Bathroom bills and other laws , discussion thread

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

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

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.

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/...es#faq_content

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helen_Highwater

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice Torn

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisa_vin

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhonda Darling

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

There is no more serious issue. Period.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillieAnneJean

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/c...-walmar/nQddG/
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/cr...-college-dorm/
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...351232041.html
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/02/m...n-in-bathroom/
http://www.snopes.com/transgender-fi...omen-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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heatherdress

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.

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

DeeAnn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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]

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisa_vin

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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

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...sgender-fight/

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)

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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.

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 😐

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saikotsu

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisa_vin

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

---

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

DeeAnn

"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-o...t-pee/06/2016/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flatlander_48

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

DeeAnn

---

Great song DeeAnn! :dance:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisa_vin

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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.

[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heatherdress

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.