Bathroom bills and other laws , discussion thread

[Dana44]

Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Maine, Louisiana, Utah, Georgia, Mississippi and Kentucky.

They have have all asked a Federal judge to block the Obama administrations directive on transgender students before the school year begins in August.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/t...e-schoo/nrssk/

[Jazzy Jaz]

Reine, I can't comprehend how you got the impression that I believe that non binary = exclusively female as my main point has clearly been that non binary is not exclusively M or F but rather a combination of both (if individuals feel that they are niether I respect that). If someone is half ethnic African and half ethnic European they don't cease to be either of those ethnicities, to the contrary they are a mix of both of those ethnicities. Would that person differ in charachteristics from someone who is exclusively ethnic African or ethnic European, sure, but they would differ because they are a combination of both, not neither. As for gender markers, non binary folks are not exclusively "M" or "F", they are often "M/F" which would fit nicely under the inclusive non binary gender marker of "NB".

As far as your question Zooey, do I think non binary folks should be entitled to 100% of the spaces that binary folks are entitled to, no. I think it totally depends on the distinction between 'gender' and 'sex'. Do I think that a non binary person should have access to public binary bathrooms with private stalls, for the most part yes. Do I think that a non binary person should have access to public binary change rooms where ones physical sex is exposed, no, but by default this would include pre op TS's. These folks too are in a unique situation because they may have gone through partial transition eg HRT but still have thier birth parts and would likely find themselves in a no person's land. In general though, I think if it's a binary space where your sex is exposed, non binary folks should be in spaces that align with thier sex. If circumstances have more to do with gender, then yes non binary folks should have access to both spaces generally speaking.

[julia marie]

I'm still trying to figure out. There have been some responses to this post about public accommodation laws passed in recent years. Those are great, and laws like the new North Carolina bathroom bill, not so great. But what are some of the existing laws (pre public accommodation and pre NC bathroom bill) laws that prevent a man (dressed as woman or not -- common sense should rule) -- from using a bathroom labeled "women" or a woman from using the mens room? I can't find find reference to any long-standing laws or policies that define who can use which room.
For years I only used the "women" room when dressed as a woman. What law was I breaking?

[ReineD]

Reine, I can't comprehend how you got the impression that I believe that non binary = exclusively female as my main point has clearly been that non binary is not exclusively M or F but rather a combination of both (if individuals feel that they are niether I respect that).

I don't know why I thought that you thought that. This is a long thread and I may have gotten confused.

And of course I agree that some CDers identify as "part-female".

For years I only used the "women" room when dressed as a woman. What law was I breaking?

Maybe someone else can chime in here too. As far as I know, there never were any laws on any books about what genitals the users of women's bathrooms should have, until North Carolina introduced HB2.

[Zooey]

As I understand it, you would generally be charged (if you were charged) under one of the catch-all laws - public indecency, disturbing the peace, etc.

[ReineD]

Yes, but that was eons ago right? CDers are no longer arrested for public indecency or disturbing the peace. And up until North Carolina's stupid law, it wasn't specified anywhere that users of women's bathrooms had to have female genitals?

[Zooey]

I think it's unlikely that anybody has actually been arrested in recent times, though I can't say for sure. That said, if it was going to happen anywhere, it'd be a bathroom or changing room. You'd be asked to leave though, and that would certainly be the threat.

[Mayo]

And up until North Carolina's stupid law, it wasn't specified anywhere that users of women's bathrooms had to have female genitals?

Even HB2 doesn't say that. It simply defines sex as what's on your birth certificate. So if you live in a state that allows you to change your birth cert (sometimes with just a letter from a doctor confirming your gender identity) then HB2 doesn't prevent you from going into the women's in NC even with male genitalia. So the stupid law doesn't even do what its proponents claim it's trying to do (keep 'men', i.e. people with penises, out of women's washrooms).

[flatlander_48]

It intent was to cause a lot of outrage and gain votes. Creating a logically written piece of law wasn't part of that intent. I don't think that they ever considered the possibility of someone looking like Michael Hughes and having documents that said F either.

As is not uncommon, stupidity doesn't have a long view.

DeeAnn

[MissDanielle]

Even HB2 doesn't say that. It simply defines sex as what's on your birth certificate. So if you live in a state that allows you to change your birth cert (sometimes with just a letter from a doctor confirming your gender identity) then HB2 doesn't prevent you from going into the women's in NC even with male genitalia. So the stupid law doesn't even do what its proponents claim it's trying to do (keep 'men', i.e. people with penises, out of women's washrooms).

My home state won't let me change without having GRS. Other states might require even the smallest amount of surgery.

We need a uniform standard but that's not gonna happen with Congress.

[ReineD]

Even HB2 doesn't say that. It simply defines sex as what's on your birth certificate.

Right, but in NC and I believe also still in most states, you can't alter your birth certificate unless you've had SRS. So NC HB 2 effectively says that only persons without penises can use the ladies room.

I hope that trans advocacy organizations are working on this, because this is the most fundamental issue of all. Transitioned TSs who have not had SRS (about 70%) still cannot be legally recognized as women on their birth certificates unless they live in CA, Washington, DC, and a handful of other states. Here's the list, I have not clicked on each state to see how many: http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your...x-designations.

If all states amend their birth certificate requirements to also include all persons who are living full time as their target gender (instead of just having had SRS), then there wouldn't be any bathroom issues.

And CDers can still use the women's bathrooms (using common sense as they always have), but not in NC right now, not until HB2 is reversed. Still, as mentioned multiple times here, there's no way to enforce HB2. There's no gender police posted at each bathroom door.

[Mayo]

According to Wikipedia (based on information from Lambda Legal) about a third (~18) of US states will amend or change a birth certificate without surgery. This means, at the very least, that visitors from any of these states can legally use the ladies' in NC even if they still have a penis. Thus HB2 is inconsistent and therefore ineffective in accomplishing what it was intended to do (which - let's not fool ourselves - was never about 'protecting women and children', but simply about keeping people with penises out of the women's washroom on the assumption that any such person was obviously a 'man').

Until all washrooms are gender-neutral, there will be no consistent method of legally deciding who gets to use which one without reverting nationally to an immutable as-designated-at-birth-by-some-doctor-with-an-opinion. There is no method that can consistently identify someone as biologically 'male' or 'female' without making certain assumptions about what it means to be one or the other because sex is not an absolute binary, and to attempt to do so will require identity documents and enforcement by bathroom police and will still allow (even require) some people who may look like one to use the facilities of the other. For these reasons, I think we have to fall back on some combination of self-identification and presentation, which largely leaves it up to the individual's choice.

[flatlander_48]

There is no method that can consistently identify someone as biologically 'male' or 'female' without making certain assumptions about what it means to be one or the other because sex is not an absolute binary, and to attempt to do so will require identity documents and enforcement by bathroom police and will still allow (even require) some people who may look like one to use the facilities of the other.

Basically that gets at the question posed by Michael Hughes. On face value, his going to a women's restroom would certainly attract attention, but by law that is where he is supposed to go. People just don't realize the full range of problems they created.

Act in haste, repent at leisure...

DeeAnn

[Pat]

Just worth noting, today Massachusetts' governor Charile Baker signed our transgender identity protection bill into law. As of October 1st, TG people in Massachusetts are protected in the usual civil rights categories (housing, employment, etc.) and TG people may select a bathroom based on gender identity not birth certificate or driver's license. It does specify penalties for anyone who falsely claims to be TG for fraudulent purposes and says that proof of identity can be established with a history of consistent assertion of being transgender (so none of this "guy wakes up in the morning and decides he's a girl" rhetoric of the haters will wash. )

[mykell]

“We hope that this discriminatory law's days are numbered," advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal said in a statement ahead of the hearing, where they will seek a preliminary injunction.

hopefully he judge will see past the hate and offer the injunction until the trial can be heard....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN10C25H


also a video...http://myfox8.com/2016/08/01/lengthy...bill-2-begins/

[reinasblack]

A transsexual was asked are they postop in order to be allowed to use women's rest room
https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurenstrap...yqx#.dtK3AlL95


The bouncer's side of the story

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/...ersy-1.3007428

All that River Rising had to do to access the women's bathroom was to say that she was post-op. Apparently, she was coy about it, so the bouncer assumed that she still had the meat and two veg. And, to protect female customers from harassment, the bar had a "no schlongs in the ladies' room" rule. Seems reasonable to me. (I know that trans women think that public establishments have no right to concern themselves with the safety of mere women, but you do realize that most of the populace disagrees with you, right?)

If Ms Rising was concerned about her safety in the men's room, staff was willing to serve as her personal bodyguard. But this wasn't about safety, was it? Not about women's safety, which Ms Rising couldn't GAF about, and not about her own safety, which staff was willing to guarantee. It was about giving peens full access to women's spaces - in other words, about violating women's boundaries.

[arbon]

If someone asked me if I was post-op before allowing me entry into a womens room it would not go very well for them.


Added: it is never okay to do what that guy did you linked to. You don't ask that. Trans women have the same rights as any other women. What he did was to deny her her identity and dignity.

[Mayo]

What Arbon said. It's an offensive question and nobody else's goddamn business. We don't ask women if they've had breast implants at the washroom door to determine if they're 'worthy' to enter, or for guys to provide length and circumference to see if they're 'real men'. The specious 'counter-argument' about 'protecting women and children' has been so thoroughly demolished by this point that bringing it up in defence of transphobic laws and policies demonstrates nothing more than a willful desire to ignore reality. And if 'women's boundaries' will be violated by a penis in the ladies' washroom, those boundaries must obviously extend beyond the walls of the stalls, in which case why bother having them? Why not simply line up the toilets side by side and do your business out in the open? Finally, while 'most of the populace' disagreeing with something may make it a law, it doesn't make it either true or right.

[Rhonda Darling]

May I politely suggest that we cut through the disagreement and get to a solution that allows all of us to just pee. Since 2006, Washington, DC has had the following law in place. There have been no notable instances of "men in dresses" upsetting the social order. If you present as a woman, you may use the woman's restroom for its intended purpose. Likewise if you present as a man, the men's room.

Here is the pertinent portion of the law:

"LOCAL LAW: District of Columbia law, in effect since 2006, provides: District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR)Title 4 (Human Rights and Relations),Chapter 8 (Compliance Rules and Regulations Regarding Gender Identity or Expression), Section 801 – General Prohibitions of Gender Identity or Expression DiscriminationPart 801.1 states: “It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, including agencies of the District of Columbia government and its contractors, to discriminate against a person in employment, housing, public accommodations, or educational institutions on the basis of that person's actual or perceived gender identity or expression. Such unlawful discriminatory practices shall include but not be limited to the following in: (c) Public Accommodations: refusing to provide goods or services of any kind; engaging in disparate treatment in the provision of goods and services; engaging in verbal or physical harassment; creating a hostile environment; and denying access to restrooms and other gender specific facilities that are consistent with a customer's or client's gender identity or expression.” Section 802. – Restrooms and Other Gender Specific Facilities Part 802.1 states: “All entities covered under the Act, as amended, shall allow individuals the right to use gender-specific restrooms and other gender-specific facilities such as dressing rooms, homeless shelters, and group homes that are consistent with their gender identity or expression.” Section 805. – Gender-Specific Facilities Where Nudity in the Presence of Others is Customary Part 805.1 states: “All entities covered under the Act shall provide access to and the safe use of facilities that are segregated by gender.” Part 805.2 states: “In gender-specific facilities where nudity in the presence of other people is customary, entities covered by the Act shall make reasonable accommodations to allow an individual access to and the use of the facility that is consistent with that individual’s gender identity or expression, regardless of whether the individual has provided identification or other documentation of their gender identity or expression.” Part 805.3 states: “Requiring documentation or other proof of an individual’s gender is prohibited, except in situations where all persons are asked to provide documentation or other proof of their gender for a reasonable business or medical purpose.” Section 899 – Definitions Part 899.1 states: “When used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed:” “Entities” - include all employers, housing providers, public accommodations, educational institutions, and government agencies and their contractors that come within the jurisdictional reach of the Act.“Gender identity or expression” - a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.“Transgender” - an adjective that refers to any individual whose identity or behavior differs from stereotypical or traditional gender expectations, including transsexual individuals, cross-dressers, androgynous individuals, and others whose appearance or characteristic are perceived to be gender-atypical."

In addition, last week the U.S. General Services Administration clarified its regulations such that transgender individuals may use the restroom appropriate to their gender identity in any federal building operated by GSA -- Federal buildings, Federal Courthouses, most federal agencies.

If everyone would just mind their own business when going in and using a toilet, 99-44/100 of the problem would be solved.

Rhonda

[ReineD]

I may as well post this update here too. It's in the "Legal Status" sticky in the Media section.

Governor McRory, who signed the North Carolina House Bill 2 (the controversial bathroom bill), is up for election in the fall. It seems that he is currently behind the polls precisely because he has been defending HB2. Apparently, a majority of voters in North Carolina are against HB2. lol.

The links to articles and polls are in this post:
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...59#post3987759

[Leslie Langford]

...here is the enlightened (and humourous) way in which the officials running the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) - which takes place annually in Toronto this time of year - have dealt with this issue:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...am-keenan.html

Sounds like a win-win for all concerned, whether cis- or trans-...

[Kim_Bitzflick]

If someone asked me if I was post-op before allowing me entry into a womens room it would not go very well for them.

I've had several surgeries so technically I'm post op....... But none of them were for SRS . I'm just saying - answer the question asked. I'm not trying to belittle those who have had SRS, I'm just gonna mess with the person asking the question.

And the ONLY way to solve this issue is to have EVERYONE use gender neutral bathrooms. I doubt this is ever going to happen in my life and personally I hate sharing a restroom with men because some of them are soooo messy (if you know what I mean).

[Lorileah]

So are women's rooms

[Leslie Langford]

Amen to that, Lorlieah...been there, and seen the carnage first-hand on too many occasions...

That said, don't even get me started about this compulsion that so many GG's (especially teens) have to take selfies with their BFF's in the women's restrooms. WTF??? If we did that and got caught, we'd be crucified on the spot by the "Bathroom Law" vigilantes.

[ReineD]

I also echo Lori & Leslie. Women's bathroom stalls are not always pristine. I don't understand why people won't flush the toilet or why they have to leave trails of toilet paper all over the floor. Maybe just to be a pain.