This Bathroom Law Confusion

Don't know him, so I can't ask him. But since he understands he is "presenting as male" and thus using the male room, no problem. It seems that "presenting as" overrides "self-identifying" is cases where the two may be in conflict. And there isn't any such conflict in this case.My problem is that the term "self-identifying" has been used a lot, without a clear definition of what is meant. To me, a person who is "presenting as" a woman can at the same time be "self-identifying" as being a man. And it seemed that there was a broad feeling that a person should be able to choose the room based on "self-identity". Which seems to say that a woman to man transsexual who is at a "presenting as" a woman stage should be free to use the "self-identity" male room.Moose

I think the confusion here is that nobody other than you intended to distinguish between "presenting as" and "self-identifying" and it was not clear that you were doing that. (Not saying that the miscommunication was your fault)Now that you've made the distinction even more clearly, I agree that there is an issue. Most folks likely meant "self-identifying" to cover all cases. But I wonder if there are a significant number of folks who are not making some attempt to present themselves as a gender different from their biological one, but who still want to go to a bathroom different from their biological gender. I'm guessing that to be a rare situation, but maybe someone else can provide some input.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Related reading material, in a topic started by a transgender person:http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=36364Moose

Minnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

Don't know him, so I can't ask him.

---

Then as the Great Dread Pirate Roberts put it:Get used to disappointment.Since you don't know him and can't ask, why are you so concerned? Why does the choice of bathroom of someone you don't know and will never encounter bother you so much that you want to go out of your way to make sure that he stands a good chance of getting assaulted?

quote:

---

It seems that "presenting as" overrides "self-identifying"

---

No, try again. Think about what you said, consider the assumptions that you're making, and try again.Hint: Trans people aren't in it for the thrill.

quote:

---

And it seemed that there was a broad feeling that a person should be able to choose the room based on "self-identity".

---

And they do. Once again, you're making a tremendous assumption that you need to get over. Think about the implications of what you're saying and try again.

quote:

---

Which seems to say that a woman to man transsexual who is at a "presenting as" a woman stage should be free to use the "self-identity" male room.

---

And why would they do that? You've fallen for the same bone-headed, transphobic assumption. Why do you think you know more about what's going on inside a trans person's head than they do?

You realize that that article isn't helping you, yes? 10th paragraph gives the lie to your argument.Trans people are highly aware of the trappings of gender and work to manage their way through the world. Why do you seek to substitute your understanding of their lives?

frako responds to me:

quote:

---

Not single ocupancy, unisex bathrooms, just remove te women and men sign on the door, and install some pisuars, in the women stall's, wall in the men pissuars turning them in to stalls and add toilets to the stalls.

---

You'd still need a massive retrofit. Again, there are regulations regarding how many facilities must be available given the number of people who are going to be using them (Title 29,  1910.141, Table J-1). That's part of the reason why there is a line for the women's room but not the men's room: The existence of a urinal means you can have more toilet facilities for men in the same space as you can for women. You can have a toilet and two urinals in the place of two toilets. To do what you're suggesting would reduce the number of points per room which means you need more space in order to have enough.I'm not complaining about the idea. I'm saying it's going to be a tough sell given that current buildings wouldn't be able to meet regulations without major redesigns.

It happened to me once (I'm a regular dude). Back in college, I grew my hair down to my elbows. Mostly kept it in a ponytail though. Anyways, I was hanging out with a friend in the girls' dorm and really had to pee and I didn't feel like going over the boys' dorm. So, I let my hair down and looked down at the floor and presented as a female, while self-identifying as a male, so I could go use the girls' bathroom and not get in trouble. I even turned around and sat down in the stall to pee. There were other girls in there but they didn't notice. Well shit, I chose to use the room based on what I was presenting as out of convenience.

"Other girls?" Besides you? You just outed yourself, "regular dude". Okay as long as we're sharing... Once I pulled into a Kangaroo service station because I had been driving a long time and I needed to take a pee quite urgently. The men's room was locked, but my need to pee would not subside by "walking it off", so I used the ladies room(it was single use), locking the door behind me. If there had been a law against similar to HB2 that applied to business facilities, I likely would have had to piss my pants to avoid breaking the law instead of merely risking embarrassment upon leaving.

It would be pretty stupid to pass a law regulating single-occupancy bathrooms by one gender or another.

I suppose so. But the men's bathroom is single-occupancy by convention only. It has a sink, a urinal, and a stall. No reason why two folks could not use the thing even simultaneously. But generally folks tend to lock the door when they go in.

The 10th paragraph:

quote:

---

I've envisioned myself, looking like I do and walking into a woman's restroom. I visualize the wide-eyed stares and those ladies quickly grabbing their property and leaving. What is worse is the idea of scaring the crap out of the very young girls who I envy so much. I don't know what would be worse. To drive them out of a place which should be a sanctuary for them or having the reality of being rejected, yet again for having the curse of being born in a man's body.

---

Find anywhere where I advocate that a male appearing person should use a woman's restroom. Don't blow too much time trying, because it never happened.A more substantial message later (maybe).MooseAdded by edit - By the way, all my messages prior to posting the link to the Skeptic Cafe topic were done before I ever saw that topic.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

I think you miss the point. The article talks about a dilemma held by a transgender individual. Regardless of what this person looks like, they and not the rest of us ought to decide which bathroom he goes into.When this person dresses up as a woman, there is still no comfort with going into the ladies room and would perhaps rather they would rather take the chance on getting pummeled in the mens room or finding some other alterntive. But that is up to her and not us. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So a transgender person who physically appears to be male but is psychologically female should be free to use the ladies room. That may be fine and dandy morally and legally, but even the most pro-trans people think that that will cause, at the minimum, a lot of tension for all parties involved.As I understand it, Rrhain does not advocate that a male appearing person use the ladies room, nor does the transgender person from the Skeptic Cafe site topic. Nor do I.Or am I wrong about Rrhain's position: I repeat: Define "gender identity". To me, that is the psychological identity.So a very male appearing but psychological female person should use the ladies room? Rrhain, rather than a long message saying I'm an ignorant transphobe, how about a simple yes or no answer to that question.And I think what may or may not be hiding under clothing is irrelevant.Moose

What does "appear to be male" mean to you? In the case of this particular article, we are talking about a person who feels unconvincing as a female even when she puts on a dress and uses toilet paper padding. Accordingly, she does not want to go into the ladies room. I am not prepared to force her to use one bathroom or the other by law. Nor am I prepared to tell her to "hold it" until she gets home.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Minnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

Find anywhere where I advocate that a male appearing person should use a woman's restroom.

---

Oh, god.Please, let us not play dumb. It's hard to describe just how off you are in this. The reason you're complaining about "the argument [you] never made" is that nobody accused of making the argument you are whining about. It's like a strawman squared.Are you really about to require me to repeat every single damned post you've made in this thread to remind you of what you've been saying? You are, aren't you?Here's you in Message 151So when you then make reference to an article that completely denies that attitude, that tells the tale of a person who understands that their internal feelings and their external presentation are not exactly in sync, for all sorts of reasons, and then directly talks about how they wouldn't do what so many are complaining about (and that you are desperately tap dancing around suggesting they would do) out of a very real understanding and concern about how the other people in the room would react to their presence, you don't get to complain about the "argument [you] didn't make."You were trying to find some reason to second-guess a person who just wants to pee in peace.PLEASE, let us not play dumb.