Smart toilets should be able to determine the ‘spray’ pattern of someone peeing. If it detects the wrong gender it could light up red and sound an alarm.
No, that’s not the actual reason for them or the narrative being sold by proponents of the laws. If they really didn’t care about who uses the bathroom at target, then they wouldn’t have made a law that governs who uses the bathroom at target, and wouldn’t give speeches about how they’re protecting your female children from dangerous male sexual predators. The ‘man in a dress’ rhetoric doesn’t work if you’re talking about schools, it should be ‘boy in a dress’ if that was the focus of the laws.
(bolding mine)
In the case of NC, they didn’t. The law only covers schools and public buildings.
You’re free to disagree with my assessment, but ISTM that the law was intended to, excuse my use of this term here, “protect” students and coworkers. And, as far as I know, states and cities weren’t/aren’t being sued over their bathroom policies, whereas schools are.
eta: I believe South Dakota’s bill, the one that was passed in the house but vetoed by the governor in March, only applied to schools. There are lots of bills, I don’t care to look them all up.
No, that’s not correct. The law makes explicit requirements that schools and buildings operated by state agencies (including areas that people are often required to be like court houses) mistreat trans people. But it also explicitly removes the ability of cities and counties to forbid such mistreatment, and makes it clear that the mistreatment is encouraged (since it’s mandated for government-run buildings and no county or city can do anything about it). It also explicitly removes any ability to sue an employer for discrimination against trans people and forbids any county or city from allowing such suits. Jim Crow laws didn’t explicitly say all that they were doing in the text.
Just look at the arguments being used to support the bill.
The NC law was intended to hurt trans people and provide a vehicle for rhetoric against them to help the current administration get more votes from hardcore bigots, and to let the rhetoric about ‘man in a dress’ help cover complaints about the removal of worker protections. It hasn’t worked as they intended, clearly.
It isn’t stated where this video takes place, but here’s an apparent example of this being enforced. Of course in the video it’s a cis-gender woman being ejected, not a transwoman. Since it’s a video posted to Facebook without much more information on where or when it’s happening there might be context missing, but I think it’s an illustration of what enforcement would be like.
I think things would vary in different places. In small towns where the cops are less busy, they might respond to calls regarding this, while in some bigger cities the cops might be too busy to care. Cis-gender women will be harassed, but I’m guessing that people who support these laws would say that those women should look more womanly if they don’t want to be mistaken for a man.
I’m not going to disagree with you that the law was clearly intended to hurt trans people, but you’re the one who asked the question about “how did they expect to enforce it.” I’m just trying to answer that question.
Think about the protection for employers. Employers are going to know that they’ve hired a trans person most of the time, and if they don’t then there wouldn’t be any issue from a woman who looks like a woman using the woman’s room. It’s only when they find out, either because Janet from HR used to be Jim from HR, or someone knows so and so who knows so and so who knows that Janet from HR used to be Jim at her old company. In all cases, there’s no genital check required, because the employer knows already that the employee is transgendered.
The same is true for Seannette from the Parks Department who was Sean before her vacation last year, or Sarah in 10th grade who was Sam last year.
This is just my attempt to honestly answer your question. To the extent that this law was designed to target and harm trans people, I’m telling you that it was designed to allow schools and public offices to target and harm specific trans people that everyone already knows are trans. You’re looking at it from an outside, edge-case perspective. “How will they know that so and so in the courthouse bathroom was born a different gender?” They don’t care about that. They care if they do know. And those are the people the law was designed to harm.
See?
The simple logic is that since you can’t enforce gender separation, that anyone can use any bathroom they want. Sure, passing bathroom laws requiring people to use the bathroom that corresponds with their birth sex is stupid. But it’s also stupid to expect that we’re going to make it so that only people who identify as female go into female bathrooms. Once you open the door to the transgendered, you’ve opened the door to everyone. There’s just no way to prevent that. I, as a man, have the right to use the female bathroom for no other reason than that I feel like doing so. And I don’t have a problem with that. Transgendered people SHOULD be allowed to use whichever bathroom they like. And so should everyone else.
It has always been that way. Nobody noticed the transgendered before, because they don’t look like the sex they were born as. None of those complaining about men in the ladies room is imagining this guy peeing next to their daughters, yet that is what the new laws will mandate.
That’s where my ignorance was fought. I’d always assumed it was some kind of law, but it’s actually(mostly) just a social convention. One that I will continue to respect 99% of the time(hey sometimes you gotta go and pooping in public is against social conventions too).
However, the social convention is frayed now. If it was always okay for transgendered to use the bathroom of their choice and no one noticed, as you argue, then there’d be no controversy. This whole thing wasn’t started by anti-LGBT folks wanting to solve a problem that didn’t exist, it was started by LGBT advocates demanding that transgendered use the bathroom of their choice. But there’s no way to verify gender identity, so if the social convention changes to allow the transgendered to go wherever they want, it changes for all of us.
Great!
Wait, what?!?
If, as you say above, transgendered folks have always used the bathroom of their choice, then how was the controversy started by them? They didn’t have to demand anything, because they had it all along.
I didn’t ask that question. If you’ll note, I didn’t name a specific law, and asked a general question about how such laws are even supposed to function on a basic level. You decided to go on a tangent about one particular law, and to go on about it’s ‘intent’, which is not what I asked. I probably shouldn’t have engaged in discussion of the tangent, and your answer here seems to amount to ‘they don’t expect to ever actually enforce such laws outside of really specific situations’.
It wasn’t, and people did notice, and it wasn’t even limited to trans people, as the video linked in the thread shows.
I will assume this is a joke, since it’s so incredibly ridiculous.
Also, are you aware that some men have to pee sitting down for medical reasons?
And did you know that women can, in fact, pee standing up, in a reasonably straight spray line, if they’ve done a lot of yoga, Pilates, or kegel exercises?
FYI.
There’s your OP, you specifically mention “their versions,” meaning specific versions of the law(s) supported by these hypothetical proponents. Then you wonder how they intended to enforce those laws. Now you’re castigating me for what, talking about specific versions of these laws and the intended method of enforcement? Whatever dude.
How can anyone expect to enforce laws banning concealed weapons from public buildings without widespread use of expensive metal detectors and security guards? The answer is that those laws were never intended to create literal gun-free workplaces, but rather to discourage people from bringing weapons under the threat of punishment, and then providing the means to actually punish them if it’s discovered (via unknown means) that they brought a weapon anyway. Same thing here. Nobody proposing these laws expects that no transgendered person will use the “wrong” bathroom ever again, but they will be discouraged from doing so, and if the truth ever comes out they can be punished.
Let me get this straight (no pun intended). This guy Aydian Dowling, FTM Transgender YouTube Star Aydian Dowling Wants to Inspire and Support who appeared on the cover of Men’s Health last year, (see him on YouTube at Aydian Dowling: Becoming the Ultimate Guy - YouTube) was born a female but is now a male. He is not gay. He is attracted to women. He wants to bonk pussy.
So are you telling me that the people in that state have passed a law forcing this guy, who wants to bonk females, to piss in the same washrooms as their daughters?
We Canadians (sorry to be smug and critical to our American friends) have been observing Trump, washroom laws and other insanity and we can’t help but wonder, (and I am saying this as kindly as possible) do you need your meds adjusted or something?