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 :)
Printable View
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 :)
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
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by heatherdress
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.
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 [insert name of pretty much any group here] 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 - - -
(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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
(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)
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...
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
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
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
The concerns I was talking about are not safety concerns. I know the statistics, and I'm not arguing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
H_H:
The quotes that I included have come from some who have transitioned.
DeeAnn
Did it? The surface changed but little else. If it had changed, this undercurrent now would not be an issueQuote:
Originally Posted by Helen_Highwater
Chicago City Council passes an ordinance to allow for those using the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
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.
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.
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.wordpr...ntersexuality/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/...rt-sex-binary/
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.
Attachment 263192
And if that's demonstrably true physiologically, why can't it be true psychologically as well?
/rhetorical question
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, 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.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have to worry about being assaulted or raped. Sorry, me and my penis belong where I want to feel safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbs
And you will prove that exactly how? You can't really enforce it, neither can you say that safety would not be a problem for anyone who would enter the Men's Room dressed in traditionally female clothing. It just won't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbs
DeeAnn
Today the Secretary Of Defense has come out to allow TG's to openly serve in the military.
Another step forward.
Babbs,Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Technically I still have vestiges of both and my birth cert says ...boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbs
Now, who is going to check?
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?
Lambda Legal, 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...r/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.
Have a look at this interactive map by state: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-your-stateQuote:
Originally Posted by julia marie
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.
People of Color refers to anyone who is not white. That probably wasn't your intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
DeeAnn
That’s not going to happen. Even if the GOP tries to pass such measures, they will be struck down in Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
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.
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. :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander_48
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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-....0-legislation
https://www.facebook.com/TransEquali...90?pnref=story
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.
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
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.
Like 35 years legally. Loving v VA 1967...Alabama legalizing it 2000...:thinking: and yet the Feds didn't press very hard)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
with still a wage gapQuote:
Women entering the workplace didn't get widespread acceptance.
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.Quote:
This has been true for those who are gay and lesbian (bi is way behind and roughly as stigmatized as transgender individuals).
you haven't met the people in my hometownQuote:
Finally, it is about getting to actually know someone as once you know someone, it is harder to hate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineD
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.
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?Quote:
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.
To quote the Dixie ChicksQuote:
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.
"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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander_48
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgette_USA
DeeAnn
+? 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
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, or this, or this? (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/...70#post3964570
EDIT
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your...x-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.