Bathroom bills and other laws , discussion thread

[Martha G]

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

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

I have never had any trouble.

[Lorileah]

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

[flatlander_48]

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

DeeAnn

[JayeLefaye]

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

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

Shame on them...

Don't let them win.

Be kind. Be true....

Jaye

[flatlander_48]

JL:

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

DeeAnn

[Mayo]

Sorry - If a man wears a dress and presents as a woman, he is crossdressing and is called a crossdresser. Crossdressers are part of the transgender community, as you always remind us. You cannot eliminate crossdressers from the transgender umbrella who are voyeurs, or drug dealers, or prostitutes or even bank robbers.

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

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

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

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

[Mayo]

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.

[Zooey]

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

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

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

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

[Mayo]

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

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

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

[Lorileah]

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

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

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

[Katey888]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katey x

[flatlander_48]

K:

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

DeeAnn

[Zooey]

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen_Highwater]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mayo]

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

There is some truth in this. All sorts of things go on in men's washrooms that are unrelated to the primary reason such facilities exist, and sometimes those things are sexual in nature. I'm sure women do kinky things in public toilets too, sometimes, but honestly, the problem is men in general, not just CDers. And mixing genders in washrooms will inevitably cause some problems.

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

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

[Lorileah]

] mixing genders in washrooms will inevitably cause some problems.

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

Ultimately, then, I see the 'bathroom wars' and the current battles against LGBTQ (and particularly trans) people as opportunities to change our entire culture, to get rid of old ideas and to encourage respect, tolerance and acceptance where gender and sexuality are concerned.

and that will take at least one and probably at least two generations IF people try and change. The Civil Rights Act in 1964 wanted the same thing, and yet we still have discrimination based on color and gender. Away from large cities, the mindset isn't much different and in some cases worse.

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

[Mayo]

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

[Helen_Highwater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flatlander_48]

H_H:

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

DeeAnn

[Mayo]

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

[Helen_Highwater]

DeeAnn,

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

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

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

[flatlander_48]

H_H:

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

DeeAnn

[Lorileah]

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

)

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

[MissDanielle]

Chicago City Council passes an ordinance to allow for those using the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

[bettyloop]

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.