**I am NOT OFFENDED BY THE TERM “CIS”.
**
Never said I was. I just support those who say they are. You can’t believe they are? Why not? Why can’t they be offended by a term which is clearly commonly used in an offensive way? Because they are not a member of a "marginalized group’?
Why do you think the use of cis means you are the enemy, hidden transphobe, etc? That is ridiculous. Unless you are trying to make trans issues all about you and your feelings about matters that have virtually no effect on you. If you are truly sincere then perhaps you need to do a little more reading and listening, rather than portraying yourself as persecuted by the use of the cis label. Honestly, you pretty much hijacked this thread with your issues.
Okay, well the term has been in use for some time, even if you are just becoming familiar with it. The goal is to treat people as people by recognizing them and not treating them like they are invisible by using language that includes them. We no longer use the male pronoun as the generic singular or default pronoun either, because it was exclusionary, sexist and imprecise.
Just not seeing it man, sorry. From where I am sitting you just haven’t made a very persuasive case - it looks more like it is very occasionally used in a disparaging way, but not with frequency enough to be worth more than a mild shrug. And yeah, I personally tend to shrug at shruggable items.
It is hardly worth this extended debate.
Because Una called me one, just maybe?
Jesus fucking christ. What is this? 1970? Kumbayah and Free to Be You and Me? They tried that whole “let’s all be gender-neutral and pretend race doesn’t exist” thing in the '70s. It didn’t work.
If you “don’t like labels,” then don’t use them, and enjoy reveling in your imaginary moral superiority. Just shut the fuck up about it and let us get back to discussing the thread topic.
No one is saying what you seem to think they are saying. This is a totally fabricated persecution complex of your own invention.
And this …
… is totally what you are doing** DrDeth**. :mad:
No I didn’t. I said that persistently focusing on minutiae in debates like these and hijacking them was a tactic of such. The topic is about toilet concerns and suddenly we have God knows how many posts about your concerns over Latin prefixes and whether they’re offensive, even though you say you’re not offended over them. And I don’t believe anyone else in this whole thread has said they’re offended. Nor has any evidence been presented to show any significant number of women offended by cis- in the manner and context in which is has been used.
So yeah it’s focusing way too much on your own personal concern which does not seem shared by even a small number of others, and which you say doesn’t actually offend you. :dubious:
Cuz it’s not and cuz they’re dipshits. Don’t side with the dipshits.
Free to be You and Me* didn’t work?* Thanks for killing my childhood innocence.
ETA: I still know “Billy Wants a Doll” by heart.
Does he? The cis women here aren’t sending the trans ones to the men’s room… it ain’t me he’s siding with.
Let’s keep level heads in this topic, everyone. This is not the Pit.
Feel free to take it to the Pit, however, if anyone wishes to.
People - Do you have an issue with people in the people’s room?
And ironically, this thread was created because someone else started focusing on the minutiae of bathroom access in a thread about medical coverage for transsexual issues.
Re real word examples what was the end result of this lawsuit retransgendered individuals presenting as women using the women’s bathroom? I can’t seem to find how the suit was resolved.
Well… I’ll be darned no lawsuit conclusion popped up but this did.
Last December I posted about Scottsdale bar owner Tom Anderson’s decision to convert his bar Anderson’s Fifth Estate to a bar that serves the gay community after making headlines in 2006 when he banned a transgender woman following complaints she was using the women’s bathroom.
ScottsdaleIn December, Anderson said he had decided he wanted to “change Scottsdale” after a number of high-profile anti-gay hate incidents there. He also saw a need in the nightlife community for a new gay venue.
Anderson’s decision seems to have paid off. The club, which now has lines it never saw before, was lauded in the Arizona Republic over the weekend, and tells the story of Anderson’s transformation after the unfortunate 2006 incident:
Wow…talk about your sloppy reporting. Conflating cross dressing, transgenderism *and *homosexuality…we’ve got the Trans Trifecta, folks!
No.
This thread has shown OVERWHELMINGLY that siding with the cis women means siding with the trans women too. Cis women do not have a problem with trans women using the women’s bathroom. Even before SRS. Even if a transwoman has masculine traits. The vast majority of cis women* would prefer everyone uses the safer women’s room.
I don’t know why men care so much about who’s allowed to use the ladies room. It’s obvious they DO care, a lot, but I’ll be damned if I know why. That’s the topic for another thread, one that I don’t care to start because I’ve read enough trans hate this week. Maybe it’s just a tiny minority of men who have this insatiable need to police women’s bathrooms? I hope so. But it definitely proves trans women should stay the fuck outta men’s rooms, because there are some nasty attitudes out there.
*as shown in this unscientific poll, but still
Una was actually disagreeing with this idea. I can see how it’s confusing taken out of context, but if you look back at post #179, and re-read what jackdavinci said, you can see what she meant.
Jackdavinci created a false dichotomy by suggesting that it is a choice “between cis women feeling safe from harm and a trans person wanting to feel included.” That is not the case.
Not only is it a false dichotomy, but it’s a misrepresentation of what cis and trans women are saying in this thread. Cis women don’t seem to feel threatened by the presence of trans women in the ladies’ room. And trans women aren’t using the ladies room because they “want to feel included.” The latter statement…well, there’s so much wrong with it that I can’t even start.
Una was showing him how going along with that false dichotomy would necessarily lead to trans women having to use the mens’ room, and she has aptly demonstrated already the horrors that that can, and often do, result.
I’ve no quarrel with comments about manufactured outrage and that cis- is an entirely acceptable phrase used by those active in the community and aware of transgender as an academic issue … OTOH I must admit that my first thought seeing this thread was that use of the term in the op (and “SRS”) was likely to bias the responses to those who already understand before reading the thread that they are cis-women and being asked - potentially a significant bit of selection bias. Not that these polls are scientific in any case.
Just saying.
That said the argument made here - that even if some non-zero number of cis-women were uncomfortable with trans-women in the girl’s room (and how can they tell who is a trans-woman who is not yet passing well from a decent cross-dresser?) the real risk to a transwoman in the boy’s room is a much greater issue - seems like a slam dunk.
Yes, thank you for explaining. 
Coincidentally, I had lunch today at a nice cafe with one of my dearest friends, a transwoman who is a lawyer. Being the only transwoman lawyer who is out in about…oh, a 200-mile radius, she gets a lot of transpeople seeking her out. I discussed the debate we were having in here, and she told me a story.
One of her recent cases involved a transwoman who was at a dive bar in Missouri, who went into the women’s bathroom. She passes decently, but someone she ran into in the women’s bathroom knew she was born male, and ran out and grabbed the bouncer. The bouncer came in and dragged her forcibly out of the bathroom, hurting her arm, and told her if she went in again they would “throw her perv ass out.” Now this transwoman legally changed her gender on her government IDs, and according to my friend that means from case law that she is as female as if she had a uterus, and the bouncer was in violation of the law. The bar’s defense is that the law only says they have to allow a person to use a bathroom, not any particular bathroom.
So going on - the bouncer scared the fuck out of her, and she tried to show him her legal IDs but he reportedly told her to “shut up, freak.” She hadn’t had time to use the bathroom as she was waiting in a line outside the stalls when the bouncer grabbed her. She wanted to leave but had a long drive back, and needed to pee. After balancing the potential problems of wetting herself versus peeing, she ducked into the men’s bathroom. The bouncer came over and made a play of standing outside, scowling at her.
Inside the men’s room, there was a line again. And to summarize the primary action of the case, she was taunted, jeered at, propositioned, pushed, punched in the ribs, and when she got into a stall the men gathered outside, hooting and catcalling, and trying to open the door to “see whatcha got.” She was too terrified to actually pull her skirt up and pee, so she tried to leave, resolving that she would just risk it. But at first they blocked her in, refusing to let her go until she “showed her junk.” Then when she tried to push past them they grabbed her breasts and started trying to take her clothes off. She screamed for the bouncer, and no one came. She dove for the bathroom door and someone grabbed and tore her skirt off. She got to the door and opened it just as someone punched her in the side of her face, hard enough to nearly knock her out.
The bouncer then bodily took her and threw her out of the bar into the parking lot, without her purse, claiming that she was a “perv” who took her skirt off on purpose, and telling her she was “dead meat” if she ever came back. While in on the gravel in the parking lot, she wet herself. Then she stood at the door, covered in her slip soaked with urine, begging the bouncer to give her her purse back, and after several minutes, apparently because they realized that there was a possibility that the police might consider stealing her purse to be illegal, they threw it out in the parking lot, spilling the contents in the dark all over the gravel.
A couple of sympathetic women she didn’t know helped her gather her stuff, one loaned her a sweatshirt to tie around her waist as a skirt, and they helped her to her car.
I’d like everyone who might think transpeople should be using the men’s room when presenting female to think about the case above. Because while it’s not the norm, it’s not far off from what I hear on a weekly basis.
When I think about what happened to this woman, it makes me so glad I carry. I actually was in tears hearing about her story - in 2013 this happened. Fuck. :mad:
Why the hell do so many men in this thread care which bathroom transgendered women use, or care who uses the women’s bathroom? I couldn’t care less who uses the woman’s bathroom, and I am a man. I also don’t care if a transgendered man uses the men’s restroom because well… they are male.
People should use whichever bathroom they feel safer using, and that’s that.
As for the story Una Persson posted, all of the men involved in that story should be thrown in jail and see how they like being harassed, because I bet you they’d have a lovely time in prison with sexually-deprived men in their jail cells.