Normally, Boy George-looking MFers don’t come to West Texas. If they do, they probably don’t last long.
So, never having experienced either, I don’t think I would have much of a problem if Caitlin Jenner strolled up to the urinal next to me. I would have more of a problem if some really butch chick tried to come into the guys’ restroom. (Can’t think of a good F -> M example.)
And for the record, I showered with gay guys in the military (in the gym, not in our own personal stall), and even shared a bathroom with a gay guy. It wasn’t that much different than showering with a straight guy. I never thought much about it. (That being said, this was before they allowed gays in the military. So they were hush-hush about it, even though we all knew. I might have a problem if they were flaming.)
i think most men are afraid of their tween girls being in a room they’re not supposed to enter with men who are bigender or are faking being transgender.
This is where it gets personal for me. I really don’t care about who’s showering with me in the locker room. However, as a father to a tween girl (or soon to be…not sure what the age range of a tween is), I’m concerned about perverts, male, female, and everything in between. Especially with cameras being so easy to conceal these days. The thought of someone filming my daughter at the pool locker room and using that as fap material for the rest of their lives makes me sick. Like, I just ate and I’m pretty close to throwing up.
So you’re saying that you can just grab someone and say “Hold on here, I’m going to call the police to have them come here and check your ID, because you seem funny looking to me and maybe you shouldn’t be here?” That’s your enforcement? “Oops, sorry, you actually are female, just looking very androgynous.” Or “Ooops, sorry, you are a preop F-M transsexual with a beard because you’re taking testosterone but have a vaginal.” Or, “You’re a drag queen? Let’s call the police and get them to demand some ID there, buster!”
This is your enforcement mechanism? Every time these people use the bathroom?
If that’s your enforcement mechanism, why not just have a state-approved card saying that this person is undergoing M->F transition and is licensed to use the women’s room as part of pre-op transition. At least that settles it, and precludes those who just want to drop in to a women’s bathroom and perv for a bit, because it means you have to invest a lot in the process before you get one.
Also you have approximately equal numbers of sex offenders (of all types) and transsexuals in the US. So unless you argue that all the sex offenders are hanging out in bathrooms waiting to commit crimes, it sounds like the transsexuals are going to have problems every time they need to go, and only the sex offenders who get off on bathroom conquests (which I think are a minority) are going to be inconvenienced.
I still say, use the bathroom you present as, and conform your behavior to the gender behavior expectations of that room. Problem solved. If you’re that concerned, then have an official transitioning ID card that licenses certain people.
OK, I’m tired. I mostly think these laws are going to be used to justify beating up transsexual people and throwing them in jail because they look wierd to non-trans people, and that’s why I don’t like them. I think a lot of the “what about bathrooms” concern is a way to open up that line of hate and so I think we need to think of ways to avoid that. I get that people might abuse the law, and we need to find ways to address that, and I think people are jumping too quickly to the anatomy solution, just as people jump quickly to the “ban all guns” solution whenever there’s a shooting. Plus I do think it’s reasonable to ask trans people to try living their life as their selected gender for a while before undergoing a hard-to-reverse or potentially irreversable operation.
This is why I think the right rule is: “Go to the bathroom you present as. If you are presenting as a woman and have outside plumbing, don’t expose it in the common area. Maintain behaviors appropriate to gendered expectations in that bathroom.” And if you break those rules, then you are subject to legal sanctions.
As for sex offenders, they come in all genders and sexual preferences. Targeting transgender people because they might be sex offenders neither solves the perving problem nor is an equal application of the law and opens up excuses for others to harrass transgender people.
No, I’m not saying you grab someone and hold them there. But if you have a weirdo lingering in the mall bathroom or whatever, you call a nearby cop and let them sort it out if they’re still around. The threat of that generally keeps things civil. That’s been the law for years and it hasn’t been used to beat up on anybody. It simply exists and it works. You’re creating boogie men cases now that you’ve stopped stereotyping Texans as homophobes just trying to stick it to the crossdressers and gays without evidence. Most of the PC argument is based on forcing words and prejudices into their opponents mouths while ignoring evidence (like the fact that their opposition actually WANTS to keep the crosss dressers and transgendered individuals in their own bathroom). It is literally no different from your special ID law with the exception that it doesn’t require licensing transsexuals like this is Nazi Germany and having them carry around their special government ID which I’m sure is an idea that community will absolutely love. Yup, not marginalizing at all. Not to mention that you’re just leaving leaving the entire non-surgical part of the community out to dry and the post-ops are already allowed to legally change their sex so that they would already be covered under the existing rules without a “special” license.
ID’s for the general population <> special ID’s for a minority subset that is already marginalized. You don’t believe me, go start asking trans people if they think they should get special licenses. Not to mention the fact that post op are already registered as their new sex if they choose to (and thus able to use the new sex’s bathroom) so you haven’t actually solved anything with that approach.
You have routinely miscategorized the debate by refering to Greenman’s own views and those of opponents as based on prejudice rather than the actual concerns that have been voiced. Even ignoring evidence that was directly contrary to your statement about their motives and discomfort. So, you can be glib but you’re also wrong.
In reality you and people supporting these laws are simply uncomfortable using restrooms with men dressed as women and want them out so that everything looks normal to you and doesn’t offend your homophobic prejudices.
The ID suggestion was actually a solution proposed by the transvestite (not transsexual, but it carried over) in Brazil. The problem was that the police came around demanding to see transvestite prostitutes’ (which is a legal activity) ID. The ID showed their birth-assigned sex, and the police then said that they either had improper ID or were impersonating the wrong person, etc., because the sex on the ID didn’t look like the person they were presenting as and made up to be. It led to all sorts of harrassment, some of which could be resolved by kindly giving the officer a free blowjob in exchange for not being “arrested”. Cash was another way out.
The ID idea was proposed by the transvestite community itself as a legal remedy to stop this kind of abuse. I’m not sure how it evolved over time, but I do know that it was something that the community itself asked for.
–
Also, my ID suggestion was not my preferred solution. My preferred solution, if you can read, is the following:
Use the bathroom for the gender you present as
Be discreet as you use the bathroom to urinate, defacate, and wash up. If you have nontraditional equipment (this part is reworded for clarity), do not show it to others.
Adhere to the gender roles/behavioral expectations of the room you are in.
When finished, leave. No loitering.
Deviating from this is legally liable in the same way that it would be for a perv who was not claiming to be transsexual.
There is no ID issue in my preferred solution.
–
My ID solution is not my preferred solution, but it is preferred to what you seem to propose, which is to hold people who look like “a weirdo lingering in the mall bathroom or whatever” and have them produce an ID that confirms what their sex is, and letting them go if their sex matches the bathroom door.
In this case, “strange looking people” are going to be constantly detained and having to produce IDs. In that case, an ID that they can choose to obtain (or not) saying that the state specifically allows them to be where they are is better than demanding an ID that doesn’t say anything other than their sex-at-birth.
Both ID situations put trans people in a quasi police state, and they will likely be asked to prove their right to be in a bathroom whether they go to their sex-at-birth one (where they present otherwise, and therefore look “wierd”), or their presenting one (where they likely look less wierd, but are currently more legally vulnerable).
So it is not as Nazi-like as you want to make me out ot be. I would prefer a no-ID situation, but you are the one that wants to stop wierd looking people by having them prove their identity, as far as I can tell.
I never said hold anybody in containment. There you go again.
You call the cops, walk away. If the persons still lingering the cops can figure it out. That’s how these things have been sorted out for for decades in the US (weirdos in bathroom not a new thing and for the record weirdos refers to pervs not androgenous individuals). Someone looks like they’re lingering up to no good and shouldn’t be there, a cop stops by and asks for ID. Oh wait, you think androgenous looking people and transvestitites are a new thing? That’s cute, Bchad.
Anyhow, Brazil <> the US, so like I said, go ask some trans people in the US if they’d special licenses.
Again, still doesn’t address the fact that POST OPS ALREADY ARE LISTED AS THEIR NEW SEX genius. And it doesn’t help trans that don’t plan on surgery. But then again, I’m talking to someone who thinks this is a new issue.
Not true at all. I’m recommending the same laws and methods for dealing with it. IE if you have a lingerer, cops can show up and ask for ID. Sex on ID <> Sex on bathroom door, you’re in legal trouble. Under the new laws (and your preferred method) there is no remedy because it’s all legal based on the honor system. Under your license system, you actually fix nothing (again, post op already listed as post op sex) and doesn’t address non-op. It simply takes a minority that’s already feeling marginalized and goes one step further by making them register like 1930’s Germany.
You replied that using the EXISTING laws crossdressers would be stopped all the time and detained by cops for using the restroom. These has not been the case for decades so you are either ignoring history or suggesting that this is some new issue to create another boogie man.
existing laws have a definitive answer. do you have a penis or not?
proposed laws make the situation a legal nightmare and will add insane costs to the system and likely cause more problems than it solves. why is this a problem in the first place?
also, a serious question, using existing laws, if you expose yourself in a bathroom, is that a crime? i would think no as the act of going to the bathroom, particularly a men’s bathroom involves nudity. if we use these proposed laws, would exposing yourself be a crime? why? say some guy runs into the unisex bathroom and pulls a “CFA exam day bathroom incident”. would he be charged with a crime despite his relieving himself in the sink and exposing himself to women in the bathroom be a crime?
Like everything else, can’t we just let private businesses decide the best way to deal with this and use the good ol’ profit/loss system to decide winners/losers?