Bathroom bills and other laws , discussion thread

[Mayo]

What I don't understand is why the media is targeting transwomen? I heard nothing about CD men

I honestly think there are two main issues involved here:
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'.

The general public doesn't and in my opinion do not want to under stand CD and TG people. That is my 2cents

Yep. See #1 above.

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.

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.

[SometimesDiana]

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.

[Christina D]

What I don't understand is why the media is targeting transwomen? I heard nothing about CD men

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."

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.

[Zooey]

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.

[Lorileah]

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?)

[AllieSF]

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.

[Christina D]

Except trans women are not men.

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.

[Zooey]

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?)

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.

Legal identity is legal identity, and it's the only standard that is necessary/should matter when it comes to issues of legality.

[Sara Jessica]

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.

[Andrea Renea]

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.

[AllieSF]

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

[Zooey]

I'm not going to fish out a driver license to use the restroom no matter what gender marker is on it.

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.

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.

[AllieSF]

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.

[Gabriella111]

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.

[Zooey]

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.

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.

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.

[Lorileah]

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.

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.

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.

[Zooey]

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.

[Shelly Preston]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Zooey, I have to strongly disagree with this point. Not everyone can take HRT and this is not a barrier to Transition.

[Zooey]

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.

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.

I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions there, but regardless...

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.

Zooey, I have to strongly disagree with this point. Not everyone can take HRT and this is not a barrier to Transition.

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.

[Aunt Kelly]

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...

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.
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.

[Pat]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

[Mayo]

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.

[Zooey]

Actually, the law in Massachusetts, which I think should be a model for other states...

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!

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. 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.

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...

• 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".

[Aunt Kelly]

• 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

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.

Pat/Jennie and Mayo present different but more more realistic approaches to solving this problem.

[Zooey]

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.