I’m fine with such a solution, but that’s not in the cards right now. What’s in the cards is allowing trans people to use the bathrooms they identify with, since otherwise they will continue to be harmed.
I’m not supporting a segregationist system – I’m living in the real world. I don’t particularly oppose the gender segregation either, but that’s because it doesn’t cause harm (that I’m aware of) – the problem with past segregation was not segregation, it was harmed cause by that segregation. We segregate by age – little kids aren’t in the same classes or sports teams as big kids; we segregate by advanced skills – some kids are in more advanced classes than others due to their skill levels.
In the real world, trans people are being harmed, and this solution is by far the most likely and realistic to end that harm while at the same time avoiding other harm.
No, not “just as.” The preference for gender segregation in restrooms is generally mutual and non-hierarchical. (Also, “harmed” isn’t really the right word for the gender preference, but never mind.)
You can’t throw a civil rights desegregation template on this. As a matter of politics (reaching back toward the thread topic), forcing all men and women into shared facilities would be vastly less popular than any other alternative. To my knowledge, nobody in a position of influence anywhere is advocating it as policy.
You’re absolutely right. We should weight the two competing needs against each other, and find a middle ground, a compromise. On the one hand is the need for trans people to be safe and respected and healthy, and not to be subject to the harassment or humiliation that would come from having to use the bathroom of their birth gender. That’s definitely a legitimate issue, as you seem to acknowledge.
On the other hand, we need to do something about the rising number of incidents in which MTF trans people in women’s bathrooms have raped or molested young girls. That’s also definitely a legitimate issue. So, let’s check the stats on that. Hmm, wait, what, that number is zero? That’s funny. Somehow I don’t think that an imaginary need on one side should be given very much weight when it’s being balanced out against a legitimate need on the other.
In general, I think one can imagine a system with three bathrooms working OK, if society were very different from the way it is. That is, if everyone openly and happily realized that there were more than two genders, and trans people and intersex people and so forth were valued and open and non-discriminated-against members of society. In a situation like that, when it was no more alarming to be genderqueer in a mostly-male-and-female world than it is to be a redhead in a mostly-blonde-and-brunette world, it might make sense to have a boy’s bathroom, a girl’s bathroom, and a all-the-other-genders bathroom. And everyone would know that little Pat used the all-the-other-genders bathroom, but no one cared.
But that’s not the society we live in. Sure, I think providing a third option is better than NOT providing a third option, in the same sense that allowing gay civil unions was better than not allowing gay civil unions. But that doesn’t mean that it’s the best solution or the right solution.
You’re absolutely right. This struggle–in which transgender people want equal access to bathrooms, but want to maintain the separation between male and female bathrooms–is totally different from when in the 1950s black Americans wanted equal access to bathrooms, but wanted to maintain the separation between male and female bathrooms. How could anyone see an equivalence between them?
So I see why people don’t bother to respond to you. Your preferred epithet for transgenders take the form of the lowest, debasing insult. Do you want to talk about black people by referring to them as niggers and expecting a reasoned debate? I’m sure there’s a lot of colorful ways to describe whatever race you are. If you hear that, what’s your natural reaction? Respond to them logically? Or angry shouting?
I still want to answer your question, but I want to see if you’re able to spot why you’re getting the reception that you don’t think you deserve. Rephrase your question, then I’ll answer it.
Yogsothoth, I guess you didn’t see the post in which I apologized for using that framing and said I meant no insult? I honestly thought this was a cheeky term trans people didn’t mind. But maybe it’s one of those things they can only say to each other. Fair enough. So, rephrased:
Do you believe people who self-identify as female, but who have fully functioning mature male genitalia, should be allowed in the women’s locker room?
(BTW, I hardly think people aren’t responding to me. In fact, despite the attempts to impute a great fear to me, I don’t find this issue terribly important and am actually rather bored with it. I continue to respond because that’s just what I do in debates, on matters great, small, and everything in between. A kind of compulsion, I suppose.)
Speaking of questions that haven’t been answered, what I’m actually most interested in hearing about is that thing from the response to the Johns Hopkins psychiatrist. Something about giving puberty-delaying drugs to kids who report being transgender. Can someone please explain what is going on there? It didn’t sound good.
One brave soul upthread, while generally taking the trans side of this debate, did point out that the contention that people are afraid of transpeople is not quite right. Rather, they are concerned that non-transpeople who are sexual predators will use a legal right for self-identified women who have penises to use the women’s room as a fig leaf to explain themselves. So they can regularly go troll women’s rooms until they find a good opportunity, but cannot be arrested unless they are caught in the act of actually attacking a girl or woman.
This point seems to have been generally ignored in the discussion subsequently; and I notice that it is deflected in NPR coverage as well. I’m not sure if they are being purposely disingenuous, or don’t understand the distinction the “bathroom law” proponents are making. For example:
This Baity guy is, no doubt, a Bible-thumping moron with all kinds of views I would find repellant. But he’s not, as far as I can see, “comparing trans people to child predators”, nor saying that trans people are “somehow dangerous for using the bathroom appropriately” (leaving aside the question-begging involved in using the word “appropriately” there when it is a matter of no small controversy as to what is appropriate). The issue is, again, predators using trans rights as a fig leaf to make it more difficult to stop them *before *they attack someone.
Often, if there is any response to this, it’s an expression of skepticism that this has ever happened. But apparently, “Baity and others” *are *in fact able to cite examples. This is dismissed as “anecdotal”, and the implication almost seems to be “and these aren’t really trans people anyway”. Well, no shit! That’s the point. And yes, by engaging in sexual assault, they broke other laws. But if the right for anyone with a penis to use the women’s room is enshrined in the law as long as they put on women’s clothes, then as I keep saying, no one can preemptively head such a predator off until they actually attack someone.
How do you square this stance with the objection to trans kids using the single-person restrooms faculty and staff use? That one is not about actual harm but simply because of…well, I’m not exactly sure, except for my contention that they want everyone to affirm that they are just the same as anyone else that was born with the same gender they claim to have transitioned into.
Then maybe we ought to work toward making our society more like that, hm?
So popularity and custom *do *matter. Many of the people arguing against my position in this thread have seemed to assert otherwise, that even if the majority feel a certain way about bathrooms, their bigotry cannot hold sway. And if this really is some fundamental civil right, then that would be correct! So I’m confused by the argument you are making here.
I think singling out children and saying they can’t use the bathroom all their friends and peers of the same gender identity are using is likely to be harmful. I still haven’t seen how allowing them to use the appropriate bathroom for their gender identity is harmful to anyone.
Bullshit^2. Maybe part of your problem is your continued willful ignorance on this entire subject.
And now we have the “concern” questions. Do your own legwork; I doubt anyone here believes you have an actual interest in this other than to spread FUD.
Crikey. It has not been “ignored,” as anyone who cared about the issue and did any legwork would know.
And you’ve repeatedly ducked several direct questions asked of you in this thread about that subject, such as why aren’t you concerned about men with penises being in the same bathroom as young boys, who are predominantly raped by…wait for it…men with penises. Or what about the risk to transgirls in a men’s room, which is filled with…wait for it…penises. Or any of the other score of questions and rebuttals you can’t answer.
You just change the subject and skip over the rebuttals. And you got away with using a very disgusting transphoic slur in this forum (I’m not sure why), then are trying to act all innocent. You are not debating in good faith, and your questions aren’t worth addressing until they are also in good faith.
No, that’s true. You can take it to the bank that I am honest about what I think. It’s obviously what gets people so riled, FFS. (Also, I’m pretty sure you are calling me a liar, which is against the rules, so don’t do that.)
I did address that. You didn’t understand it, maybe? I will spell it out for you one more time:
If there are two group bathrooms, make one (formerly the “ladies room”) be for anyone other than those with functional, postpubescent male genitalia. The other one (formerly the “men’s room”) can be used by anyone at all, including but not limited to those with functional, postpubescent male genitalia.
If you don’t see how that addresses every scenario you put forth, I don’t know how to help you.
Here’s what I quoted from you that repeatedly (IMO) begged the question:
The whole reason these laws got passed is that it is not a settled question as to what constitutes one’s “gender identity”. Therefore, it is not a settled question as to whether the people you are describing as “friends and peers of the same gender identity” would all agree (especially the non-friend “peers”) that they are of the same gender identity. And then your second sentence is even more blatantly question-begging. You may as well have said “I just can’t see how allowing someone to do the right thing is wrong”. :dubious:
But I’m honestly curious. What possible reason do you, who disagree with me, think that anyone should reasonably believe that your views on trans people have anything close to the validity of the views of trans people themselves and the mental health community?
Far from “settled science” when it comes to children, and that is where my concern lies.
In schools, I could see this issue harming (misdiagnosis, maybe?) more kids than it helps. Growing up and going through puberty can be tough enough for them, but now we mainstream another variable?
Adult transfolks (?) should use their gender-appropriate (whatever that means – I still see paradoxes here wrt sex/gender) bathroom. But I will say this: If you are afraid of getting beat up in the men’s room of a biker bar, you probably shouldn’t go anywhere near a biker bar!
My point there is simply that “who cares who you pee next to,” and “unisex restrooms everywhere” are not really useful slogans or positions for the present context.
The practical fact is that male/female segregated facilities will continue to be the standard in this country for the foreseeable future, perhaps with growing supplementation by a third “family,” unisex, or private/single room.
Within this reality, the best accommodation of trans people, relative to both tradition and justice, is to let them use whichever room they prefer, typically that which corresponds to their identity and presentation.