This Bathroom Law Confusion

I do not know about any pro-LGBT Laws, other than the Supreme Court ruling about gay marriage.It seems obvious, to me, that we have come to a point in America where we say discrimination against other people is NOT a right, because some people seem to think it is.Edited by Tanypteryx, : grammer

Well thank you for taking the time anyway. I didn't want to flood you with multiple posts so I took the risk of a single one. Thing is, there is no militant campaign to change your experiences. Those experiences were already there, they were just secretive and causing pain and fear for those holding the secret.Transgender people haven't 'suddenly' started campaigning for rights, and they haven't 'suddenly' started taking people to court. What's different now is that more politicians and judges have sympathetic perspectives which is resulting in successful law suits and legal changes. If you wanted time to get used to it, you guys should have given transgender people the rights and recognition they've been asking for in a more spread out way rather than the sporadic landmarks they've fought desperately for over the last 150 years. Now you're facing something of a damn bursting scenario, I can't feel a huge amount of sympathy. I know, but from our point of view, they aren't all that different. I was hoping this would he helpful for you in understanding us better. I get it, I really do. No really. Cisgendered people haven't shutup about their angst about how to deal with transgendered folk for as long as I remember. It's nice that they are coming around to 'don't treat them like crap'.I understand the new and weird is scary. But transgendered individuals are not new. The issues we discuss today, have been discussed for decades and decades and decades. There are two primary groups to blame therefore, for ignorance and fear about transgendered peoplea) the ignorant. The internet is right here, most of the ignorant in question have access.
b) education system. Social Conservatives have suppressed discussion of these issues in schools. I'm not sure how I am out for blood, Faith. This seems like an absurd overreaction. I am not your worst fears of the liberal movement of the USA. The confused and fearful act in line with the wishes of the hateful, even if they do so without malice. From the perspective of the hated, the distinction is purely academic. How should it been done better?I mean the fact that transgendered people exist is not secret. The fact is reflected in music, tv, film, art and is all over the internet - from legal discussion to pornography.Humans need to go to the toilet.Toilets are segregated by sex.The facts are all known, the subject has been discussed in public venues. The news covered instances of transgendered people who were denied access to restrooms. If you were blindsided, you really have yourself to blame.And given the sources you have publicly posted that you use, anybody who is surprised by all of this simply wasn't paying attention to sources that report what's actually happening in the world correctly.People HAVE attempted to explain it, for decades those answers have been readily available. If you feel blindsided, you can just read and realize its all part of a bigger picture. You'd see that both pro and anti trans bathroom bills were almost inevitable.People were confused, so the legislature have attempted to make laws to make things clear.Yes, people are afraid. It is called 'transphobia'. The remedy is education. Many people are not educating themselves, so sometimes 'militant' outreach is needed. I am not blinded in the fashion you accuse.I was telling you why the laws are felt to be necessary. Laws are about engendering trust and assisting freedom. Transgendered people have had their freedom curtailed, and we shouldn't wait for all of the ignorant to catch up. Law in commerce enables two entities to trade with confidence, this is good for society. These law serve a similar social purpose. That's all.I get that some people are freaked out. What can be done, Faith? People freak out in horrid ways at times, we can't let 'freaking out' be an excuse for causing harm to others.Some people, I remind you, still freak out about interracial, interfaith and homosexual relationships. We can only point out that they are being horrid and should rethink and why. What else do you want us to do? The more vociferous we are, the more people call us 'politically correct fascists' or something - the more silent we are the less change occurs.... Cercle Hermaphroditos, 1895
Mattachine Society, 1940s
Transvestia: The Journal of the American Society for Equality in Dress, 1952
Transvestia, 1960
Hose and Heels Club, 1962
Dewey's Coffee Shop, 1965
Compton's Cafeteria Riot, 1966
National Transsexual Counseling Unit, 1968
Stonewall Riots, 1969
The 70s:
Andy Warhol
Queens {magazine}
Transsexual/Transvestite Action Organization
National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, 1979
FTM International, 1986
The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto, 1987
Southern Comfort Conference, 1991
Transgender Nation, 1992
GenderPAC, 1995
National Gender Lobby Day, 1996
Transgender Day of Remembrance, 1998
Transgender Pride flag, 1999
National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, 1999
Transgender Foundation of America , 2001
Transgender Network, 2002
National Center for Transgender Equality, 2003
San Francisco Trans March, 2004
International Transgender Day of Visibility, 2009Did all that. Sorry you hadn't noticed. The screams you were blocking out included accusations that you were ignoring us, by the way.

Fair enough, as long as you guys can agree to stop reacting to ordinary people who you fear by treating them as presumed monsters. And I don't mean 'call them names' or 'sue them' I mean, could you not fire them, deny them employment, allow them to use the restroom, the water fountain, marry their partners, adopt children...you know treat them like the ordinary non-monstrous people they should be presumed to be unless proof given to the contrary.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

why do you need a law to give them permission to use the restroom of their choice?

---

Because all it takes is for some busybody to cause trouble and suddenly you're being arrested. This is already happening to cis women who have butch haircuts and don't wear traditionally feminine clothing. If we don't explicitly protect trans people, they will be subject to discrimination. It would be lovely if we could all just behave like adults and not harass our fellows, but the simple reality is that there will always be people who want to make life difficult for those they don't like.No, laws won't stop all the problems. We have laws preventing discrimination on the basis of things like race, gender, and religion, and yet those who aren't white, those who aren't male, and those who aren't Christian still get discriminated against. The laws simply allow there to be redress for when it happens (and yes, that means white, male Christians can be discriminated against and also have a means of redress when it happens.)

quote:

---

The transgender question Moose raised does seem to be the only real gray area and in that case what interests me is the fact that they remain heterosexual but because of looking like the biologically opposite sex they would now be using the restroom of the sex to whom they are attracted.

---

What on earth does this have to do with anything? Gay people are in the bathroom of the people to whom they are attracted to all the time. Are you implying there's a problem with that? Gay people shouldn't be allowed to use the bathroom?The question Moose raises is trivially answered: You use the bathroom that is appropriate. One of the things about being trans is that you are putting in the effort to be the sex you identifying with. Thus, despite the fact that you may have not had any surgery, you are doing all the other things that signify your gender (because sex is not gender) and thus, you use the bathroom that corresponds with your gender identity.This has nothing to do with sexual attraction and that you would bring it up shows that you are still equating being trans and being gay and are still stuck in the idea that the reason trans people want to go into the bathroom is to engage in sexual activity with unwilling participants. Note, this doesn't mean you're expecting them to go in there and violently rape someone, but you're still thinking they're doing it for some sort of thrill.And that's bigotry.

quote:

---

I don't think it's bigotry that promotes the laws against the LGBT law, I think it's confusion and not understanding the actual situation.

---

You have that exactly backwards. It is precisely because of bigotry and it is being couched as some sort of confusion when there isn't any. It's the same argument that was used to deny gay people the right to get married: "What will we tell the children! It's so confusing! If two women get married, who's the man?"You simply tell them that two people loved each other very much and decided to spend their lives together and got married. There's no confusion. You've seen men and women get married all the time. What on earth would be confusing about men and men getting married? And there is no man in a marriage of two women. You can see there aren't any, so why would you think there had to be one?There is no confusion. There is simply hatred and bigotry. Trans people have already been using the correct bathroom for their gender ever since there were trans people. The only thing these laws do is criminalize that and force them into the wrong bathroom where they will be subject to the very harassment and violence the people who enact these laws are claiming to be trying to stop.It's all a lie. It is simply them being upset that they lost over the fight for marriage equality and so now they are doing what they can to hold onto their power. They know that the more they try to demonize gay people, the less attractive their political positions are and the more likely they are to be voted out of office. Thus, they have found a new target to focus on by using people's hatred and bigotry for trans people.

quote:

---

The law attempting to oppose the LGBT laws shows a complete lack of understanding the actual situation.

---

Exactly. But they went through with it anyway. It was not because they were confused.Again, did you not see what also came along for the ride in HB2? It slashes the minimum wage to $7.50, the state's minimum, and prevents any locality from raising it. It cuts out all access to the state's courts for those seeking redress for discrimination. North Carolina no longer has any protections for anybody for discrimination...you have to go through federal courts. And since federal discrimination laws are more stringent (they have to do with multi-state violations, for example and have only 180 days to file), people are now at the mercy of those in power.They didn't do this not understanding what it was they were doing. They knew that by making the focus of this bill the evil, drooling trans people who are trying to make laws that allow pedophiles have access to your daughters (notice how they never mention that your sons would then be at risk), they could get the law through.

quote:

---

I do think there may be a more rational objection among conservatives, though, that I need to find out about, and even if it's more rational it may still not address the actual situation well enough.

---

There is nothing rational about this.It is already illegal to go into the bathroom to harass or assault someone. After all, we didn't think that only men would harass a woman in the bathroom, did we? That somehow the bathroom is neutral territory for women who are having an argument and such that they would stop all hostilities toward each other while in there? Of course not. So a law that stops trans people from peeing in peace isn't actually solving the problem. Men are already not allowed in the women's bathroom, this law doesn't change that (trans women are women), and it is still illegal to harass or assault someone in the bathroom regardless of gender.And since trans people were already using the correct bathroom, why would securing their right to pee in peace cause any harm or even risk of harm? Surely we aren't saying that the only reason people weren't going into the bathroom to harass and/or assault people was because it was legal to kick trans people out, are we?

quote:

---

Again, though, I don't see any need to HAVE a law permitting someone who LOOKS male to use the men's restroom, same for the one who looks female to use the women's room, and it's THAT law that is freaking out the right. Why not just leave well enough alone? Use the restroom where you'd fit in best.

---

Again: Because all it takes is some busybody to ruin your life. Do you recall the recent story of the man who was kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight? All he did was speak to his uncle on the telephone.In Arabic.A woman heard him speaking Arabic, immediately thought "TERRORIST!" and had the staff kick him off the plane...and they then called the FBI and he was interrogated.That's what trans people are faced with every day. Every time they go out, they have to check themselves: Am I presenting correctly? Is there something out of place? Is today going to be the day that someone decides that I don't meet their standards and decides to call the cops, claiming that I'm somehow doing something wrong?Do you still not understand why we need laws to protect trans people from this sort of thing?

Tanypteryx writes:

quote:

---

I do not know about any pro-LGBT Laws, other than the Supreme Court ruling about gay marriage.

---

I'm presuming you mean at the federal level because plenty of states have enacted laws that protect on the basis of sexual orientation.But if you are focusing on the feds, let's not forget the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell and how gays are now allowed to serve in the military. The EEOC includes sexual orientation and gender identity, though both are recent. And interestingly, the ruling for gender identity came before the ruling for sexual orientation (2012 compared to 2015). The Civil Service Reform Act does not specifically mention gender identity or sexual orientation, but it does include the phrase, "conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee," which is currently being interpreted to include gender identity and sexual orientation.The problem with the latter, however, is that we often see that unless the law explicitly states it, it will not be covered. We see this with anti-bullying codes in schools. Many schools discuss student harassment of each other and explicitly call out certain targets such as race, sex, religion, etc. But since sexual orientation isn't listed, bully against those who are gay tends to be tolerated. Without a policy expressly forbidding it, it must be OK. By explicitly pointing out that sexual orientation is included, those in charge of enforcing the policy feel empowered to act when it happens.This is part of the problem of those claiming, "Why do we need a law"? Because without a law, people feel it's OK to discriminate. Anything that isn't expressly illegal is legal. By leaving it vague, you open the door to discrimination. Making it illegal won't stop it from happening, but it does give a means to redress it.

Um, those don't sound like clarifications that would help persuade people to your cause, they sound more like provocations that could drive people to further dig in their heels against you.I'm thinking of a nice gentle campaign WHEN THE LAWS THAT SCARE PEOPLE ARE PROPOSED, that would describe the actual situation that they'd be facing:

• people who mostly look like the sex they have chosen to be, who already use the facilities of their choice without being noticed
• Female-identified gay men in the women's room who are no threat to the women or girls there because they have no attraction to women or girls, and no threat to boys because there are no boys there
• I wonder how many gay women prefer the men's room or would not be noticed there. Seems like they'd be the ones threatened rather than the men. Not going to threaten anybody in any case.
• A warning about some who would look out of place, such as a hulking biological male in female dress. These are the people who are probably going to need the most aggressive campaigning for acceptance. Like those who pass, though, the point is that there is no threat to anybody, even if they freak you out.

That is the sort of campaign I'm thinking of. You'd have to modify it to accommodate the realities as you know them.When I first heard about the proposed law in Texas to make restrooms a matter of personal choice I was also freaked out: What destructive dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now? It took the recent laws insisting that only your biological sex qualifies you for a restroom which made me aware of the absurd consequences of such a law, and some thinking about exactly what freedom of choice would entail in reality, to lead me to the position I'm defending on this thread.But most people don't have any frame of reference for thinking about these things, and just dumping a whole new social project on them that is strange and feels dangerous is not fair to them. Hence the need for some kind of information campaign like the above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

I'm thinking of a nice gentle campaign WHEN THE LAWS THAT SCARE PEOPLE ARE PROPOSED

---

There is no way to do this. Any proposal that seeks to stop bigots from discriminating against those they hate will always be met with hostility and claims that the world is going to hell.I've been trying very hard not to make this argument, but I've reached my breaking point: Doesn't your god tell you to be open and welcoming and to love your neighbor as yourself? Shouldn't you be the least "scared" over learning that there are more people suffering that you didn't realize were there? Shouldn't you be the most giving upon realizing that someone else is being downtrodden? Shouldn't you be the epitome of love and acceptance rather than the one claiming to be "confused" and trying to justify the horrendous reactions we have seen?If your own message of love and acceptance that you claim to have is unable to do the job, what hope is there for trans people to do it? And on top of that, why is it their job to coddle other people's feelings? You specifically mentioned "out for blood" as if refusing to be treated like scum is some outrageously unreasonable demand.You are making the Bully's Retort, Faith: "But I always took the other kids' lunch money! You're bullying me by making me stop!"

quote:

---

When I first heard about the proposed law in Texas to make restrooms a matter of personal choice I was also freaked out: What destructive dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now?

---

And that is precisely why there is no way to do what you are demanding: You want to be given a cookie for being a decent human being. You want to be praised for how loving and accepting you are when you should have been that way all along. You think that by being "gentle" about pointing out how you are wrong on this matter, you will get people to simply say, "Oh! I get it!" rather than digging in and thinking, "What destructive, dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now?"You are the precise reason it cannot happen, Faith.This is the exact same lesson the bigots needed to learn with regard to race...and sex...and religion (you didn't think the Catholics and the Jews were welcome here in the US, did you?)...and more recently sexual orientation. How many times do we have to teach the same lesson before it sinks in? Especially since it hasn't sunk in for any of the others? We still have problems with those who aren't white, those who aren't male, those who aren't Protestant (and even then, the right kind of Protestant), those who aren't straight. Did you really think it was going to be any easier trying to get people to accept those who aren't cis?People don't take kindly to the notion that they are wrong. There is no "gentle" way to do that.And to demand that trans people have to suffer simply because cis people are getting their feelings hurt is the "destructive, dangerous thing."Nothing is being dumped on you.You are simply being asked to stop making other people's lives a living hell.How could that possibly be a burden to you? Isn't that what you're supposed to be doing in the first place? Isn't that the type of person your god is telling you to be at all times?

So, which bathroom should be used by the Bruce Jenner of 10 years ago?MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Add subtitle.

I'm not trying to get Brownie points here, I'm trying to come up with a reasonable solution to a tricky problem. You refuse to consider the rights of the majority or of society at large, like all on the Left merely accusing them all of hateful attitudes, and I'm objecting to that.Christian love does not require me to force something on society that is experienced as odious by a majority. What about love for THOSE people? They don't count to you. If they have an unreasonable idea about the situation you have to change it but your angry attitude isn't the way to go about that. What about a concern for a stable cohesive society too? I don't think this situation threatens that but it's felt that way by a lot of people and it should be addressed in a sympathetic way.It also isn't loving to treat people's sins as normal when as a Christian you know they are forbidden by God and only going to take them to Hell in the end. This pertains to ALL sin of course, but you want us to pretend that cross-dressing and gay sex are OK when that's the kind of lie that can only destroy them in the end. There's no love in that. This also doesn't have to be part of this discussion, which is mostly a practical problem for social peace, but if you are going to bring up loving your neighbor it does have to be part of THAT discussion.I think I've come up with a fairly reasonable way of thinking about this situation on the level of society, which IS a difficult one for a lot of people even if you in your superior wisdom think they should all be dead. I think you need to drop your strident self-righteousness and get real.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, actually I meant that I haven't paid much attention and was not aware of laws passed by states or other levels of government to protect LGBT people from discrimination.I support laws that ban any form of discrimination against anyone and I see that they need to be as specific as necessary, so the assholes cannot find any loopholes.This my lack of awareness about the pro-LGBT laws due to just not seeing much news about them. Oddly, I seem to have become more aware of anti-LGBT laws that have been passed or proposed around the country. Maybe this is because the gay friends I have post more info about the anti laws on the social media I pay attention to.As I noted earlier, I have cut all ties with family members who are bigots against pretty much everyone who is different from them, including me, as an atheist.

To me, it looks like you are saying that the very existence of LGBT people is a violation of your rights.I disagree that your view represents the majority or society at large.

So it's just a few who are objecting to laws allowing people to choose which restroom to use, just a very few influencing governors of states to come up with contrary laws? Really?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

First thoughts - Smoke & Mirrors or Bread and Circuses - a show to distract from any meaningful issues. Pander to the small minds with loud voices. Best if it fires up the loudest of the opposition so everything is US or THEM.Is this really a problem? What's the percentage of the population we're talking about? According to Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law guestimate - maybe 0.3% of population is transgender. How long are you in a public bathroom anyways?What's the percentage of children living in poverty? According to US Dept of Education National Center for Education Statistics - 21% of childrenThat's what's important to politicians - Where a handful of people pee.Because millions of hungry, cold children aren't worth their time.Frankly I think a lot of conservative issues are more about not spending "My Money" rather than fixing OUR PROBLEMS. Hungry kids, broken water systems, failing bridges are to be ignored because they cost money. Let's spend all our time fixing problems that don't exist because they are cheap and sound good to the loudest of the base.The ME generation in operation.

No, the numbers objecting are not small. The question you are addressing is whether the objectors are the majority. The answer is that the people objecting do not appear to be in the majority. And their reasons appear to be exactly the ones that you yourself put down as being unimportant or fabricated. So why would it be important whether their views were the majority in that case?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, if you read more of the thread you'll find that I agree that it's not a big problem, but that it's not completely unreasonable that a LOT of people think it is, because all they hear is the rhetoric and namecalling from the Left instead of a rational explanation of how it's not the big problem they fear it is. Attitudes such as yours and Rrhain's and Tanypteryx's just escalate their fears when what is needed is some appreciation of the fact that they aren't being given a reasonable understanding of the realities involved.