# Political fallout of transgender bathroom issue **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 14, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775 "2016-05-14T18:29:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![blueliner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58f4c7/32.png) [@blueliner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blueliner)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/321 "2016-05-19T14:37:38Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So am I wrong? Is middle America (to the extent that it exists) more progressive on trans issues than I give it credit for? Is there some other factor I’m overlooking? There might be a factor you’re overlooking. I don’t really care what adults do and I think legislating bathroom etiquette is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen people argue about but for me this isn’t really about transgendered people, I see way too much focus on children and schools and that is what bothers me. I’m tired of seeing our kids treated as a political battleground ---
**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:** [May 19, 2016, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/322 "2016-05-19T14:45:25Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Would you have said the same thing if, say, biracial people demanded access to whites-only restrooms in the Jim Crow South? Racial desegregation “isn’t in the cards right now?” I’d be on the “no racial segregation team” in that case. The “not in the cards” is a somewhat flippant summation that I’m fine with in a situation, like bathroom gender segregation, that doesn’t cause any harm. I wouldn’t use it for racial segregation, regardless of the political climate. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying gender segregation of restrooms is some kind of injustice comparable to racial segregation. All I’m saying is you can’t just walk into this debate and make a similar comparison. It’s more complicated than that. As long the gender segregation exists, you’re going to have to make logical compromises that don’t fit the standard civil rights model. You have to work a little harder than that. That’s all. Like someone above pointed out, it was perfectly reasonable and non-hypocritical for anti-segregation advocates to demand an end to racial segregation without demanding an end to gender segregation for bathrooms. And now it’s perfectly reasonable to demand safe and gender-identity appropriate access for trans people to bathrooms without demanding an end to gender segregation. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/323 "2016-05-19T14:58:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’d be on the “no racial segregation team” in that case. The “not in the cards” is a somewhat flippant summation that I’m fine with in a situation, like bathroom gender segregation, that doesn’t cause any harm. I wouldn’t use it for racial segregation, regardless of the political climate. Of course. I understand your position and agree with it. There is no reason to get rid of gender-segregated restrooms. I’m not asking you to do that. I’m asking you, and everyone else, to stop using the lazy arguments that compare the issue of transgender access with racial segregation, because it’s more complicated than that. Transgender access to restrooms is the right thing to do, but using the wrong arguments to justify it just plays into the hands of those who oppose it, because they are easily knocked down. > [@](#): > > Like someone above pointed out, it was perfectly reasonable and non-hypocritical for anti-segregation advocates to demand an end to racial segregation without demanding an end to gender segregation for bathrooms. But that’s mixing up the analogy. > [@](#): > > And now it’s perfectly reasonable to demand safe and gender-identity appropriate access for trans people to bathrooms without demanding an end to gender segregation. But it wouldn’t have been reasonable to demand access for, for instance, biracial people to white restrooms without demanding the end of racial segregation. That’s the proper analogy. Unless you also demand the end of gender segregation, the analogy doesn’t quite fit. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/324 "2016-05-19T15:09:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Huh? I’m not. Others are. I’m pointing it out. :dubious: > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s so weird seeing people argue to preserve, or disrupt, a system that fundamentally discriminates and segregates in the first place. It’s a bit like arguing that biracial people should have their choice of whites-only or blacks-only restrooms. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So now we don’t have white restrooms and black restrooms any more. > > But we STILL HAVE men-only and women-only restrooms. We reject other forms of discrimination based on preference - except for one, which we still embrace. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Would you have said the same thing if, say, biracial people demanded access to whites-only restrooms in the Jim Crow South? Racial desegregation “isn’t in the cards right now?” In this thread, _you_ are the one I see repeatedly invoking the idea that there is some similarity between gendered facilities and racial segregation. If only to pretend that you’re not “saying” what you’re saying, but, gosh, this issue is so _hard,_ so _complicated._ > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m not saying gender segregation of restrooms is some kind of injustice comparable to racial segregation. All I’m saying is you can’t just walk into this debate and make a similar comparison. It’s more complicated than that. As long the gender segregation exists, you’re going to have to make logical compromises that don’t fit the standard civil rights model. Yeah, bullshit. There is no logical compromise necessary, because the situations aren’t actually similar in the first place. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m asking you, and everyone else, to stop using the lazy arguments that compare the issue of transgender access with racial segregation, because it’s more complicated than that. You stop. It’s _not_ more complicated. It’s _different._ ---
**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:** [May 19, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/325 "2016-05-19T15:33:52Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > In this thread, _you_ are the one I see repeatedly invoking the idea that there is some similarity between gendered facilities and racial segregation. By doing so, I am challenging the idea, not supporting it. > [@](#): > > Yeah, bullshit. There is no logical compromise necessary, because the situations aren’t actually similar in the first place. Lots of people are saying they are similar. Glad you agree they aren’t quite. > [@](#): > > You stop. It’s _not_ more complicated. It’s _different._ Oh, gee, thanks for totally clearing it up! You’re a genius! I couldn’t have done this without you. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/326 "2016-05-19T17:13:19Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Of course. I understand your position and agree with it. There is no reason to get rid of gender-segregated restrooms. I’m not asking you to do that. I’m asking you, and everyone else, to stop using the lazy arguments that compare the issue of transgender access with racial segregation, because it’s more complicated than that. Transgender access to restrooms is the right thing to do, but using the wrong arguments to justify it just plays into the hands of those who oppose it, because they are easily knocked down. Yes, it’s more complicated, but they are still comparable in some aspects. Bathroom access is related to both; harm is related to both; and the resistance to both is based on ignorance and bigotry. > [@](#): > > But that’s mixing up the analogy. > > But it wouldn’t have been reasonable to demand access for, for instance, biracial people to white restrooms without demanding the end of racial segregation. That’s the proper analogy. Unless you also demand the end of gender segregation, the analogy doesn’t quite fit. But that’s comparing racial and gender segregation for bathrooms, which IMO are not comparable due to one causing harm and one that does not. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/327 "2016-05-19T17:24:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes, it’s more complicated, but they are still comparable in some aspects. Absolutely. But making the wrong kind of comparison can backfire. > [@](#): > > But that’s comparing racial and gender segregation for bathrooms, which IMO are not comparable I know. That’s my point. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/328 "2016-05-19T21:05:12Z")
> [@blueliner](#): > > There might be a factor you’re overlooking. I don’t really care what adults do and I think legislating bathroom etiquette is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen people argue about but for me this isn’t really about transgendered people, I see way too much focus on children and schools and that is what bothers me. I’m tired of seeing our kids treated as a political battleground It’s not clear to me whether you think that this will be an issue for those on the left or the right (or both). ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/329 "2016-05-19T22:20:14Z")
The best part of this whole thing is that NC is going to get punished for this bullshit. Hard. They forgot to factor the loss of business and possible loss of federal funds into their cost analysis. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2016, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/330 "2016-05-19T23:17:12Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So why do we have gender-segregated restrooms in the first place? > > Is the harm that people would feel by sharing a restroom with people of the opposite gender real, or imaginary? It is certainly no less real than the harm that people would feel by not being able to share a restroom with people of the opposite gender. My principle is an inequality; without the opposite side, there’s nothing to discuss outside of your Very Special Pit Thread. ---
**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:** [May 20, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/331 "2016-05-20T00:43:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It is certainly no less real than the harm that people would feel by not being able to share a restroom with people of the opposite gender. Whoa. > [@](#): > > My principle is an inequality; without the opposite side, there’s nothing to discuss outside of your Very Special Pit Thread. Hey, good for you. You can just dodge my challenges here. But these are the kind of things that the other side will bring up in courtrooms. They won’t be as easy to just ignore there. If you want to win arguments in court, you have to have a robust argument, not an easy political one. If you don’t want to discuss that kind of thing here, that’s fine. Not everybody likes digging that deep. It’s not for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/332 "2016-05-20T01:38:20Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > The best part of this whole thing is that NC is going to get punished for this bullshit. Hard. They forgot to factor the loss of business and possible loss of federal funds into their cost analysis. The interesting thing to me is that the Justice department isn’t reading anything into statutes, ‘gender identity’ is specifically protected by laws passed by a GOP congress. [The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued](http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cristanwilliams/the_media_is_lying_about_why_north_carolina_is_being_sued) ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/333 "2016-05-20T01:49:40Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > The interesting thing to me is that the Justice department isn’t reading anything into statutes, ‘gender identity’ is specifically protected by laws passed by a GOP congress. [The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued](http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cristanwilliams/the_media_is_lying_about_why_north_carolina_is_being_sued) Wow that’s awesome! Good get! ---
**Author:** ![blueliner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58f4c7/32.png) [@blueliner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blueliner)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/334 "2016-05-20T07:41:24Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It’s not clear to me whether you think that this will be an issue for those on the left or the right (or both). This is just from my experience but I think a lot of people across the political spectrum have a problem with this, even those who fully support adult trans people. Once the focus changes to children it becomes a different issue. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/335 "2016-05-20T14:52:29Z")
> [@blueliner](#): > > This is just from my experience but I think a lot of people across the political spectrum have a problem with this, even those who fully support adult trans people. Once the focus changes to children it becomes a different issue. Can you be more specific about your concern with respect to children? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/336 "2016-05-20T15:13:05Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > The interesting thing to me is that the Justice department isn’t reading anything into statutes, ‘gender identity’ is specifically protected by laws passed by a GOP congress. [The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued](http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cristanwilliams/the_media_is_lying_about_why_north_carolina_is_being_sued) This is an example of why you shouldn’t trust things written by activist groups. That claim is clearly bogus. The fact alone that the DOJ didn’t make that claim in their letter should be enough to give pause, to anyone who actually read the DOJ letter. But if anyone bothered to look up the text of the “gender identity” definition cited in the law they would see the same. The article quotes from the law and gives it as “_gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code)_”. Now you can look that up ([here, for example](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249)) and it says _"(4) the term “gender identity” means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics_". So it’s very clearly not referring to how a person self-identifies, which is the claim the DOJ is putting forth. (The apparent purpose of that clause was to protect someone who was discriminated against based on the perception that they were a woman even though they were not.) More importantly, to the extent that a state can define a person based on their birth certificate (which is not addressed in the statute) then such a person being forced to use the bathroom which aligns with that status is not subject to “discrimination” any more than someone else with the same birth certificate. ---
**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:** [May 20, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/337 "2016-05-20T15:19:58Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Hey, good for you. You can just dodge my challenges here. Whatever, dude. The harm caused to people by sharing a restroom with people of the opposite gender is imaginary. The harm caused to people by not sharing a restroom with people of the opposite gender is imaginary. I don’t give two shits about imaginary harm, which is why I think you should confine yourself to your Very Special Thread, where you can debate these two imaginary harms to your heart’s content. Meanwhile, if you imagine that I’m dodging questions, imagine away. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/338 "2016-05-20T15:24:56Z")
\*\*YogSothoth \*\*asked me to come back and respond to his/her post, so here I am after procrastinating for a bit. (“I tried to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!”) > [@YogSothoth](#): > > Let’s turn the question around because I don’t like how political the question always gets framed (my answer won’t change so don’t worry about that): “If people self-identify as male but have fully functional female genitals, should they be allowed in the men’s locker?” I’ve gotta stop you right there, because it’s not symmetrical. Rape is almost exclusively perpetrated by adolescents or adults with mature male sex organs. Which is why I proposed having one locker room for them (and/or anyone else who is willing to go and change on their turf), and one where they are prohibited from entering. I don’t think it’s important to keep the people you’re talking about out of the “men’s locker”. So I understand why you’d want to turn it around, but I’m not going to let you get away with that, sorry. > [@YogSothoth](#): > > Presumably, rapists are that way because they’re willing to break the law. Having separate lockers then is no deterrent. Rape is illegal, and no bathroom law will change that. You realize this is uncannily similar to the argument the NRA makes about guns? “Shooting people when it’s not self defense is already illegal.” I don’t agree with that one, and I don’t agree with this one. By this logic, I shouldn’t be able to call the cops on someone who comes up my front walk with a battering ram, not until they actually start smashing the door down. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > So, SlackerInc has said that the reason there must be laws preventing transgender persons from using the restroom of their choice is that anyone with a working penis is potentially a rapist or molester. > > If this is true, then having one facility, “formerly the ‘men’s room’” as Slacker says, be accessible to all with working penises is NOT a solution, because if one person with a working penis is in a restroom with _any other person_–male or female, child or adult–then the potential for that working-penis person to commit rape or molestation exists. Or at least it exists IF Slacker’s hypothesis (that all with working penises could potentially commit rape or molestation) is true. > > If that hypothesis is true, then the ONLY possible solution is that persons with working penises cannot be in a restroom in which ANY other person is present. > > In other words, the only possible solution, if the hypothesis is true, is single-user restrooms for those with working penises. No. You are “forgetting” that it’s pretty difficult for most men to completely overpower most other men, the way they can a child or a smallish woman. This is something most women understand very well, of course–leading me to suspect you are not a woman. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > For example (among many others out there) [here’s a story](http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/living/missouri-transgender-teen-feat/) of a bunch of girls uncomfortable with a transgender girl sharing their locker room and bathroom. Why do you get to declare that “imaginary harm”? Okay, now here’s where it gets very interesting (and concerning, even alarming). And where I steer it back to electoral politics. I used to have a shorthand phrase back around the turn of the millennium that I used with a fellow politics junkie. It was meant to stand in both for the paranoia religious conservatives have about the “liberal agenda”, but also for how social liberals sometimes push too far too fast, and risk activating this paranoia not just among the hardcore religious right, but among moderate but somewhat traditional swing voters as well. The paranoia that I joked about was the idea that Democrats were just itching to put in place a “gay agenda” in schools that would include a special unit in high school health class, in which Dan Savage types would come around and give the boys lessons on how to give a proper blowjob. An absurd idea, of course; but when you get to the point where you’re telling parents in a small Missouri town that their girls have to go to gym class and undress in the locker room in front of someone they’ve known their whole life as a boy, who is still physically male (you can try to peddle all this malarkey about how “medical science” says this person is female, but if their body was found naked in a shallow grave, I guarantee you the coroner would mark it up as “Caucasian male”, etc.)…well, you are getting shockingly close to the extreme, satirical scenario. And I say this affects electoral politics because, as of a few weeks ago, I would have confidently proclaimed that we were deep into an unstoppable “EDM” (emerging Democratic majority) due to the social and demographic changes in the country. But you start convincing average Middle Americans that the ascendancy of Democrats is going to mean forcing their daughters to undress in front of “boys wearing dresses and wigs”, and we could see another backlash against liberal policies like we saw starting with Nixon and going on into the Reagan and Gingrich eras. FFS, at this point I’m willing to just concede the \*bathroom \*issue (as long as everyone has stalls) if we can draw a bright line and say we are not going to push for this kind of _locker room_ policy. Jesus. :eek: > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So why do we have gender-segregated restrooms in the first place? > > Is the harm that people would feel by sharing a restroom with people of the opposite gender real, or imaginary? No one’s confronting this very valid question. If we shouldn’t insist on an end to gender-segregated restrooms or locker rooms, then it’s madness to make those Missouri girls share a locker room with the person in question. The fellow students at that school have made it clear they have no beef with their fellow student expressing their newfound identity, as long as said student just changes in a different room. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/339 "2016-05-20T15:45:20Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > So why do we have gender-segregated restrooms in the first place? > > Is the harm that people would feel by sharing a restroom with people of the opposite gender real, or imaginary? If the harm is imaginary, then transgender people are not being harmed by being forced to use a rest room or locker room with a gender different from their own. If the harm is real, then cisgender people are being harmed by being forced to share a rest room or locker room with a gender different from their own. If it is harmful to a transgender woman to change or shower in a room with someone else with a penis, is it not equally harmful to a cisgender woman to change or shower in a room with someone else with a penis? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/340 "2016-05-20T15:50:13Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I’ve gotta stop you right there, because it’s not symmetrical. Rape is almost exclusively perpetrated by adolescents or adults with mature male sex organs. Which is why I proposed having one locker room for them (and/or anyone else who is willing to go and change on their turf), and one where they are prohibited from entering. I don’t think it’s important to keep the people you’re talking about out of the “men’s locker”. The reason why it should be occasionally switched up in genders when discussing the issue is because: 1. We don’t let the fear of rape by males over-represent the discussion and unduly influence us into a harsher punishment through exaggerated consequences 2. Whatever law that will be crafted will have to fit both lockers, and using one representation as the basis for a law that covers both sides leads to disproportionate punishment > [@SlackerInc](#): > > You realize this is uncannily similar to the argument the NRA makes about guns? “Shooting people when it’s not self defense is already illegal.” I don’t agree with that one, and I don’t agree with this one. By this logic, I shouldn’t be able to call the cops on someone who comes up my front walk with a battering ram, not until they actually start smashing the door down. I do realize that, but I see it more of a wedge to use against them. Shooting someone usually comes with outside circumstances. Its a fact that less access to guns creates less harm, because the alternatives such as knives or bats are more difficult to wield and do less damage. But this isn’t a gun debate so let’s not get too deep into this. I think what I would say to your battering ram analogy is that there is no inherent danger to anyone if sexes share a locker room. Your side would assume harm if a male is near young girls, and act pre-emptively to separate them to prevent possible harm. I’m willing to take the chance that there will be no harm. A battering ram at your door has little reason to exist except to enter illegally. A grown man next to a young girl in a locker room presents no inherent danger > [@SlackerInc](#): > > FFS, at this point I’m willing to just concede the \*bathroom \*issue (as long as everyone has stalls) if we can draw a bright line and say we are not going to push for this kind of _locker room_ policy. Jesus. :eek: So I’ve wondered about this a while. Why do you make the distinction between bathrooms and lockers while most everyone else argues them interchangeably? > [@SlackerInc](#): > > No one’s confronting this very valid question. If we shouldn’t insist on an end to gender-segregated restrooms or locker rooms, then it’s madness to make those Missouri girls share a locker room with the person in question. The fellow students at that school have made it clear they have no beef with their fellow student expressing their newfound identity, as long as said student just changes in a different room. I’ll confront it. It is imaginary the harm that people envision experiencing when they share a bathroom or locker with someone of the opposite sex. We live in a world where genders are segregated by choice and tradition, but the emergence of transgender people turns that old world upside down and the issues must be confronted instead of avoided. We’re in a transition phase where people are being asked to accept a new normal, and of course conservatives are resisting, typically with fearmongering and lies. At the same time, they are hurting a very oppressed minority. Strip away the lies and overblown fears and what do you have? Nothing except resistance to change, that’s what I’m fighting against [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775.md?page=18)