when i was in high school the girls locker room was worst than the boys
Printable View
when i was in high school the girls locker room was worst than the boys
I hear about the supposed danger we pose to GGs in the bathroom. What about the dangers posed to us while passing if we use the men's bathroom? I would rather face a questioning look for another woman, than thedirty looks or sexual harassment from a man. Especially if they actually think I am a real woman.
Huff Post has a good sense of humor.
Here's another humorous one, and this one has pictures! :)
http://towndock.net/newsextra/bathro...liance-officer
And here is the best quote: "A majority of North Carolinians say the law has hurt the state’s economy."Quote:
Originally Posted by JayeLefaye
Goodbye nonsense laws.
I've come to see the light on that, in my own odd way...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
One time a group of friends (GG's & gay males) & I were at a hetero bar. And I gotta admit that I was looking pretty "legit" that night.
But being a CD'er, I personally had no issue with using the men's room.
Well, apparently some male stranger did -- as he politely told me as I exited that this was the men's room, and that the women's was around the corner. Um, what?? LOL
One in my group saw what happened, and afterwards told me that I really should be using the women's room for the rest of the night. I thought they were kidding around, but three others who were part of the conversation genuinely agreed.
I honestly didn't want to, out of respect for the GG's. But looking back, I suppose there was no way in heck I was going to be able to pass as a *guy* whatsoever that night, ha!
And so, I used the women's room the rest of our time there. It was just a "single," so there was no issue with that. But one time as I exited, there was a GG outside the door, waiting her turn. We exchanged the "polite smile" thing -- I have no idea if I was read or not on that one. But nothing out of the ordinary that I felt, anyway.
So, 5 to 6 people (call it 5 & a half, to be safe?) "polled" -- basically everyone -- saw no issue with me using the women's room. Even though I didn't want to, I kind of had no choice, since that microcosm of society expected it in order to keep things running smoothly for everyone there.
Obviously I was going to defer to that -- and not some law that I may have apparently been breaking. I suppose it's all about using good judgement in these situations. And trying to legislate that as a "one-size-fits-all" just doesn't work!
What I don't understand is why the media is targeting transwomen? I heard nothing about CD men, I honestly haven't stayed on top of the topic either . I have not personally had to face this decision yet. But I agree that if in a vanilla bar, restaurant Etc. If you look like a female go to the women's room, this would make you less of a target than obviously going to the men's. But the problem is not us it is "Them". The general public doesn't and in my opinion do not want to under stand CD and TG people. That is my 2cents
Have not read the thread in depth, but know that NC's HB2 is not only about the bathroom. It was designed to stop any recourse against the state for firing anyone! That is right if you were female they could fire you for that and you would not have a leg to stand on in a court case. Yes it was mostly directed at the LGBTQ+ community but also all state employees. They are using Charlotte's nondiscrimination law as an excuse. THe state says that Charlotte has overstepped because they have a stronger nondiscrimination law than the state. BUT,using their logic they overstepped because of federal laws that they are ignoring. If this bill(HB2) did not become an issue nobody would have thought twice about a transwoman using the ladies room-how many had used it before the bill even existed. This is just a bunch of political manuevering. IMHO Hugs Lana Mae
Question--are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for cross-dressing men to use women's restrooms?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyNell
Also, out of curiosity--if a man is a transvestite and/or a cross-dresser, how likely is he to eventually get beaten up if he uses the men's restrooms on a regular basis?
Any thoughts on this?
Was reading today that the Texas legislature is planning on doing a similar bill in Texas in the 2017 session. Small business
groups have come out against any such bill saying it will hurt business. This being such a conservative state I fear they may
pass this discrimatory bill.
I hope that others will recognize the damage this has done in NC and keep this from happening here
Leigh
Before any of this, I just used it before, I left. Really, I had to because of the maximum tuck, I do, But never the less. I am a man, I belong in the mensroom,
I agree with what your saying and I too try to avoid needed to go when I'm out but if nature calls when I'm dressed I just don't feel comfortable in a men's room
I wonder what male legislators imagine goes on in a ladies restroom - specifically what a man in a ladies restroom might see that he's not meant to!Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist
If I'm dressed as a woman then I use the 'ladies'. I go into a stall like everyone else, do what needs doing, wash up, possibly tidy hair / makeup and exit (stage left?, never with pursuing bear). The one and only time on which I attempted to use the 'gents' while wearing a dress, the 6' 4" linebacker attendant redirected me to the 'ladies'!
Interesting anecdote - make of it what you will... A couple of weeks ago I was driving up to Milton Keynes and needed to 'go'. So i pulled in at the Motorway services and headed for the 'ladies'. As I walked into the 'ladies' a youngish woman (30s?) was coming out. We were close enough that she must have known that I was a cross dresser, she couldn't possibly have been fooled. She met my glance and smiled, broadly. And went on her way. No drama.
"The one and only time on which I attempted to use the 'gents' while wearing a dress, the 6' 4" linebacker attendant redirected me to the 'ladies'!"
This is why I had started to use the women's after my 1st experience, as noted above. I really didn't want any trouble from anyone -- including those who could potentially & erroneously think I might be using the men's room to do certain, um, things with guys. Even if by some chance the guys in there at the time didn't have any issue with me going into the men's, I still wouldn't have wanted someone who saw that to go complaining to an establishment's management that there was "some chick who keeps using the men's room" and turning it into this big embarrassingly awkward scene.
For the times I looked pretty legit (which was fairly often :battingeyelashes: ) when all dolled-up, I just used the women's. Get in, get out, don't be a weirdo creep. Maybe I was just lucky, or maybe they thought I looked "convincing enough" and/or thought I was transitioning or something, and there were never any obvious outward issues from others with me doing so. And that doesn't mean I particularly cared to use the women's, but it was pretty much the lesser of two evils for me.
I will say it again for anyone reading: There will always be pros & cons to whatever you decide, so take it on a case-by-case basis, and use your good judgement. And if you're out with friends or whatever, ask their honest & genuine opinions first.
Only when I am non binary would I ever consider using the men's room. I have had a few stares when I do. But as a fem guy one can get away with it. But if I have makeup on, a skirt heels, boots,bra and ladies top I use the ladies room and go and do my brininess and get out. Never got called for it anytime.
I don't really care what male legislators think, but have you considered that the issue may not always be what the man in the ladies room is going to see, but rather what their presence means to the women inside? I have personally observed CDs (and various other types of self-identified "transfeminine" people) in women's restrooms behaving inappropriately, and frankly, in pretty discomforting ways typical of men. I was uncomfortable, and so were the other women in there. if a man was behaving that way on the street, I'd walk away as quickly as possible, and it doesn't get more comfortable when that's in my bathroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Judith96a
Editing to add/clarify... I know not all CDs/etc. would behave that way. I'm just pointing out that ENOUGH do such that the concern is not completely unfounded, and it's worth discussion.
I'm 110% for trans men and women who have legally/medically transitioned using the appropriate facilities for their gender, and having their legal gender marker respected. When it comes to situations where men can self-identify as a woman any time it's convenient for them... Not so much.
Non-binary typically refers to an identity, not a mode of dress. Which are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana44
the supreme court has decided too go forward with a case from Virginia, its such a shame this youth has to go through all this at all, personally i feel we just have to forgo the whole mens and ladies designation and just have bathrooms, first come first served, will solve a whole bunch of silliness.....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...rimm/92267210/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
Understood, Zooey. :)
I've read about stories, usually more often with dressing rooms, with that kind of stuff going on. And believe me, it pisses me off.
It can make things that much more difficult, adding fuel to the fire, and help push those who are on the fence, over to the wrong side. Because oftentimes, it's the negative stuff that usually makes the news -- not all the non-incidents. And this is just when it's regarding trans-people, who absolutely have every right to be there... But never mind someone like me who *isn't* transitioning, which I also try to keep in mind when doing this.
Prior to my incident of a guy with a surprised look on his face & telling me the women's room was around the corner, I honestly had no qualms with using the men's room when I would go out & present as female -- but others could & even sort of did once have an issue.
Personally, I'd rather make the guys uncomfortable than the women, ha! At other times I've used the men's room like that, but it was Halloween at a hetero club, for example, and there were a couple guys in there (I used a stall), as the women's room had a line. Nobody said or did anything. Again: In, out & not be a weirdo creep, even in there. And I think maybe it was in that particular scenario where it was like, "Eh, whatever, I guess maybe that *wasn't* a chick? :strugglin ," to them.
But when all your friends (GG's & males), even the level-headed ones, tell you that you *need* to be using the women's room the rest of the night, yeah, you might want to take that into consideration. :o
Has anyone else read this?
Why You Shouldn’t Use Transgender Pronouns
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/18/...ender-pronouns
I think everyone has the right to identify as they choose, partly because the mind is the realm of identity; the body isn't. I also think as the author emphasizes that everyone has the right to use whatever pronoun they choose for others, although it's dangerous to intentionally insult anyone. We have free speech, so we have the right to insult others, as long as it's not slander etc.
The author thinks TG pronouns threaten to disconnect language from reality, which I think is absurd. He also apparently finds it important to identify people by the sex of their physical bodies, but I fail to see any importance in that.
To me it looks like making mountains out of molehills (which I think means imagining molehills to be mountains).
After reading this, I do not care what the law says. As long as I look legit I'm going into the ladies restroom. I will do my business and get out, but I won't be beaten up because it having to use the restroom.
You all know how cruel people can be especially men au is rather just go into the ladies when I look like a lady
Define "legit".
Here in Australia it seems to be a non-issue. people here simply use the bathrooms of their choice and no one seems to be troubled by this. i think that because it has become a political issue in the USA that it now is on lots of people's agenda (no pun intended) its really DADT here and seems to be fine.
I have used the ladies when dressed in Australia as well as in San Fran numerous times and never had the slightest issue.
DODT not familar with this term ...is it an AUSSIE acronym?
Hi Zooey,Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
In my mind legit would be defined as someone who is in true transition or a c/d that has gone the distance to present as female ,the non legit would be the obvious guys with the beard , and no effort what so ever of presenting as female which has all the fear mongers up in arms, there have been some alledged incidents reported but given when they occured ,as in during the early part of the lawmaking these were people most likely put up to it by the opposing party besides it takes a hell of a lot more than a cheap wig hasty makeup and a dress to impress me I am diagnosed as non binary and when i dress as a girl then it is a boots and jeans type of girl rather tomboyish if you will,now if I was to put the true effort in that many here do as to make up ,hair and clothing presentation I might come real close to passing as an older lady so I go the tomboy route to blend and still fee girly and as there is still a bit of a mustache I use the boys room , when trying on some clothes at our local targer recently the s/a said to go ahead and use the girls fitting room ,but I declined ,wehen she asked why I told her I was aware of the new laws here in wa,st but as I still had facial hair like a guy that I would use the mens fitting room so as to not cause an uneeded incident
No Sorry it was a Typo meant to say DADTQuote:
Originally Posted by Tammie.J.Swenson
With all the REAL problems facing us these days, politicians who focus on bathroom bills instead of the REAL problems should be thrown out of office.
I honestly think there are two main issues involved here:Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyNell
1) an aversion to nuance - many people (conservatives in particular) find it easier to view the world as black and white. Thinking about things that fall in between is a lot of effort and, in some cases, may threaten their world-view,
2) an element of homophobia that stems from a very narrow definition of masculinity and what it means to be male (see #1 above) - men fear being 'tricked' by a 'guy in a dress', which would make them 'gay'.
Yep. See #1 above.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyNell
If you can gain the vote of an entire constituency by taking a stand on one issue, it may be worth it. Politicians are, after all, opportunists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilly44B
At a public rest stop, I recently saw an interesting sign posted. It announced that an attendant of the opposite gender may enter the restroom to help the elderly or disabled.
It has been argued that transgender bathroom access creates a loophole that would allow men to enter a woman's restroom. One could make the same argument that elderly and disabled bathroom access creates the same loop hole.
This, I think, is indicative of an even larger perception that our society has about gay, transwomen, and gender non-conforming men: that such men are predatory and perverts. I know I don't have to tell anyone here that the majority of CD men are heterosexual, but a lot of the general public doesn't know that. Therefore, CD men and transwomen are also burdened with gay male stereotypes, like being overtly sexually promiscuous and unable to control their "perverted sexual urges."Quote:
Originally Posted by PeggyNell
CD, transmen, and gender non-conforming women do, of course, face hate and prejudices of their own, but I think the average uninformed/bigoted person doesn't associate them with acts of perversion.
Except trans women are not men. That's unlike CDs, who by definition are. CDs need the men's room to be safe for them, not to use the women's room. We need to start differentiating between the two groups loudly so that we can actually say that we are not talking about men in women's spaces.
Back to the initial problem then Zooey. How DO you KNOW a person is CD or TS? and where does one draw a line? Who is going to police that and what about people who are dysphoric but not ready to commit? Your idea of keeping CDs out of women's rooms has far too many holes to be enforceable (unless of course we should wear name tags or patches? yOu wanna go first?)
Our puritanical culture here has created the problem and not tran people (umbrella definition). In Europe many times both sexes used the same facilities, though today they have drifted away from that concept. What Lori says is correct, there is no practical way to make it happen, and the actual problem women have with us invading their space, and they may consider you as part of the "us", is unfounded on the safety side. Now a women's locker room where partial or complete nudity comes into play is a different and more difficult issue compared to the non-issue, in my opinion, of a TG person presenting as female in the restroom.
No disagreement there at all, Zooey. I wasn't trying to imply that I think that. Many others in our society, however, DO think that, and it's a serious problem. Many uninformed people still think that a transwoman is just a man in disguise and thus associate them closer to gay men, which I believe is why the stereotype of the predatory gay male is also often applied to the transwoman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
I don't need to know whether somebody is CD or TS until it becomes an issue, and - again - I don't think anybody should be checking anybody's undercarriage at the bathroom door, nor do I think they should wear a name tag or a patch. I think they should carry a driver's license or state ID with their legal name and gender on it, just like everybody else does, and whatever it says defines what side of the law you're on if it becomes an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorileah
Legal identity is legal identity, and it's the only standard that is necessary/should matter when it comes to issues of legality.
Sorry Zooey, I've been using the ladies room for years and it hasn't bothered the right-wing-nothing-better-to-do-than-write-public-restroom-law-writers. As such, it shouldn't bother you either.
I'm not going to fish out a driver license to use the restroom no matter what gender marker is on it.
I think one of the problems is sex and gender are used loosely as the same thing.
I look at my Broward Co FL birth certificate, my NC issued DL, and my Federally issued passport and all say sex not gender.
All say male, which I'm.
Maybe some States say Gender.
Andrea, my California drivers license use "Sex". I never paid attention to the difference between the two words until I found this site in 2007. As they sometimes differentiate here, sex is between your legs and what you may physically enjoy and gender is between your ears! LOL
Was I not clear? I don't want anybody to have to swipe/show a license to open the door. Cars don't make you swipe a license before turning them on, but I bet you fish out that license when you get pulled over while driving. That's exactly what I'm suggesting here. When and if there's an issue, your legal identity is what determines your legal rights. That is all I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara Jessica
If your legal sex/gender marker is F, you are correct to use e.g. the women's restroom regardless of whether somebody complains. If you have an M then you were getting away with it. That's all there is to it. Right now, people in the trans community are pushing for legal sex/gender markers to not matter, which literally says that men are allowed to use the women's room, and I don't think that's an appropriate or defensible position. Trans women, by and large, pay the price for that position. I would love nothing more than to be able to honestly say "We are not lobbying for men in women's restrooms", but something's gotta give in order for that to be true.
Why do we need rules for this? We MtF's have been using women's restrooms for years and never had any epidemic of issues. If someone causes a disturbance in a restroom, they only need an ID for identification and not the gender/sex one. If they are guilty of that disturbance they should be charged for that and not for using that restroom as a MtF whatever. We need inclusionary regulations and not exclusionary. If they write and pass a regulation, what happens if they say anyone with a penis uses a male room and with a vagina uses a female one? That is, they may pass a rule where one has to be post op to get in, or prove that they are post op if they cause a disturbance. So, a broader more inclusive regulation/law makes is more workable. "Presenting as female" should be good enough, because it has been working just fine until recently, and will work just fine from now on. Everybody compromises a little.
As a cis female, from the perspective of being in a public restroom, I don't see the difference between a TG who is post-op and one who is not. If someone is presenting as female, and they're using the restroom for its intended purpose, it makes sense for them to be in the women's room.
I'm more likely to be made uncomfortable by a FtM in the women's room, which is what NC's HB2 requires. I'm not expecting to see a male in the women's room. So someone presenting as a male, in my opinion, should be in the men's room, regardless of where in their transition they may be.
That said, ultimately which room anyone uses should come down to which they will feel safest using. HB2 prioritizes the perception of safety for cisgender citizens over the actual safety of transgender citizens (but, of course, had much deeper intent).
To say we're lobbying for men to be able to use the women's room is an oversimplification that does a disservice to those fighting this and similar laws. We're lobbying for citizens to be able to use the restroom that corresponds to the gender for which they are presenting. It's an important clarification.
Just my two cents.
Emphasis added... Is that actually what we're lobbying for? Because I don't think that's what we're saying. That's certainly the wording of the laws that we keep demanding (which is the problem IMO), but every time we talk about it in public we talk about gender IDENTITY, because that's what ultimately defines actual transgender people. Gender PRESENTATION/EXPRESSION means next to nothing, and insisting upon that definition absolutely means that we are lobbying for laws that permit men to be in women's restrooms so long as they make even the most indefensible statement or effort towards declaring themselves conventionally feminine in some way. We say, "we're not talking about men in women's restrooms", but we propose legal language that seems to go out of its way to permit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriella111
Often, you will see language such as "sincerely held gender identity" pop up in these discussions, yet nobody is willing to define what it means. I'm of the opinion that we have to define it, because otherwise, we're getting nowhere. Every actual transgender person in need of legal recognition that I know has sought legal sex/gender changes. We need to make that the standard and move forward, because there is lots of actual work to be done in removing the class and location-based impediments to obtaining those changes when appropriate.
When it comes to fighting the heinous laws people are trying to pass now, neither side is making a terribly defensible argument at this point. If we could actually propose something reasonable and legally/medically defensible, which I believe standardizing on legally recognized sex/gender marker changes is, then I personally think we could be making a lot more progress for those who actually need it.
so you need an ID to use a restroom. Or just IF you are challenged? What happens if the person is undergoing therapy and hasn't had the time, money or ability to get the marker changed? Some states require a lot more work or documentation than others. You are basically drawing a line without drawing a line. What is the limit? You are TS, how did you know and when did you know and how long BEFORe you got your documentation? You are setting perimeters that are discriminatory. OK so exactly WHEN is a person TS and what should be required for them to use the women's restroom? Do we go on what they say? You say you need a document..so now that person leaves their purse at the table and while in the restroom they get called out. You would say they should get the documentation and all will be OK...except in the meantime they are being held or they are being subjected to embarrassment in front of the patrons. You aren't making any sense. You want a hard line but you can't defend that line. You went through this yourself. Did you use the men's room right up until you got the letter from your therapist? Or did you wait until you got your driver's license. At this moment I have three friends, all TS who have started their journey, RLE as we used to call it. They have just started hormones, they haven't done legal name changes, they haven't been approved for surgery (one may never have surgery due to health issues). So where do they go? The men's room? They aren't men by your own definition. BUT they don't have documents. You don't get a learner's permit to be trans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
Thus I call BS on your stance. And I have to agree that you are a TS who sets the "you're not trans enough." bar that some here say the TSs play.
No, I used the women's restroom when presenting female once I started HRT. I changed my legal sex/gender markers 7.5 months later, when I went full time. Past that point, I believe that I should have a legal right to use the women's facilities. Prior to that, IMO, I was getting away with using them. "Getting away with it" is what "trans" (in the umbrella sense) people have been doing forever, and I'm not suggesting they stop.
I'm saying that when there's conflict over a sex/gender segregated space, your legal sex/gender marker is what should determine your legal sex/gender. I'm saying that crossdressing men can probably continue to get away with using the women's restroom, but unlike trans women, they do not have a need to have the right to access those spaces. If we focused on ensuring/clarifying that legal sex/gender marker changes are recognized by treating them as the standard, THEN we can start to make meaningful legal progress on standardizing the requirements and process for obtaining them.
I'll also point out that at no point did I mentioned surgery, although I do personally think HRT (or at least the elimination of testosterone) should be part of it. I think the Obama-era passport requirements for sex/gender-marker changes are wholly reasonable.
This sounds good but as it would give those who have the gender marker changed but you are still leaving behind those who are still at the start of transition. However forcing pre gender marker change individulals & crossdressers to use the male bathroom only achieves two things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
1. It screams to anyone noticing There is a Crossdresser as they wont care about the difference between CD & TS.
2. It puts them at risk as they are more likely to be attacked.
Zooey, I have to strongly disagree with this point. Not everyone can take HRT and this is not a barrier to Transition.Quote:
I'll also point out that at no point did I mentioned surgery, although I do personally think HRT (or at least the elimination of testosterone) should be part of it. I think the Obama-era passport requirements for sex/gender-marker changes are wholly reasonable.
I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions there, but regardless...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelly Preston
For crossdressers and early transitioners, I am arguing for precisely the status quo. Unless somebody in that position is asked to leave and/or authorities get involved, none of what I've said matters. If we want to make all bathrooms sex/gender-less, then great. But we should not allow men to be treated as women legally with no basis, part of the time, whenever it's convenient to them. That is exactly what the legal language that the community is pushing for does. I'm not in favor of these things being convictable offenses, but if they want to use the ladies room while "dressed" then so be it, so long as if/when it becomes an issue then (legally) they need to leave.
As I said, that's my personal opinion on what the standards should be. There are legitimate medical restrictions that would prevent somebody from taking HRT with doctor's documentation, but sufficed to say there are a variety of ways for eliminating male levels of testosterone. Testosterone is at the root of many of the worst problems with men in women's spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelly Preston
Oh really? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a remarkably narrow-minded view. It may be true for you, and that's fine, but to suggest that only someone who has walked the same path as you, as far as you have, could possibly have valid feelings and needs borders on the absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
That said, I do agree with you in that there is a need for medically and/or legally defensible standard. I just believe that drawing the line where you've chosen to draw it is too extreme and would exclude to many who need the protection of a well thought out law.
Actually, the law in Massachusetts, which I think should be a model for other states, Does this: first, it leaves the selection of rest room / locker room to the individual as it has been up until this fight started. If there is a challenge, then the individual can cite their history with gender identity as justification. The law required the Mass Commission Against Discrimination to write guidelines that can be used in these cases (again, very smart in my opinion.) They say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
That last part is very important -- it provides that gender identity cannot be falsely asserted (like Mike Huckabee's famous assertion that he'd claim to be transgender so he could shower in the girl's locker room,) nor, even if the claim to gender identity is true, can it be used to do something otherwise improper (voyerism, public exposure, etc. -- the things that get the anti-TG people worked up.) This arguably doesn't help the deeply-closeted folks, but it's hard to imagine scenarios where a deeply-closeted person is going into public restrooms.Quote:
In most situations arising in employment, housing, mortgage services and places of public accommodation,
it will not be appropriate to request documentation of an individual’s gender identity. In the limited
circumstances where it is necessary, an individual’s gender identity may be demonstrated by any evidence that
the gender identity is sincerely held as a part of the person’s core identity. The evidence that the Commission
will review in cases alleging gender identity discrimination includes, but is not limited to, medical history,
medical/psychiatric care or treatment of the gender-related identity; consistent and uniform assertion of the
gender-related identity or any other evidence that one’s gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of one’s
core identity; provided, however, that gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.
There's quite a bit more to it and I encourage people who are interested to have a look at MCAD's guidelines (http://www.mass.gov/mcad/docs/gender...e-12-05-16.pdf) if they're interested. There's also a guidance document from the AG's office that's pretty good reading: http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/policy/...ons-9-1-16.pdf
What are the options?
1) Gender-neutral facilities: this means that North Americans need to be more like Europeans and get over their Victorian-era inhibitions (only slightly more likely than Americans giving up their guns, at least without significant 'social engineering', but which I still see as a desirable end goal).
2) Use gender presentation and/or gender identity as a basis for who can use which washroom. This means that someone who seems to be of the 'wrong' gender will occasionally pass through those doors, and requires that we trust people to not engage in untoward conduct (which currently governs our bathroom behaviour, by the way).
3) Status quo. Does not eliminate ambiguity, as we have seen in the cases of people with non-stereoypical presentation, e.g. butch women.
4) Require ID and 'potty police'. Same problems as #2, depending on (inconsistent) state rules for changing gender markers. Even federal standards on who can claim which gender (which states may not accept) still fail at least some of the time because not everybody fits gender stereotypes (see #3).
The issue is a balance between current (North American) social mores and perceptions of harm vs tolerance of non-stereotypical expression/breaking down gender stereotypes. For this to advance at all, we need to 1) change the current social mores as they are embodied in an understanding of gender, 2) educate people on altering risk perceptions to match fact, and 3) work on reducing sexual violence of all types. It may take a generation or two.
I read through this, and I think it's a step in the right direction for sure. There are a few areas where I think the language is inappropriately "soft" from a legal standpoint - there is still too much up to interpretation, particularly in regards to the "initial test" of whether or not a situation allows for requesting documentation. That said, I do think that this law and these guidelines are effectively trying to codify the "getting away with it" situation that I've been describing, in a way that will be interesting to observe when/if it's tested, but which I think is potentially a good model. Thanks for sharing that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat (aka Jennie)
I'm confused... What part of what you quoted are you objecting to? The fact that I've said presentation/expression doesn't matter? They don't. Good laws and logic discuss gender identity and gender expression inversely. For example, in the Massachusetts law that Pat posted about, once past the vague first step in the process...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Marie
- A woman cannot be discriminated against with respect to using women's facilities for presenting/expressing masculine
- A feminine-expressing person cannot be barred from e.g. using the men's room if "man" is their sincere gender identity
Beyond the initial barrier to requesting documentation (which is significant in this law), there is (as far as I can tell) no specific protection for people who have a sincere gender identity of "man" but choose to use the women's facilities while "dressed".
Now I am confused. Surely you aren't suggesting that presentation does not matter. If you are, I don't know how to reason with such an unrealistic approach to this very real problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zooey
Pat/Jennie and Mayo present different but more more realistic approaches to solving this problem.
No, it doesn't matter, at least not in the end.
Appearance, whether it's under your control or not, is what gets you questioned. That is as true for trans people as it is for e.g. masculine-presenting cis women.
Identity is the basis on which legality is ultimately determined, or at least should be.
The section of my post that you quoted is literally the net effect of what is described in the Massachusetts law that Pat posted about, so I'm not sure how you're drawing that comparison and coming to that conclusion.