New North Carolina bathroom bill

[twenty02]

This entire issue smells just like the Pence/RFRA issue.

Politicians going out of their way to fix a problem that never existed.

Nobody could point to one case in Indiana where someone's religious liberty was theatened by the gheys, but yet Pence and Co were adamant they needed to fix something that wasn't broken.

Same thing going on here. Was there a massive public outcry due to confused bathroom patrons?

And gop leaders will huddle next Jan and again wonder why the party is going down the toilet.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why should trans people make others uncomfortable because they are using the restroom? I don't understand how you can simply assume that this would be a problem.

At the restaurant, we had an M2F transitioning as a regular. All of the employees and other customers treated her with respect, and she was a valued part of our community. But bathrooms weren't an issue for us, as the first floor women's room had a lock on the door, so it could be used by one person at a time.

But I find it difficult to believe, had she been on the second floor (which had two stalls in the bathroom), that her presence in that bathroom would have bothered any of our other customers.

I guess the easiest way to explain this goat is that, however a person identifies themselves isn't exactly the way other people are going to identify them.

I mean, if you hooked up with a girl at a bar and went back to your place only to discover her little secret, does the fact that the physically-male person you're with identifies as a female make everything good with you?

I'm not asking that to be flippant. I would guess most heterosexual men would still consider this person a man -- and them proclaiming to identify as a woman probably doesn't, to quote Jerry Seinfeld, sweeten the deal much.

So if a good standard for social tolerance is "live and let live", I don't think this quite clears the bar. Whoever identifies as what in their own mind, we're still left with the prospect of people with male genitalia going into women's rooms where there may well be young girls.

 

[meridian]

And Perrysburg isn't like some kind of liberal Mecca. It's pretty well-to-do, pretty white, pretty educated, but about 50/50 politically. And still, I can't remember anyone ever having a problem with her. Everyone just treated her like a person, and that was that.

It's amazing how easy it is to be a decent human being.

Speaking of that, I know only one such person. S/he is a friend of my daughter and I see him a few times a year; and I saw her a few times a year when he was she. I've never treated her and now him any different. In fact, everybody treats him the same way as they knew him as a female.

 

[meridian]

And gop leaders will huddle next Jan and again wonder why the party is going down the toilet.

Why do you say that GOP is going down the toilet?

They have the house and the senate, don't they? All they need to do is to elect Trump and educate him to be a Republican. They also have the Supreme Court, although the picture may change if Trump loses.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess the easiest way to explain this goat is that, however a person identifies themselves isn't exactly the way other people are going to identify them.

I mean, if you hooked up with a girl at a bar and went back to your place only to discover her little secret, does the fact that the physically-male person you're with identifies as a female make everything good with you?

I'm not asking that to be flippant. I would guess most heterosexual men would still consider this person a man -- and them proclaiming to identify as a woman probably doesn't, to quote Jerry Seinfeld, sweeten the deal much.

So if a good standard for social tolerance is "live and let live", I don't think this quite clears the bar. Whoever identifies as what in their own mind, we're still left with the prospect of people with male genitalia going into women's rooms where there may well be young girls.

If I went home with a woman and discovered she was trans, and especially if she still had male genitalia, I'm fairly certain I would lose all sexual attraction for her. But that's a me thing, not a her thing. It has to do with whom and what I'm attracted to, not with who or what she is, and I wouldn't consider her any less of a woman. So, no, I don't think you are trying to be flippant, but I just don't see how that's relevant. My personal sexual proclivities are unrelated to the issue of who should use what bathroom. I mean, certainly, people have screwed in bathrooms before (I personally threw more than one patron out for that in my time!), but that's not what bathrooms are for, and it's certainly not relevant to whether or not you should be comfortable with X person being in a bathroom.

As I already said, I think Mama Goat summed it up: "It all comes down to what you present to the world; if you tell the world you're a man, use the men's room, and if you tell the world you're a woman, use the women's room." Obviously, this doesn't work for people who identify and present as a third gender, but that's always going to be a different bag of beans to deal with, no matter how you parse this, because our bathrooms are based on a male-female dichotomy.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

But that's a me thing, not a her thing.

Precisely. What they identify as (which exists primarily between their ears) is not the same thing as what you identify them as (which involves what's between their legs).

That's OK. And it doesn't make you a bigot. But, in a restroom situation -- which often involves mutual nudity -- why is it any different in that it's a "thing" for others, not for them?

The physicality matters here. Because, just as with sex, it doesn't just involve them and how they identify. Others are involved -- and how they identify that person matters, too. You can't just brush others away as if they don't matter, or as if they're narrow-minded bigots because they mostly consider people with penises to be men, not women.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The NY Times editorial page today opined thusly:

Gov. Pat McCrory, who signed the bill into law late Wednesday, said it was necessary to undo Charlotte’s ordinance, which included protections for gay and transgender people, because it allowed “men to use women’s bathroom/locker room.” Proponents of so-called bathroom bills, which have been introduced in state legislatures across the country, have peddled them by spuriously portraying transgender women as potential rapists.

That threat exists only in the imagination of bigots. Supporters of the measures have been unable to point to a single case that justifies the need to legislate where people should be allowed to use the toilet. North Carolina is the first state to pass such a provision.
​

While it may well be true that some unhinged proponents are equating trans people with potential rapists, that just sidesteps one of the real concerns of people who otherwise have no problem with the issue. Non-trans males, who are rapists, pedophiles, voyeurs and other types of deviants, can take advantage of the gender identity facility to gain access to women's bathrooms and commit their mayhem. There is nothing to stop them. Women and girls are forced to accept them into the bathroom passively, well trained to be tolerant, and have no way of knowing the real identity or intent of these people.

Frankly, I find it astonishing that liberals can so blithely sweep this under the carpet. As it is in the US, women (and girls) have a hard time with deviants who follow, bother, stalk, and otherwise make their lives miserable. Of course this is not about trans people doing this. this is about deviants having carte blanche to women's restrooms, simply by asserting female identity.

I'm all for an idealistic society in which civility reigns supreme. Meanwhile, I'm a firm advocate for girls and women to not be terrorized by non-trans deviants.

 

[Rockfish1]

Frankly, I find it astonishing that liberals can so blithely sweep this under the carpet.

Sweep what under the carpet? Please provide examples of trans people attacking young girls in public rest rooms.

 

[mjvcaj]

 

[hoot1]

The NY Times editorial page today opined thusly:

Gov. Pat McCrory, who signed the bill into law late Wednesday, said it was necessary to undo Charlotte’s ordinance, which included protections for gay and transgender people, because it allowed “men to use women’s bathroom/locker room.” Proponents of so-called bathroom bills, which have been introduced in state legislatures across the country, have peddled them by spuriously portraying transgender women as potential rapists.

That threat exists only in the imagination of bigots. Supporters of the measures have been unable to point to a single case that justifies the need to legislate where people should be allowed to use the toilet. North Carolina is the first state to pass such a provision.
​

While it may well be true that some unhinged proponents are equating trans people with potential rapists, that just sidesteps one of the real concerns of people who otherwise have no problem with the issue. Non-trans males, who are rapists, pedophiles, voyeurs and other types of deviants, can take advantage of the gender identity facility to gain access to women's bathrooms and commit their mayhem. There is nothing to stop them. Women and girls are forced to accept them into the bathroom passively, well trained to be tolerant, and have no way of knowing the real identity or intent of these people.

Frankly, I find it astonishing that liberals can so blithely sweep this under the carpet. As it is in the US, women (and girls) have a hard time with deviants who follow, bother, stalk, and otherwise make their lives miserable. Of course this is not about trans people doing this. this is about deviants having carte blanche to women's restrooms, simply by asserting female identity.

I'm all for an idealistic society in which civility reigns supreme. Meanwhile, I'm a firm advocate for girls and women to not be terrorized by non-trans deviants.

Lurker, are you saying laws allowing transgenders to use the restrooms of their preferred sex will encourage perverts from dressing up as the opposite sex in order to terrorize people?

Seems to me most jurisdictions there are are laws which already outlaw such practices. Wouldn't a male dressing up as a women and terrorizing a women in a restroom be against the law with or without transgender laws allowing a transgendered person to use the restroom of a new identity?

 

[iuwclurker1]

Lurker, are you saying laws allowing transgenders to use the restrooms of their preferred sex will encourage perverts from dressing up as the opposite sex in order to terrorize people?

No. My point is that I, a man, would not have to dress up as a woman. I could walk into any bathroom and say I identify as a woman and there's nothing anyone could do about it.

What is dressing up as a woman anyway? Women wear jeans and shirts. You seem to be assuming that to be transgender woman you have to "dress and act like a woman." There is only one criterion: you have to identify as a woman in your mind. That's it. I've seen many a transgender woman who dressed and looked like a man. In fact, there's no way they could have ever passed as a woman. Their bodies were conspicuously and incontrovertibly male. Plastic surgery was never going to change the anatomy of their physiognomy.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Seems to me most jurisdictions there are are laws which already outlaw such practices. Wouldn't a male dressing up as a women and terrorizing a women in a restroom be against the law with or without transgender laws allowing a transgendered person to use the restroom of a new identity?

Obviously it's a against the law to terrorize another person, insofar as such a law exists. Perverts tend to break laws in their perversion. That's not my point. My point is that any male can now walk into a women's public restroom and act like he belongs there. He wouldn't even have to claim to identify female. He could just walk in and be there. If someone tells him it's a women's bathroom, he could just say, "I'm a woman." That's it. End of conversation. He's allowed to be there.

From there, if he's a voyeur, he could then check out the women and girls. Anything illegal about staring through the sink mirror at a 10-year-old girl with a salacious grin?

 

[iuwclurker1]

any male can now walk into a women's public restroom and act like he belongs there. He wouldn't even have to claim to identify female. He could just walk in and be there. If someone tells him it's a women's bathroom, he could just say, "I'm a woman." That's it. End of conversation. He's allowed to be there.

Furthermore, it would probably be an infringement on his rights (I'm guessing, not being a lawyer) to even make any sort of a public issue about this with the man. That is, one couldn't even legally require that he publicly state he's a woman or make any other sort of proclamation. So he could live and work in Bedford, as a man with wife and kids, and then appear in the women's restroom at the Monroe County Public Library and inconspicuously (or not) ogle 7-year-old girls to his heart's content. Humbert Humbert's dreamworld come true.

 

[twenty02]

Why do you say that GOP is going down the toilet?

They have the house and the senate, don't they? All they need to do is to elect Trump and educate him to be a Republican. They also have the Supreme Court, although the picture may change if Trump loses.

The GOP is going to nominate Trump, who will get killed in the EC, and seriously harm down ballot races. The GOP is very likely to lose the Senate and see diminished majorities in the House.

 

[iuwclurker1]

From the USDOJ National Sex Offender Public Website, link to a need-to-know fact sheet from the Center for sex Offender Management:

How Common Are Sex Crimes?

Sex crimes are unfortunately fairly common in the United States. It is estimated that one in every five girls and one in every seven boys are sexually abused by the time they reach adulthoodii. One in six adult women and one in 33 adult men experience an attempted or completed sexual assaultiii.

How Many Arrests Occur for Sex Offenses?

Sex offenses represent under 1% of all arrestsiv. In 2004, the last year for which official report data were available, there were 26,066 arrests for forcible rape and 90,913 arrests for other sex offenses in the United Statesv . Adults account for about 80% of arrests; juveniles for 20%vi. Males account for approximately 95% of arrestsvii.
​

We're not talking about rare occurrence of sexual deviance, stalking, and other forms of physical and mental terrorism on victims in the US.

Adults​

• • About 20 million out of 112 million women (18.0%) in the United States have been raped during their lifetime. 12
  • Only 16% of all rapes were reported to law enforcement. 12
  • In 2006 alone, 300,000 college women (5.2%) were raped. 12
  • Among college women, about 12% of rapes were reported to law enforcement. 12
  • A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey on the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking found:
    • 81% of women who experienced rape, stalking, or physical violence by an intimate partner reported significant short- or long-term impacts. 18
    • About 35% of women who were raped as minors also were raped as adults, compared to 14% of women without an early rape history. 18
    • 28% of male rape victims were first raped when they were 10 years old or younger.

Child/Teen Victims​

• • In a 2012 maltreatment report, of the victims who were sexually abused, 26% were in the age group of 12–14 years and 34% were younger than 9 years. 9
  • Approximately 1.8 million adolescents in the United States have been the victims of sexual assault. 4
  • Research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that approximately 1 in 6 boys and 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before the age of 18. 1
  • 35.8% of sexual assaults occur when the victim is between the ages of 12 and 17. 1
  • 82% of all juvenile victims are female. 5
  • 69% of the teen sexual assaults reported to law enforcement occurred in the residence of the victim, the offender, or another individual. 5
  • Teens 16 to 19 years of age were 3 ½ times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.6
  • Approximately 1 in 5 female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.

This stuff appears to be multiplying with the internet. Deviants are resourceful.

Abuse via Technology​

• • Approximately 1 in 7 (13%) youth Internet users received unwanted sexual solicitations. 8
  • 9% of youth Internet users had been exposed to distressing sexual material while online. 8
  • Predators seek youths vulnerable to seduction, including those with histories of sexual or physical abuse, those who post sexually provocative photos/videos online, and those who talk about sex with unknown people online.

I'm NOT arguing that this has anything to do with transgender people. I'm arguing that 1) there is a huge prevalence of deviance in the US, 2) the resourceful perpetrators will potentially have a field day with the liberties allowed to all men who decide to abuse the gender identity movement, and 3) there will be no way for girls or women to know or do anything about the men who come into the women's restrooms.

 

[iu_a_att]

Transgender people are victims of sexual attacks and hate crimes at an alarmingly high rate. http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html
Forcing transgender women to use men's public restrooms seems very likely to increase their vulnerability to attacks while doing precious little to prevent attacks on women by heterosexual male predators. At the same time the law will force transgendered men to use women's bathrooms immediately making them innocent targets of harassment and suspicion. This is bad law driven more by politicians eager to pander to an "ick" factor or a desire to maintain traditions of gender conformity within some sectors of society.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Precisely. What they identify as (which exists primarily between their ears) is not the same thing as what you identify them as (which involves what's between their legs).

That's OK. And it doesn't make you a bigot. But, in a restroom situation -- which often involves mutual nudity -- why is it any different in that it's a "thing" for others, not for them?

The physicality matters here. Because, just as with sex, it doesn't just involve them and how they identify. Others are involved -- and how they identify that person matters, too. You can't just brush others away as if they don't matter, or as if they're narrow-minded bigots because they mostly consider people with penises to be men, not women.

No, not precisely. What you are saying is nothing like what I said. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. That you fail to understand is sad, but predictable.

 

[hoosboot]

Furthermore, it would probably be an infringement on his rights (I'm guessing, not being a lawyer) to even make any sort of a public issue about this with the man. That is, one couldn't even legally require that he publicly state he's a woman or make any other sort of proclamation. So he could live and work in Bedford, as a man with wife and kids, and then appear in the women's restroom at the Monroe County Public Library and inconspicuously (or not) ogle 7-year-old girls to his heart's content. Humbert Humbert's dreamworld come true.

It seems like hoot's point is that there is nothing stopping him from ogling 7-year-old girls to his heart's content outside of the bathroom and that there are laws to address illegal activities that take place either inside or outside the bathroom.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Furthermore, it would probably be an infringement on his rights (I'm guessing, not being a lawyer) to even make any sort of a public issue about this with the man. That is, one couldn't even legally require that he publicly state he's a woman or make any other sort of proclamation. So he could live and work in Bedford, as a man with wife and kids, and then appear in the women's restroom at the Monroe County Public Library and inconspicuously (or not) ogle 7-year-old girls to his heart's content. Humbert Humbert's dreamworld come true.

As a lawyer, I can assure you that everything you are so worried about is complete nonsense.

 

[iuwclurker1]

As a lawyer, I can assure you that everything you are so worried about is complete nonsense.

Don't think, believe your teacher?

Why bother posting with no explanation? How am I to know you even understood what I posted since you have a history of misinterpreting others' posts?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Don't think, believe your teacher?

Why bother posting with no explanation? How am I to know you even understood what I posted since you have a history of misinterpreting others' posts?

That wasn't for you. It was for gullible readers who might think your "guesses" about the law are accurate. Carry on.

 

[iuwclurker1]

It seems like hoot's point is that there is nothing stopping him from ogling 7-year-old girls to his heart's content outside of the bathroom and that there are laws to address illegal activities that take place either inside or outside the bathroom.

A locker room at a public pool is perhaps a better example. Outside the locker room, girls aren't exposing themselves, inside they are. Perps of criminal acts generally like seclusion and secrecy for their acts. You or I are never likely to witness something like this. Even when it happens to girls, statistics indicate it will most often go unreported, but the mental trauma will exist and persist. Is that what we want?

I have no skin in this game. I'm a man, my daughter's a grown woman. I have no grandkids (yet). I'm just doing my best to see this from the point of view of women and girls, given a scenario that the NY Times didn't address and as far as I can tell, no one here or anywhere else is addressing. I'm not suggesting I have solutions. I'm raising an issue that is being ignored. This is an issue that could potentially affect any female anywhere any time. I don't think it's a triviality. But in the final analysis, I couldn't care less because I don't walk down dark alleys and I advised my children not to either. This kind of movement is dimming the lights in public restrooms and locker rooms, imho.

 

[iuwclurker1]

That wasn't for you. It was for gullible readers who might think your "guesses" about the law are accurate. Carry on.

Jeez, Goat, you're hurting my feelings again. Ouchiepoo. I guess you think others are gullible enough to take your incipient lawyerliness as the Gospel.

To my recollection you're the only lawyer here who assumes that we'll believe your authority without elaboration. Sope for example readily admits where his legal expertise is lacking whereas you exhibit the sophomoric attitude of knowing everything about everything. I gather you and Sope have different criteria for "expertise."

 

[iuwclurker1]

Transgender people are victims of sexual attacks and hate crimes at an alarmingly high rate. http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html
Forcing transgender women to use men's public restrooms seems very likely to increase their vulnerability to attacks while doing precious little to prevent attacks on women by heterosexual male predators. At the same time the law will force transgendered men to use women's bathrooms immediately making them innocent targets of harassment and suspicion. This is bad law driven more by politicians eager to pander to an "ick" factor or a desire to maintain traditions of gender conformity within some sectors of society.

I get the concern you're raising. Do you get the one I'm raising? Is there a solution that addresses both concerns?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Jeez, Goat, you're hurting my feelings again. Ouchiepoo. I guess you think others are gullible enough to take your incipient lawyerliness as the Gospel.

To my recollection you're the only lawyer here who assumes that we'll believe your authority without elaboration.

When it comes to matters of law and how it's interpreted or applied, I would listen to goat, rock, and even Co before I listened to anyone else. Just like I'd listen to my board certified doctor before I listened to a faith healer.

 

[hoosboot]

A locker room at a public pool is perhaps a better example. Outside the locker room, girls aren't exposing themselves, inside they are. Perps of criminal acts generally like seclusion and secrecy for their acts. You or I are never likely to witness something like this. Even when it happens to girls, statistics indicate it will most often go unreported, but the mental trauma will exist and persist. Is that what we want?

I have no skin in this game. I'm a man, my daughter's a grown woman. I have no grandkids (yet). I'm just doing my best to see this from the point of view of women and girls, given a scenario that the NY Times didn't address and as far as I can tell, no one here or anywhere else is addressing. I'm not suggesting I have solutions. I'm raising an issue that is being ignored. This is an issue that could potentially affect any female anywhere any time. I don't think it's a triviality. But in the final analysis, I couldn't care less because I don't walk down dark alleys and I advised my children not to either. This kind of movement is dimming the lights in public restrooms and locker rooms, imho.

Yes, the locker room is a better example as women aren't unclothed out in the open in most bathrooms. I've noted experience with my daughter in locker rooms with men and I understand the point you are making. I'll ask our transgender employee their opinion and see if they have any ideas for how to address both concerns.

 

[meridian]

The GOP is going to nominate Trump, who will get killed in the EC, and seriously harm down ballot races. The GOP is very likely to lose the Senate and see diminished majorities in the House.

I hope you are right. Unfortunately, I don't have as much faith as you do of American voters.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

presuming all the different classifications get their own restrooms, perhaps we could have a WC contest to come up new international symbols to put on the restroom doors for all the new classifications.

 

[iu_a_att]

I get the concern you're raising. Do you get the one I'm raising? Is there a solution that addresses both concerns?

I get the concern you are raising. Let me restate it though to be sure you agree I get it. You are saying that sexual predators will exploit laws allowing transgendered women to enter public restrooms to predate on women and girls. Is that right? And, just to be clear, I am saying that forbidding the transgendered from using restrooms consistent with their gender presentation will put them at risk of harassment, abuse and predation as well as create anxiety for those using the public restrooms who see people using the restroom who appear to be the wrong sex.

If I have understood your concerns and you have understood mine then we might proceed to assess the relative magnitudes of each concern as well what should be done.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I get the concern you are raising. Let me restate it though to be sure you agree I get it. You are saying that sexual predators will exploit laws allowing transgendered women to enter public restrooms to predate on women and girls. Is that right? And, just to be clear, I am saying that forbidding the transgendered from using restrooms consistent with their gender presentation will put them at risk of harassment, abuse and predation as well as create anxiety for those using the public restrooms who see people using the restroom who appear to be the wrong sex.

If I have understood your concerns and you have understood mine then we might proceed to assess the relative magnitudes of each concern as well what should be done.

Yes. That would be interesting if it were possible to assess the relative magnitudes, although that implies an either/or choice rather than a mutual solution.

Do you think the harassment or assault you're referring to originates within a men's restroom? Some stranger somehow figures out the transgender-woman victim is transgender on the spot and commits some act then and there? If so, I'm wondering if that person is significantly safer going into a women's restroom, since the entrances are generally adjacent and intolerant assholes will be assholes. I'm asking this independent of the NC law question. Just curious. My experience is mainly from friends and acquaintances living in the Bay Area and I wasn't privy to many accounts of violent intolerance, none in a restroom context.

 

[iu_a_att]

Do you think the harassment or assault you're referring to originates within a men's restroom? Some stranger somehow figures out the transgender-woman victim is transgender on the spot and commits some act then and there? If so, I'm wondering if that person is significantly safer going into a women's restroom, since the entrances are generally adjacent and intolerant assholes will be assholes. I'm asking this independent of the NC law question. Just curious. My experience is mainly from friends and acquaintances living in the Bay Area and I wasn't privy to many accounts of violent intolerance, none in a restroom context.

I think having someone who presents as male in a women's restroom or someone who presents as female in a men's restroom is likely to face harassment. This law perversely MANDATES that transgender people must violate existing gender norms...and, as a consequence, greatly increases the chances they are harassed or abused.

As far as I can tell the only concrete thing you have brought up in this thread that you worry would be allowed if the transgendered are allowed to use gender appropriate bathrooms is this

any male can now walk into a women's public restroom and act like he belongs there. He wouldn't even have to claim to identify female. He could just walk in and be there. If someone tells him it's a women's bathroom, he could just say, "I'm a woman." That's it. End of conversation. He's allowed to be there.

From there, if he's a voyeur, he could then check out the women and girls. Anything illegal about staring through the sink mirror at a 10-year-old girl with a salacious grin?

Let's deal with the first part of your concern. First, you claim that any male can now walk into a women's public restroom and act like he belongs there. He need only, if asked, tell people that he is a woman. I suppose this could happen. But the law NC has implemented will REQUIRE the person (whose picture I included at the start of the thread) who not only looks like a man but, if asked will reply he is a man, to use the women's public restroom! What then? Women tell him, "but this is the women's room" what is he supposed to do, show them his (potentially surgically altered) genitals? To prove that he is forced by law to be there? It is crazy! The fact is that under the NC law any male can now walk into a women's public restroom and act like he belongs there. He wouldn't have to claim to identify female...if someone tells him it's a women's bathroom he could just say "I am transgendered" and REQUIRED to be here by law!

Bottom line I don't see how the legislative solution passed in NC does anything to prevent the scenario you are worried about while it does create the harm I am worried about.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I think having someone who presents as male in a women's restroom or someone who presents as female in a men's restroom is likely to face harassment. This law perversely MANDATES that transgender people must violate existing gender norms...and, as a consequence, greatly increases the chances they are harassed or abused.

As far as I can tell the only concrete thing you have brought up in this thread that you worry would be allowed if the transgendered are allowed to use gender appropriate bathrooms is this Let's deal with the first part of your concern. First, you claim that any male can now walk into a women's public restroom and act like he belongs there. He need only, if asked, tell people that he is a woman. I suppose this could happen. But the law NC has implemented will REQUIRE the person (whose picture I included at the start of the thread) who not only looks like a man but, if asked will reply he is a man, to use the women's public restroom! What then? Women tell him, "but this is the women's room" what is he supposed to do, show them his (potentially surgically altered) genitals? To prove that he is forced by law to be there? It is crazy! The fact is that under the NC law any male can now walk into a women's public restroom and act like he belongs there. He wouldn't have to claim to identify female...if someone tells him it's a women's bathroom he could just say "I am transgendered" and REQUIRED to be here by law!

Bottom line I don't see how the legislative solution passed in NC does anything to prevent the scenario you are worried about while it does create the harm I am worried about.

I'd argue your NC variant is not parallel to my variant simply because the women in that situation would scream bloody murder, call the cops, and they'd come and demand his birth certificate, which he wouldn't have and so would get thrown in jail. In other words, in my scenario, women are trained to be passive, in your NC scenario, women would feel free to exhibit their distress and call for help. In the end, your scenarios wouldn't occur with any frequency because the risk would be too great.

In any case, you're still beating the either/or drum. I'm not standing up for the NC law. Maybe that's what you need to hear from me. I'm only now becoming aware that in other states there could be the problem I'm suggesting. Maybe I should keep quiet and hope no perverts ever get the idea, but I suspect they're more clever than I. But my scenario has nothing to do with the NC law really, now that I think about it. It has to do with all the states that have adopted the transgender notion of access to restrooms. That cat is out of the bag. Guess we'll have to just wait and see what happens. Either my scenario will play out or not. I surely hope not.

 

[iu_a_att]

I'd argue your NC variant is not parallel to my variant simply because the women in that situation would scream bloody murder, call the cops, and they'd come and demand his birth certificate, which he wouldn't have and so would get thrown in jail. In other words, in my scenario, women are trained to be passive, in your NC scenario, women would feel free to exhibit their distress and call for help. In the end, your scenarios wouldn't occur with any frequency because the risk would be too great.

In any case, you're still beating the either/or drum. I'm not standing up for the NC law. Maybe that's what you need to hear from me. I'm only now becoming aware that in other states there could be the problem I'm suggesting. Maybe I should keep quiet and hope no perverts ever get the idea, but I suspect they're more clever than I. But my scenario has nothing to do with the NC law really, now that I think about it. It has to do with all the states that have adopted the transgender notion of access to restrooms. That cat is out of the bag. Guess we'll have to just wait and see what happens. Either my scenario will play out or not. I surely hope not.

You are saying that your understanding of how the NC law works is that when a "man" enters the women's public restroom the women in that situation would "scream bloody murder, call the cops, and they'd come and demand his birth certificate, which he wouldn't have and so would get thrown in jail". Let's take your scenario as very likely particularly with all the publicity about the new law. Then what is very unlikely is that a "man" with a male birth certificate will go into a woman's restroom. Unfortunately, what becomes likely because it is MANDATED BY LAW is that a transgendered man WILL try to follow the law and use the woman's restroom. At which point the women will scream bloody murder, the cops will arrive and not being able to produce a birth certificate the transgendered man will be hauled off to jail. So, in order to prevent the entirely farfetched scenario you invented the NC law creates the not at all farfetched injustice against the transgendered!

You say that I am beating the "either/or" drum and that you are not standing up for the NC law. What law are you standing up for?

 

[iuwclurker1]

You are saying that your understanding of how the NC law works is that when a "man" enters the women's public restroom the women in that situation would "scream bloody murder, call the cops, and they'd come and demand his birth certificate, which he wouldn't have and so would get thrown in jail". Let's take your scenario as very likely particularly with all the publicity about the new law. Then what is very unlikely is that a "man" with a male birth certificate will go into a woman's restroom. Unfortunately, what becomes likely because it is MANDATED BY LAW is that a transgendered man WILL try to follow the law and use the woman's restroom. At which point the women will scream bloody murder, the cops will arrive and not being able to produce a birth certificate the transgendered man will be hauled off to jail. So, in order to prevent the entirely farfetched scenario you invented the NC law creates the not at all farfetched injustice against the transgendered!

You say that I am beating the "either/or" drum and that you are not standing up for the NC law. What law are you standing up for?

Guy, I'm not making any claims about the NC law. I'm saying that it's common sense that if there's a law against people looking like men entering women's restrooms (no matter how that law is constructed) that women will object in one way or another when such a person comes into the restroom. Nothing more, nothing less. I couldn't care less about the NC law. (And yes, I get that the NC law forces a guy looking like a man to walk into the women's restroom. Let go of the NC law. I'm not talking about it. Talk about it with someone else. Sorry if I turned out to hijack your thread with my concern.)

I'm also saying that I realized while typing my last post that what actually concerns me has nothing to do with the NC law but rather laws that permit, unwittingly or not, male perverts to claim to identify as women, walk into a public women's locker room, and be there without recourse by anyone.

Can I make my position any clearer? Do I have to repeat it fifty more times?

I don't know what the law should be. I'm neither a lawyer nor a legislator. Just a concerned citizen taking an analytical look at this. Goat claims I'm out to lunch but neither he nor any other lawyer has explained how. I don't see how I can be. I can only see that people who have limited experience with transgender women might think that they all wear dresses and make-up and curtsy. Obviously that's not true. What's true is that any male, dressed in a male suit, can claim to identify as a women and there's nothing anyone can say against it. I can wear a superman outfit and claim to identify female and there's nothing you can do about it legally. What then?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I too, am offended by anything that Julia Sweeney thinks is funny.

 

[iu_a_att]

I'm also saying that I realized while typing my last post that what actually concerns me has nothing to do with the NC law but rather laws that permit, unwittingly or not, male perverts to claim to identify as women, walk into a public women's locker room, and be there without recourse by anyone.

It is good to clarify your concern. We can agree that people ought to feel safe when they use the restroom and that laws should be passed where necessary to increase their sense of safety. Unfortunately, many people still think of the transgendered as "perverts" and otherwise stigmatize them. These people represent no threat whatsoever and yet laws such as NC passed serve to reinforce and legitimize injustice. I wonder if our legal colleagues can help us sort out whether these laws pass constitutional muster.

 

[twenty02]

It is good to clarify your concern. We can agree that people ought to feel safe when they use the restroom and that laws should be passed where necessary to increase their sense of safety. Unfortunately, many people still think of the transgendered as "perverts" and otherwise stigmatize them. These people represent no threat whatsoever and yet laws such as NC passed serve to reinforce and legitimize injustice. I wonder if our legal colleagues can help us sort out whether these laws pass constitutional muster.

I'm no lawyer, but "constitutional muster" isn't exactly a bedrock