Because there’s no real-world scenario in which anyone would be required (or actually follow through) to go home (or to their safe deposit box), get their birth certificate, and then return to the locker room prove that what they said was true. Your scenario is about every day pervs doing something pervy and then getting out of consequences by lying about it, and in such an every-day pervy scenario, no birth certificates will be presented or expected.
If the perv (cis-male) is called out, he will use his backup lie (if the bathroom is trans-friendly, then he will say he’s a trans-woman, and if it’s not trans-friendly, then he’ll say he’s a trans-man and was born female), and then in the ensuing confusion, walk out the door.
That’s your real world perv scenario. Involving birth certificates takes it to a fantasy world.
Then, in either case, he probably is prosecuted, since it will quickly become obvious for any competent investigator that he’s lying and was acting in a lewd manner.
Not if it’s made legal for someone like Maura on *transparent *(or the teen in Missouri) to make no surgical or hormonal changes to their body, to (like Maura for many years, shown in flashbacks) not make any declaration to their family and friends, but still furtively exercise their right to “be their true self” in an anonymous context. And Maura, of course, is still sexually attracted to women, so if she were to get visibly aroused by seeing naked ones in a locker room, who can blame her? You literally cannot prove this is a lie and a crime as long as someone refuses to admit it.
And people can forge birth certificates and the like. Yes, deceit is possible – someone could craft some lifestyle and scenario for years that enables them to use the wrong bathroom… and this is possible whether or not bathrooms and locker rooms are trans-friendly or not.
In the vast majority of cases, a lying perv would crumble under the slightest bit of pressure from law enforcement (in the very rare case that they were actually arrested), whether they were pretending to be a trans-woman or trans-man.
But the fact that people can lie doesn’t justify discriminating against trans people. That there is a possible (if incredibly unlikely) scenario that someone could get away with being in a women’s locker room to perv out doesn’t justify discriminating against trans people, especially since this possibility isn’t eliminated by discriminating against trans people.
If you ban transwomen from women’s locker rooms, pervy men could still get in and do pervy things and even get away with it. Banning transwomen doesn’t hurt the pervs – it simply changes their tactics. Not that there’s any reason to believe that perving would become any more common than it is right now.
If someone is doing something pervy in a locker room or bathroom, they’ll be caught based on their behavior. If they are ultimately prosecuted, it will be based on their actions, not their appearance. Falsely claiming that they are trans might get them into the bathroom without resistance (though probably not now that NC has whipped up such a frenzy over it). But it won’t protect them from doing pervy things in the bathroom. We have other laws against that.
It’s frankly ridiculous to expend so much worry over the possibility that some mastermind perv-criminal might engineer some weird scenario to ogle women in the locker room, when this has already been possible for years, and would continue to be possible even if transwomen were banned from locker rooms.
Rational people don’t craft public policy for things that almost never happen and wouldn’t be affected anyway by the policy change suggested.
Thank you very much for the reminder and caution for myself, Jonathan.
SlackerInc, address the factual question at hand, one which I believe has been asked thrice in the last few days without a substantive reply: What proof do cisgender men need to show before entering a men’s room that they aren’t a raging pedophile given a chance to fulfill their fantasies of seeing young boys at the urinals with no legal penalty?
And on a generic note, where was the podium-pounding concern of the conservative right all these years, decades, centuries, towards young boys being victimized in restrooms by cisgender men?
Do gay men frequently get “visibly aroused” in men’s locker rooms? Is this some sort of turgid national problem which hasn’t been addressed? Given that gay men make up about 3-5% of the male population, and given that you’ve said transgender people are such a tiny minority of the population, wouldn’t it have been much more likely for gay men to be causing a national ruckus?
But…they haven’t, have they?
So what is your logic or citation in impugning a likely “visible arousal” to a transgender girl?
I could be a transgender man. Or a cisgender man. Or a cisgender woman who prefers to dress and look like what we traditionally have considered a man’s dress and appearance to be, as with the example I gave.
So, yeah, since you can’t know anyway, there’s no reason to care, nor any way to socially enforce it.
So even if you wanted to continue the charade that you want anyone to honor the right of anyone to use any restroom they please, while continuing to have one reserved for men and one for women, you won’t be able to do that anyway.
But we socially enforce and prevent perverts of every stripe from ruining gender segregated bathroom/locker experiences to reasonably high effect. Are trans-people in such tiny numbers really going to ruin it for everybody? Or have they, given that they are already accepted in so many communities?
This was already possible – androgynous people (whether by nature or style) have been around for decades and more. They didn’t kill public gendered restrooms. That there might be some very small number of people more in the future who don’t fit normal societal expectations for gendered appearance won’t kill them either.
Maybe that will change in the future – if style and society and culture change enough that there is no functional standard societal expectation for appearance and gender, then bathrooms would likely be a part of this change. But if things mostly continue as they are going for at least the short and medium term, then gendered bathrooms will continue to serve just fine, most likely, for the short and medium term as well, even if people are occasionally confused.
I was talking about a *fake *transwoman, please recall. But it’s hard (heh) for me to imagine being in a locker room with a bunch of young women in varying states of undress and not getting a woody. Maybe gay men have learned to control it, I don’t know. What I do know is that in our society and culture (and, I think, in most others), women and girls generally have more fear and discomfort than men do in being naked around strangers who are also naked and have penises. Maybe an argument can be made that they are not properly weighting risk, but it is for sure a deeply embedded sense that isn’t going to suddenly go away by simply wishing it to.
Can you say please, or not act like you are issuing orders? :rolleyes:
Whatever. Remember, I said way upthread that it might make the most sense to have one locker room for everyone who possesses a functional, postpubescent penis, and another for everyone else. “Young boys” would be in with the group of people who have vulvas.
So you are projecting your own personal sexual response as something the population in question in this thread would be subject to.
What is the factual rationale for a supposition that gay men have learned to “control it”, but transgender women are not able to rise to that challenge?
I missed your “please” in the above; can you point me to it, please?
Wait…your response to the real and proven danger of cisgender male child sexual predators in men’s rooms is “whatever?” Or is it this?
So your solution to the risk of child sexual predation by cisgender men is to force pre-op transgender women to be in the wrong bathroom, and send boys into the women’s room.
That’s…um…not a solution at all, actually. And so I again ask the question, pretty please with sugar on it, my liege, for the fourth time now I believe: What proof do cisgender men need to show before entering a men’s room that they aren’t a raging pedophile given a chance to fulfill their fantasies of seeing young boys at the urinals with no legal penalty?
(Dare I even ask of your solution to protect us transgender girls and women from harassment, sexual assault, and rape under that situation?)
It’s absurd the kinds of mental gymnastics and social upheaval objectors will create and force society to conform with just because they want to avoid having a trans-person from getting an innocent (and likely disinterested) look at their junk.
Boy am I getting tired of the repetition. How many times do I have to say my concern is flashers and Peeping Toms who now have a free pass by *pretending *to be trans, exploiting a loophole in a new legal protection? I’ve expressed dubiousness about various aspects of the whole trans deal, but I don’t doubt for a minute that people who commit to a “transition”, change their names, even get childhood photos gender-shifted, etc., are acting out of very sincere feelings. Those are not the people I’m talking about here.
By casting your metaphorical net to catch the “flashers” (really, is that a thing even nowadays?) et al, you’re also proposing marginalizing and furthering legal discrimination against transgender persons. That is the main reason there’s even a disagreement here.