to me emotionally and physically to force me or anyone else to use a gender specific restroom they are not comfortable using.
If the law says to go in there then I have all the right business to be using it
Quite true, But its the same with walking ascross the street.
You may have the right of way by the law, but once your run over and dead, its a mute point.
If your wearing a dress do not aggravate the situation, use the ladies room.
Bobbi
QUOTE=Lorileah;3664718]Are you sure there is a law? Or is it something someone told you? I somehow doubt that a progressive place like Canada would have a law like that.
Sorry I've been away for a while and haven't found time to respond back. I'll rephrase a couple of things about the law. Its not that there is anything in Canada stopping you from going into the washroom of the opposite sex but its when someone has a problem with it and decides to file a complaint. If this happens then you can or will be charged with either a nuisance, creep, peeping Tom or whatever. However the person making the complaint has to fill out some paperwork with the police etc... So it depends on the person and the cop as how far to push it. A situation happened to a Tgirl in our community who is transitioning and has the legal name changes and all. She was at a large hotel using the womens washroom and some redneck lady confronted her and said you're a man. After some explaining which wasn't good enough the lady demanded to see some ID and then our friend said no I don't have to. They both went to the front desk and they told this ignorant lady that she is making a scene. So this thing does happen.
There is a bill that is in the middle of our federal gov't for approval regarding this issue, I haven't seen anything on it for a while though. It has passed the house of commons but it has to be passed by the senate where there will be a lot more opposition before it becomes law. Experts say that its often hard to make these private bills become laws....In our province there was a lot of opposition to this bill. Here is what it looks like:
Launa
Bathroom Bill - Gender identity laws
C-279 transgender 'bathroom bill' passed by House.
Battle now moves to the Senate.
Published: March 21, 2013
On March 20th, a majority vote in the House of Commons on Bill C-279 brought Canada one step closer to the brave new world of a gender-fluid society where male and female are no longer biological realities, but mere social constructs. Under the proposed legislation, male and female is no longer defined by physical anatomy, but rather, is determined subjectively by an individual’s “inner feelings” and “experiences”. The bill also seeks to change the Criminal Code so that speech critical of the transgender lifestyle/ideology could potentially be classified as “hate speech”.
Bill C-279 passed third reading by a vote of 149 to 137, with NDP, Liberals and the Bloc voting unanimously in support. Although most Conservatives voted against the radical proposed legislation, 17 Conservative MPs including 4 Cabinet Ministers supported it.
Bill C-279 now moves to three readings in the Senate and if passed there, will enshrine in Canada’s laws a radical redefinition of gender, as expressed in the Bill’s definition of “Gender Identity”:
"Gender Identity means, in respect of an individual, the individual’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth." (emphasis added)
Please note that the above definition is not restricted to those who’ve had sex-change surgery. The definition is broad enough to apply to cross-dressing men, thus granting them all the special “rights” claimed under the this bill.
Campaign Life Coalition and other pro-family organizations have been lobbying to defeat C-279 for months. We worked to expose the societal harms of this bill which was dubbed ‘the Bathroom Bill’ by critics who understand that it would grant biological males the legal “right” to enter female washrooms and change rooms.
Breaking down the final vote
Compared with the 2nd reading vote of 150 to 132, our lobbying and public education did have a positive effect, moving 8 votes to the NO camp. Some notable, positive changes in the vote included:
MP Michelle Rempel (Calgary Centre-North): Voted NO (had voted YES at 2nd reading). She cited her defection over concerns that the subjective definition of Gender Identity could cause problems in other areas of law, such as exactly who would be “protected” under the hate crimes provision, and how to determine what type of speech can be considered ‘hate speech’.
MP Bernard Valcourt (Madawaska-Restigouche): abstained or was absent; voted YES at 2nd reading
MP Kerry-Lynne Findlay (Delta-Richmond): abstained or was absent; voted YES at 2nd reading
Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted NO. He did not vote at 2nd reading and normally abstains from voting on private members bills.
We thank you, our faithful supporters, for phoning, writing and visiting your MPs over the past several months. Unfortunately, political correctness, emotionally-charged propaganda and a profound lack of vision amongst members of parliament prevailed.
The 17 Conservatives whose vote put this bill over the top were:
Chris Alexander (Ajax-Pickering)
John Baird (Ottawa West–Nepean)
Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)
John Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Laurie Hawn ( Edmonton Centre)
Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa)
Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface)
Gerald Keddy (South Shore-St Margaret)
Kelly Leitch (Simcoe-Grey)
Cathy McLeod (Kamloops- Thompson-Cariboo)
James Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam)
Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East)
Erin O’Toole (Durham)
Lisa Raitt (Halton)
Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
David Wilks (Kootenay-Columbia)
Terence Young (Oakville)
This vote was also our first opportunity to see how the 2 Conservatives who recently won by-elections would vote on life and family issues. MP Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre) voted NO. Unfortunately, MP Erin O’Toole (Durham), who describes himself as a “practicing Catholic”, voted YES.
It is also notable that 21 MPs were absent or abstained from the vote, and while we do not know if it would have made a difference had they participated, it is sad that MPs would miss a vote on proposed legislation that would so profoundly alter societal understanding of human anthropology.
To see a complete listing of how MPs voted, click here.
Lobbying efforts move to the Senate
Now that Bill C-279 has passed in the House of Commons, it will have 3 readings in the Senate, and if passed there, will become law.
CLC believes that the Senate is more hostile to pro-life, pro-family views as compared with the lower House. Admittedly therefore, convincing Canada’s Senators to vote against the proposed legislation will require greater effort. However, citizens must follow the democratic process through its conclusion and try to stop the bill. Each province has a number of Senators who represent the people of the province. Please contact the Senators for your province.
Here's a listing of all Senators by province:
Alberta Northwest Territories Prince Edward Island
British Columbia Nova Scotia Quebec
Manitoba Nunavut Saskatchewan
New Brunswick Ontario Yukon
Newfoundland & Labrador
A diversity of talking points
Thus far, most of the arguments against Bill C-279 have quite reasonably focused on the privacy and security rights of women in public washrooms, and the expectation of higher rates of bathroom attacks by sexual predators who may pose as cross-dressers. These are legitimate concerns and should continue to be mentioned. However, now that the bathroom/privacy argument has received fairly broad media coverage and has possibly been heard by many senators, perhaps it is necessary to start educating about the many other adverse effects of passing Bill C-279. Some of these include:
1. The law is a teacher. As such, the definition of gender identity being enshrined in law will send the message to all society that being male or female depends on how you feel at any particular moment, and can change if your “feelings” change.
2. The moral authority granted to Gender Identity theory by the force of law, will mean that schools across Canada will be compelled to teach kids that their gender is not necessarily connected to their physical anatomy.
3. Militant transgender-activists will use the amended Human Rights Act and Criminal Code provisions against “hate speech” as a sword to attack Christian businesses, charities and churches. The latter will come under pressure to violate their religious convictions or else face ruinous legal fees.
4. Will cause undue economic hardships for business and government
5. Cooperates with mental illness, thus harming people with Gender Identity Disorder
6. Taxpayers will eventually be forced to pay for sex-change surgeries
To study these negative societal effects in further detail, visit our analysis page.
Let’s keep fighting to win!
Please do not give up this battle. The stakes are too high. Please start to respectfully lobby and educate the Senators. Remember – being rude will have the opposite effect than what we desire. A measured moderate tone is necessary to be effective.
Please also ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper to apply whatever influence he can on Conservative Senators, who are the majority, to vote against C-279. CLC’s National Organizer, Mary Ellen Douglas, has noted that the Prime Minister publicly urged his caucus to vote against Stephen Woodworth’s common sense Motion M-312 , and yet, has remained silent on the controversial Bathroom Bill. That said, we are thankful he at least voted against it.
Related 'Gender Identity laws' Pages
I am showing my geographical bias/prejudice, but I'm guessing that Alberta Province is not exactly full of blase' New York City types? In Manhattan, you can be a green Martian wearing a mini-skirt cocktails dress, use the urinal in the men's lavatory, and pee neon purple urine and nobody blinks. They've seen it all before.
Yes, a lot of folks, NOT ALL can be ultra conservative in the province of Alberta.
I guess I picked the wrong place to live!LOL
I too am one who uses the women's washroom exclusively when dressed. Launa, thanks for your detailed synopsis of the "bathroom bill". So far, I have never had a problem. I do find however, that older ladies mostly are the ones that get a stick in their butts for whatever reasons. Such as the case with a member here some time ago for just using a women's dressing room! Well, keep fighting the good fight and good luck.