An appearance check with this law in place would actually prevent some people from using the bathroom of the gender of their birth. Have you ever actually seen photos of FtM transgender people? Look up Buck Angel sometime (although I wouldn’t do it at work). Do you think HIM in a ladies’ room wouldn’t be more disruptive than, say, Laverne Cox?
Quoting myself to bring up a point. The above is not logically inconsistent to the sponsors of this law because the actual purpose of the law has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with trying to officially discourage transgender persons from actually DOING anything about their gender dysphoria, and, taken to its logical conclusion, excluding them from public life altogether.
Only ingrained traditions and mores that are unlikely to change in the short or medium term.
But we have no reason to believe that things wouldn’t continue as they have for centuries: that almost no one has any interest in using the restroom that corresponds to a different gender.
It may be a polite fiction of a sort, but it’s one that nearly everyone abides by, and I see no reason to believe this is changing.
But deception was always easy. It might be slightly easier now, but since almost no one wants to go to the “wrong” restroom, it’s a trivial problem.
Certainly trivial as compared to trans people not being allowed or feeling safe using the restroom.
I know. That’s my point.
I’m saying that if restrictions based on genitals are wrong, certainly restrictions based on appearance are wrong.
So where does that leave us?
What possible restrictions can we have, and what are the point of them?
Exactly what are you referring to? The idea that genders should use separate restrooms and locker rooms? Are you saying those will, or should, change?
Who says noone wants to go in the “wrong” restroom? If they are being deceptive that’s exactly what they want.
No, you mean transgender people feeling safe, which is legimate. The idea that someone might feel unsafe with a transgender person in their restroom is no longer valid.
However, that’s out the window anyway. A person who has male genitals and appears to be male, could simply claim to identify as female. You may not question that. Do women now feel safe?
I agree that the safety thing is wildly overblown, but don’t pretend it’s non-existent, especially if “feeling” safe is the issue, not actual safety.
The purpose of the law and the unintended effects of the law - or the new logical inconsistencies it may create - are different things though. Intent is great. I agree with the intent of these laws. I’m exploring the whole story though.
It’s a ridiculous stretch to say that because someone doesn’t want to share a restroom with someone that they want to keep them out of public life. I prefer not to share a restroom with women - do I hate women? I actually prefer not to share one with men either, but one day at a time.
I don’t know. If they should or will change, it probably won’t be in the short or medium term.
I say this, since I have no reason to believe otherwise, except possibly for a very small of pervs who already were sneaking into bathrooms if they really wanted to.
Not feeling safe around a trans person is and should be no more valid than not feeling safe around a Jew.
And if women don’t feel safe around the possibility of a person with a penis in their restroom, which is possible, I see no reason to believe this is any more likely than in the past. Pervs perved in the past and will perv in the future. New traditions and mores don’t affect this.
Again, you’ve provided no reason to believe that this possible problem would be significant at all in the future, or more significant than in the past.
So if a transwoman can’t use the ladies’ restroom because she’s not (in the law’s definition) female, should she be going into the men’s room appearing as female just because she was born male? Should Laverne Cox be using the men’s room? Should Buck Angel be using the ladies’?
What is ACTUALLY going to produce the least amount of public alarm and distress, really?
What about not feeling safe around a male in a women’s room? An actual cisgender male?
Is that the same?
It simply makes it much easier for a perv to go in the women’s room and get away with it.
But again, this is a side issue, I agree that it’s not worth worrying about.
The stupid thing about these laws is that there is no law against using a women’s bathroom if you’re a dude. They are legislating in an area they didn’t need to be, because people can already use the bathroom they want to regardless of their gender. It should simply stay that way.
I don’t favor laws “allowing” what is already allowed either. Just let everyone do what they feel like. Problem solved.
No, that’s different.
I think this is a legitimate worry to have, just as the possibility of feeling unsafe if someone shat in the sink. Both are possible, and may happen very occasionally, but probably in general are very unlikely day-to-day, and do not seem worth crafting public policy about at this point, to me.
I disagree on “much easier”, considering how easy it was before, but since you agree that it’s not worth worrying about, then our differences are pretty small here.
What’s the larger issue that we disagree on?
Right. Though I’d favor laws that would make it impossible or more difficult to discriminate against trans people – something like “no city or locality in this state may restrict anyone’s right to use the bathroom associated with their gender identity”.
No.
I am not arguing against accomodating transgender people.
I’m saying that if we have no right to determine gender based on sex, how can we turn around and say we can determine it based on appearance? Shouldn’t someone who appears male have the right to say she is female? Shouldn’t she have the right to defy societal norms of appearance and define her gender herself as much as she has the right to defy the idea that gender=sex?
So what restrictions do have have left on determining who uses what bathroom, if any, that we can impose on others as a policy?
Again – who is saying it should be based on appearance? Yes, someone who appears male might claim to be female, but there are two possibilities: this person is deliberately being deceptive, or this person presents in an unusual way as compared to their gender identity. The first case was already possible (and probably occurred), though it may have required a disguise, and there’s no reason to believe that it would be more common in the future than in the past. In the second, then they should be allowed to use the bathroom. What’s the problem that you’re trying to solve? Yes, gendered bathrooms are a polite fiction of society… but it’s a polite fiction that almost everyone has abided by, and there’s no reason to believe that this is changing.
Okay. So if a person who has male genitals AND looks like a man (by societal norm), but “identifies” as a woman, she may use the lady’s room. Nothing can stop her. And that may be fine, but if gender-segregated restrooms no longer keep one from using the restroom with someone who is of the opposite genitals OR looks like they have the opposite genitals, what’s the point of them any more? There’s no argument left for gender-segregated restrooms at all, is there?
Legally, no, but socially, 99% of people prefer to use the one associated with their sex. The only time I’ve ever been in a women’s bathroom is when I’ve been about to poop my pants. Or cleaning it. But I’d be pretty peeved if that had been an arrestable offense.
Sure – that’s what most people seem to prefer, and most people will abide by them without being coerced just because they prefer them. It’s just a convention, but it’s one that most people seem to prefer and are happy to abide by.
That seems like a perfectly good reason to me – does it not to you?
Exactly.
So if we don’t care about sex, and we don’t care about appearance, what’s left? Why even have gender at all, let alone gendered bathrooms?
The problem I’m trying to solve is reconciling the idea that one can object to someone with male genitals and male appearance from using the lady’s room if they identify as male, but not if they identify as female. It simply makes no sense, and it allows more no public policy at all. It makes gender-segregated restrooms pointless. I want people to understand that and acknowledge and not try to pretend they can have both.
As for perves, the best way to handle pervs is to punish perv behavior. If a guy is peeking over my stall, then that’s a problem even though we’re both in the male bathroom. So a dude in the ladies room just taking a dump is not a problem, but a dude in the ladies’ room standing on the toilet to look over the stall, that would be a serious issue.
It’s just about convention – what people prefer. Most people prefer to do it that way, and 99.9% of the time it will be consistent without fear or awkwardness.
So what’s the problem if most people prefer it this way, and most people abide by it without coercion?