I’m baffled how this transgender/use the facilities dictated by your gender at birth works.
Say a person has transitioned from male to female; according to this law they are required to use the male facilities, yes? But they are, in appearance and for all intents and purposes female. Seems rather awkward.
And conversely, a female to male trans would be male outwardly, correct? And the only way to prove they’re not is to either show a birth-certificate or to drop trousers.
So what’s to keep a male (not trans) from accessing a female facility by stating that they’re trans - originally female? And then proceed to rape/pillage/skeeve/lordknows what.
Or a female non-trans from using the male facilities? I would imaging some primo gawking opportunities at the urinals.
Would everyone need to show their birth-certificate in order to use the toilet?
Can someone explain how this is supposed to work, please?
What it’s supposed to do is get transphobic voters riled up enough to vote in the next election, and to vote for the candidates pushing these laws (even though the laws are very hard to enforce). In the case of North Carolina’s HB2, it also used transphobia as a cover for gutting legal protections for workers, slapping down a jurisdiction that had a different opinion that the legislative majority, and acted as a warning to any other localities who dare to think or act independently. NC HB2 was further supposed to trap the leading Democratic candidate for Governor to take a position in favor of an unknown and unpopular minority believed by the uninformed to be dangerous.
No bathroom monitors needed. It’s pure political grandstanding. Sure it’s cost NC hundreds of jobs already, and soon thousands, but if the Governor and legislature get re-elected, who cares what happens to the state? It’s not like it’s the job of the Gov or the State House & Senate to run things.
The idea isn’t to have people show their birth certificate to use a bathroom. In the law you can have your birth certificate changed to accommodate your new gender. The idea is that if someone is accused of Pervy behavior they just claim to be transgender. It is far easier to prove someone was somewhere they were not supposed to be than to prove that said person behaved inappropriately. The idea is to sort out the true transgendered from the fakers.
I’m further confused by the thought that some people apparently are checking out who’s in the bathroom. I’ve used public toilets on numerous occasions. I take care of bidness, wash, and leave. I’ve never done any sightseeing, made eye contact, had a discussion, etc.
It is a wedge issue that either is believed to be a problem by people that have no clue what transgendered is or is put forth by people that understand, but want to drive that wedge.
The fact that you “get” that someone born with a vagina, but identifies as male, and appears as male - would be better off on a lady’s room (around Ted Cruz’s daughters) is just ridiculous.
I don’t remember where I saw the link, but a guy with a beard and cowboy hat posted his pic during part of this “debate” (on the issue - not presidential) and asked if that was really what these idiots wanted - as he was born with a vagina.
It pathetic that the Media “asks” questions about these issues to Ted Cruz - they should be showing him that picture and asking him what restroom they want that guy to go into.
I totally get why people that have never met someone that is transgendered might be confused at first and think that transgendered has something to do with sexuality or that they are cross dressers or drag queens. But there are enough examples of ‘normal’ transgendered individuals (not trying to insult drag queens or anything, but I think there are people out there that confuse the two) to really put these idiots to task.
I would pay good money to see Ted Cruz get asked a question by a transgendered person that Ted Cruz mistakes as the “wrong” sex.
The ironic thing is that most states don’t actually have laws against entering the opposite gender’s restroom, unless it’s for “salacious intent.” So North Carolina is unique in restricting a specific subset of people under threat of punishment.
This also makes me wonder what will happen if a transgender person does follow the law, but gets arrested or otherwise harassed because they appear to be a man using the ladies’ room or vice versa.
Presumably he’d be acquitted once he produced evidence to the trial court that he was born female (or more likely the charges would be dismissed beforehand). Either it’s an ill thought out law with no practical way of being enforced.
I don’t think I’ve ever had an interaction with anyone in a public bathroom in my life. I also think something sexual (if that’s what people are supposed to be worried about) would be just as likely to happen with someone of the same sex. And anyone who wanted to go rape someone, or whatever, wouldn’t be concerned with the bathroom law. The wide stance homophobes would still be able to have their fun. It’s just political opportunism.
Thanks for the answers.
After reading the other thread and the comments in this one, I’ve concluded that this law is just as dumbass and confusing as I thought it was.
How do these people manage to get elected? And probably worse; re-elected. (rhetorical question btw)
I’ve wondered how would this ever be monitored? Who would be the “junk police”? Maybe there’s going to be chip equipped birth certificate cards issued that you have to swipe before the door to the john opens.
If are a transgender use the restroom of the sex you appear to be, there are no urinals in a womens room so everybody uses a stall. The only way any one will know your true sex is if YOU make an issue of it and run YOUR mouth. Shut up, go piss and move on.
It’s proving to be an issue for people who’s genders are not clear by looking at them. Androgynous people masculine looking women and feminine looking men. Are they making it an issue be not conforming the gender norms? It has nothing to do with them running their mouths.
This is incorrect. Bathroom panic laws are explicit that you must use that bathroom that corresponds to the gender assigned to you at birth – in other words, what was originally on your birth certificate, not what you changed it to. So you could have changed your birth certificate and still be violating the law.
How on earth they planned to enforce this is beyond me, though. Actually I’m pretty sure no one has thought this through that far. Does everyone have to present papers before being allowed to go pee, now? How else would you know?
As far as why – yeah, it’s a political football, used by those who essentially want to rule by fear and the “us vs. them” strategy. And they get certain segments of the public to follow along by continuing to spread the misinformation that trans-women are “guys in a dress.” The wonks are deliberate in trying to ensure that people don’t really understand just what transgender means.
It also targets gender presentation, so as to ensure those non-conformist non-binary folks and those trans-folk who don’t feel that “passing” is a requirement to be their gender know that their existence won’t be tolerated.
If we relied on the free market to be the guarantor of people’s civil rights, then right now we’d still be debating what to do about colored folk in public bathrooms, let alone transgendered people.
And that still doesn’t elucidate just how any of this is to be enforced. Are you expecting companies to hire bathroom bouncers to check birth certificates before anyone is allowed to pee? Would they have contingency plans in place for the inevitable accidents when people are denied access because they didn’t carry their papers with them to the grocery store that day?
Uh, yes? Public places of amusement generally have more than one customer bathroom; volume of clientele would necessitate that. Bars are bars, the floorplans don’t change just because management has a target market in mind.
The really crazy thing is that gay bars don’t even check your gay card for entry, so straight people can come in and hang out too. It’s almost like management takes the view that their money is just as green and enforcement would be a pointless hassle.