# I pit the people behind anti-transgender "bathroom bills" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 22, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831 "2016-02-22T20:24:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/181 "2016-04-04T18:31:19Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I am here to challenge you. Wait…you actually believe that, don’t you? Serious question: Have you ever paused to consider that sometimes arrogance is not laudable? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/182 "2016-04-04T18:32:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But who has argued against this? How is this relevant if everyone agrees with you on this? Nobody - yet. But if someone decides to challenge the idea that a man must look and act like a traditional idea of a man - and I’ll bet someone will, since we’ve already been doing that even without the involvement of transgenders - then someone who “looks” male could use the women’s room. At that point, what’s the point? You can’t know if the person is (identifies as) male or female. What’s the difference between sharing a bathroom with someone who looks male but considers herself female and someone who looks male but considers himself male? Why even have gendered restrooms at that point? I am not saying that it would be a bad thing to get rid of gendered restrooms. I’m saying it’s wrong to open the door to one kind of person and then shut it to the next, and silly to pretend we’re not. You can go around saying this will never happen, but 20 or 30 years ago people would have laughed if you said transgender people would have legal protection to use restrooms of their gender too. > [@](#): > > There are many reasons to support gay marriage (or multiple marriage, for that matter), and there are plenty of reasons why it might be perfectly reasonable to support legalization of the former but not the latter. The reason I cited is the relevant one, and a very common one. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/183 "2016-04-04T18:45:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The reason I cited is the relevant one, and a very common one. …among those who don’t think they can argue the “If you support gay marriage why don’t you support marriage to children or even animals, because those are the logical next steps!” crap any more and get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/184 "2016-04-04T19:00:09Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I thought I did. Never mind, we can just go from here. > > Close. > > I’m saying it’s problematic (I wouldn’t go so far as logically inconsistent) to declare that using a certain restroom is a right in a system where using restrooms are already banned for certain people based on certain characteristics. I think it could be problematic, but it isn’t in this case (at least based on current data that I have). > [@](#): > > More important, I’m saying that this issue isn’t as easy as it seems to fit in that neat package of civil rights, because it replaces one bright line - sex - with a much more fluid and arbitrary one - gender. Who is to say that appearance defines gender if sex doesn’t? How can we insist that men are people who dress or look a certain way? Isn’t that just as bad, if not worse, for gender-based rights? Why oh why do you keep bringing this appearance stuff up, since no one is insisting anything about appearance? Who are you arguing with? What have I said that conflicts with your question about appearance? > [@](#): > > Sure, but it’s the other way around too - the reason we have gender-segregated restrooms is because people would feel harmed by sharing the restrooms. The harm is based entirely on their comfort level. Saying it’s only about harm opens the door (so to speak) to someone simply saying “I’m harmed by using a restroom with a trans person.” > > And on the flip side, the defense of whites only restrooms was that blacks weren’t harmed by them. They were “separate but equal.” That slogan was an attempt to say that segregation simply kept people apart without harming either group. No, it’s not the other way around – that’s not why we have gender segregated restrooms, or at least that’s not a good enough reason. The reason we have them is because nearly everyone prefers them (for various reasons beyond just fear of harm), and because nearly everyone abides by them, and they don’t cause harm. Since they don’t cause harm, and since changing this convention would be very difficult and costly, then it’s entirely reasonable to continue this convention. It would be different if they caused harm, or if most people wanted the convention to change. But in current circumstances, it’s reasonable, logical, and consistent for society to continue using segregated-gender restrooms, as long as trans people can use them without discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/185 "2016-04-04T19:04:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > …among those who don’t think they can argue the “If you support gay marriage why don’t you support marriage to children or even animals, because those are the logical next steps!” crap any more and get away with it. I’m not surprised in the least that you thought that’s what I was doing. It’s obvious you are having a kneejerk reaction instead of shutting the fuck up and actually listening. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/186 "2016-04-04T19:05:02Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nobody - yet. > > But if someone decides to challenge the idea that a man must look and act like a traditional idea of a man - and I’ll bet someone will, since we’ve already been doing that even without the involvement of transgenders - then someone who “looks” male could use the women’s room. At that point, what’s the point? You can’t know if the person is (identifies as) male or female. What’s the difference between sharing a bathroom with someone who looks male but considers herself female and someone who looks male but considers himself male? Why even have gendered restrooms at that point? > > I am not saying that it would be a bad thing to get rid of gendered restrooms. I’m saying it’s wrong to open the door to one kind of person and then shut it to the next, and silly to pretend we’re not. > > You can go around saying this will never happen, but 20 or 30 years ago people would have laughed if you said transgender people would have legal protection to use restrooms of their gender too. You’re not getting my position then. No one is saying that _people who identify as one gender can’t have non-traditional gender appearances_. No one is saying that men must look like men, or women must look like women. I’m saying it doesn’t matter if some trans men don’t present a traditionally male appearance, and it doesn’t matter if some trans women don’t present a traditionally female appearance – they still get to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. The appearance issue is utterly irrelevant to my position. It doesn’t matter how people present – what matters is gender identity. > [@](#): > > The reason I cited is the relevant one, and a very common one. There are many very common reasons – most people, in my experience, have multiple reasons for supporting gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/187 "2016-04-04T19:09:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m not surprised in the least that you thought that’s what I was doing. It’s obvious you are having a kneejerk reaction instead of shutting the fuck up and actually listening. Listening since you started, troll. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/188 "2016-04-04T19:10:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > the reason we have gender-segregated restrooms is because people would feel harmed by sharing the restrooms. Is it? Got a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/189 "2016-04-04T19:12:08Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Yes, there have been a few, including recently the Governor of South Dakota. But for the most part, when I meet lawmakers face-to-face, their minds are normally long since made up. Pro or Con, by the time the bill is first aired you only seem to be able to convince a small portion. > > Or they’ll say things like: > > “Well yeah, you’re OK, you look like a normal woman (:rolleyes:) but what about some Frankenwoman 6-feet tall?” (:rolleyes:) (:rolleyes:) (:rolleyes:) > > “It’s a sincerely-held religious belief.” Then why I show them my research articles on transgender and the Bible, “Yeah, I’d expect that sort of propaganda. All I know is my minister/priest/rabbi/etc. says I’m supposed to vote this way, and HE knows God better than YOU.” > > My favorite exchange was: > Councilman: “What if this bill saves one single little girl from being raped by a child molester. Isn’t that worth it?” > > Me: “What if the bill leads to one, single transgender girl being raped in the men’s room. Is it still worth it?” > > Councilman: “In my opinion, people should face the music for their lifestyle choices. If a boy wants to dress like a slut and go to the men’s room, he’ll be treated like a slut.” > > Me: (combination of despair and head exploding) > > Sometimes the best we can do is get an anti- person to abstain, because “the issue needs further study…” That’s pretty depressing. I’d been holding out hope that these folks were just pig-ignorant, and that meeting a trans person and realizing that they weren’t slavering maniacs out to rape their wimmin and children would be enough to get them to change their minds. I was trying to attribute to stupidity what apparently can only be explained by malice. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/190 "2016-04-04T19:13:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why oh why do you keep bringing this appearance stuff up, since no one is insisting anything about appearance? Who are you arguing with? What have I said that conflicts with your question about appearance? Because that’s what the standard is now for who uses restrooms. We have replaced the standard of genitals with one of appearance. Maybe not officially, but that’s the expected social norm. If you want to identify as male, you have to look male and vice versa. If that weren’t true, we’d have people with male genitals who look male using the women’s room because they identify as female. And that’s okay, because people shouldn’t have to conform to a social standard of appearance any more than by sex (and it is bizarre to expect them to - if sex doesn’t determine gender, how can we insist that appearance does?). If we reach the point where neither sex nor appearance defines gender, what’s the point of having any policy based on gender, let alone gender-segregated restrooms? > [@](#): > > No, it’s not the other way around – that’s not why we have gender segregated restrooms, or at least that’s not a good enough reason. The reason we have them is because nearly everyone prefers them (for various reasons beyond just fear of harm), and because nearly everyone abides by them, and they don’t cause harm. Since they don’t cause harm, and since changing this convention would be very difficult and costly, then it’s entirely reasonable to continue this convention. But by that logic, one could say we shouldn’t let transgenders use opposite-sex restrooms (not of their gender) because “nearly everyone prefers” that they not be in the same restroom with them. “Nearly everyone abides by them” seems to be a circular argument. As for harm, we already talkd about that. Harm is subjective. > [@](#): > > It would be different if they caused harm, or if most people wanted the convention to change. But in current circumstances, it’s reasonable, logical, and consistent for society to continue using segregated-gender restrooms, as long as trans people can use them without discrimination. It’s all a circular argument. People want it, so it is okay, except for keeping out transgenders, when it’s not okay. And you completely ignored the “separate but equal” thing. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/191 "2016-04-04T19:14:57Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Is it? Got a cite for that? I mean, come on. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/192 "2016-04-04T19:15:14Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Is it? Got a cite for that? So far all he’s got is “someone’s possibly hurt feelings = someone getting the shit beat out of them”. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/193 "2016-04-04T19:15:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Listening since you started, troll. No you haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/194 "2016-04-04T19:17:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So far all he’s got is “someone’s possibly hurt feelings = someone getting the shit beat out of them”. Nope. Shut up. You are in way over your head and you don’t know what’s going on. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/195 "2016-04-04T19:22:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’re not getting my position then. No one is saying that _people who identify as one gender can’t have non-traditional gender appearances_. Of course they are. That’s how we currently define who can use which restroom. If you look like a man and go in the women’s room, people will freak out. > [@](#): > > No one is saying that men must look like men, or women must look like women. I’m saying it doesn’t matter if some trans men don’t present a traditionally male appearance, and it doesn’t matter if some trans women don’t present a traditionally female appearance – they still get to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Legally, perhaps, but if enough people who look male use the women’s room, two things will happen: 1. Some women will freak out and stop wanting to use a women’s room at all, preferring totally private unisex single-use rooms instead. 2. The rest will stop caring what you look like, if they ever did. Either way, there will no longer be a point in having gendered restrooms any more. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying why pretend? Just get it over with and change the restrooms. > [@](#): > > The appearance issue is utterly irrelevant to my position. It doesn’t matter how people present – what matters is gender identity. But you can’t know someone’s gender identity any more. They can look like a man but identify as a woman! What’s the point of caring who you share a bathroom with if you don’t even know who it is, gender wise? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/196 "2016-04-04T19:22:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nope. > > Shut up. You are in way over your head and you don’t know what’s going on. That’s the only possible “damage” you’ve come up with so far, troll-hurt feelings. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/197 "2016-04-04T19:26:54Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Because that’s what the standard is now for who uses restrooms. No it’s not. There is no standard. In some places, perhaps those in charge of a particular restroom might look closely at appearance, but not everywhere (and probably not in most places). > [@](#): > > We have replaced the standard of genitals with one of appearance. Maybe not officially, but that’s the expected social norm. If you want to identify as male, you have to look male and vice versa. There was never a standard of genitals. Never in history, unless you have some other data, has there been genital checks at restrooms. > [@](#): > > If that weren’t true, we’d have people with male genitals who look male using the women’s room because they identify as female. And that’s okay, because people shouldn’t have to conform to a social standard of appearance any more than by sex (and it is bizarre to expect them to - if sex doesn’t determine gender, how can we insist that appearance does?). > > If we reach the point where neither sex nor appearance defines gender, what’s the point of having any policy based on gender, let alone gender-segregated restrooms? We don’t insist on anything with regards to genitals, and we don’t insist on anything with regards to appearance, for this issue. Genitals don’t matter, and neither does appearance. For the nth time, it’s about gender identity – that’s what defines gender. It’s a big topic, and a complicated one, and perhaps not an intuitive one to someone with traditional ideas about sex and gender (and I don’t know if this includes you), but that’s what it’s about. People go to the “right” bathroom because _that’s what most people prefer to do_. Not because of genitals or appearance – because they want to go to the bathroom associated with their gender identity. I see no reason to believe that this will change in any significant way. > [@](#): > > But by that logic, one could say we shouldn’t let transgenders use opposite-sex restrooms (not of their gender) because “nearly everyone prefers” that they not be in the same restroom with them. > > “Nearly everyone abides by them” seems to be a circular argument. > > As for harm, we already talkd about that. Harm is subjective. Harm is subjective, _and the subjects of the harm have spoken up in a major way_. And I don’t believe that “nearly everyone prefers” that trans people not be in the same restroom. So no, my logic does not say this. The convention will continue, and it’s logical that it continues, because almost everyone prefers this (and abides) and because it causes no harm. Not for one of these two reasons, but for both of them together. If one of these things changed, then we should re-evaluate the convention. > [@](#): > > It’s all a circular argument. People want it, so it is okay, except for keeping out transgenders, when it’s not okay. It’s not circular – _keeping out trans people harms them_. This can be demonstrated and has been. It’s not okay to bar trans people from using their bathrooms because that would harm trans people. > [@](#): > > And you completely ignored the “separate but equal” thing. I don’t see it’s relevance – it was a bad argument for segregation by race, and properly killed by the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/198 "2016-04-04T19:29:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There are many very common reasons – most people, in my experience, have multiple reasons for supporting gay marriage. I’d say most sum it up with that one. Why dispute that? Do you think it’s not a good reason? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/199 "2016-04-04T19:31:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > …among those who don’t think they can argue the “If you support gay marriage why don’t you support marriage to children or even animals, because those are the logical next steps!” crap any more and get away with it. I see you left polygamy out of that.🙂 Some slippery slopes are invalid. Some are not. Proponent of gay marriage, assuming they are sincere, say it’s about consenting adults finding happiness with the ones they love. That’s an argument for plural marriage, it’s also an argument for marriage to robots or other intelligent species, or their own clones. There’s nothing wrong with any of that if you accept the premise, which all reasonable people do. Likewise, if we accept the logic of transgender access to facilities, the same argument permits access by all genders and sexes to all facilities. Lance’s basic argument is correct: the logical end result is no more gender seperation. It is a convention, and one that will become increasingly pointless because we’re actively encouraging people to not be uncomfortable around members of the opposite sex in bathrooms and locker rooms. Which is also, of course, fine. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831/200 "2016-04-04T19:37:26Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’d say most sum it up with that one. Why dispute that? Do you think it’s not a good reason? If there were no other reasons at all, then no, I don’t think that’s enough of a good reason by itself. My reasons (the main ones, anyway): there are many same-sex couples raising kids and they deserve the same protections that the kids of other couples have; giving these rights to same-sex couples causes no harm; and same-sex couples with or without children are harmed by barring them these rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-people-behind-anti-transgender-bathroom-bills/746831.md?page=11)