No, sounds about right to me. It’s dumb to outlaw guns because people might misuse them, and it’s silly to outlaw using the bathroom because some people might misuse them. You can be consistent on the issue of “laws that make other laws double-plus illegal, while additionally making thousands of otherwise law abiding people into criminals on paper, are stupid”. And in both cases, the “making the existing crime extra illegal” is just a red herring, while “making thousands of innocent people into criminals” is actually the whole point.
Yes, that may have happened and it is a shame that it happened, however the person claiming to be blind was in fact not blind and therefore called out on their bullshit (I would hope). After that incident the school did not choose to force blind children into their own separate bathroom did they?
This whole idea of someone being able to pretend to be what they are not to establish a sinister goal is not limited to bathroom use, people dress as police officers to rob banks, are police officers banned from entering banks? are they forced to prove they are officers of the law before entering a bank? A sexual predator is a sexual predator regardless of what they claim to be, and they should be the ones being punished further, not people who feel they should have the liberty to use a bathroom they are comfortable with.
Thank you for your responses to this point. I will address a couple of things raised here, and spare you quoting of specific posts.
-
I ask this question as a devil’s advocate. I am encountering discussions with people who make this argument, and it doesn’t pass the smell test for me. But aside from a lot of hypotheticals, I have no concrete data regarding bathroom assaults. I try to avoid the temptation to say, “You are an idiot” as a response to such arguments, so I am looking for your thoughts, experiences, and data.
-
I apologize if I have used language that is not consistent with the generally accepted terminology. When I said “transgender man who identifies as female” I thought it was pretty clear that I meant “someone whose biological sex is male but identifies as female.” Excuse me if I got it backwards. I guess the prevailing convention is to refer to one using their gender identity as the primary reference, and then secondarily to a biological sex if such a description is even needed. I did not deliberately choose language for the purpose of denigrating transgender people.
-
You may or not believe my anecdote, and it doesn’t matter to this discussion, or to me personally, whether you do or not. The anecdote is the not the point of the discussion, it’s just elaboration. If you prefer, you may consider it a hypothetical story to illustrate the concerns. If you prefer, you may consider it so outlandish as to be complete bullshit. (jsgodess, I was told this story within two weeks of when it allegedly happened. It was not “Oh, this happened years ago when we were teenagers.” These were 50-year-old women.)
In 2016, 8,755 transgender people followed women into bathrooms and assaulted them. 2,308 of those attacks ended in the death of the woman.
Oh, shit, sorry. Those are gun attacks and gun homicides, not transgender attacks and transgender homicides. Still, the point stands: the two arguments are exactly the same.
I don’t understand your point. I think I was perfectly clear (in the part you don’t quote) that the weighing of the various factors could lead to different conclusions on the propriety of any policy. And I think I was perfectly clear that I thought the balancing did not likely justify any sort of anti-transgender bathroom policy.
But the argument in both cases is it is beneficial to allow the police to intervene before the bad event happens (because although the bad event is already illegal, the price of waiting until the current crime has been committed is that someone is a victim of the crime). And that the inconvenience to law-abiding individuals is worth it.
In both arguments, it depends on the likelihood of crime, the severity of the crime, and the significance of the inconvenience. You clearly think that it’s an easy balancing test (presumably both for bathroom access and gun possession), but I don’t see how that refutes my point. You can apply it to any number of situations (traffic laws generally work on the principle that we punish you before you actually harm someone else, because fewer people get harmed that way).
What I’m pointing out is that the underlying reality is important. A prophylactic law that addresses a real social ill makes a lot more sense than one that addresses a fantasy problem, to the extent that it makes no sense to analogize between the two.
Edit: okay, I’m rereading that last paragraph more carefully, and it may be that we are in large agreement; if so, my apologies.
Honestly, and maybe this is worth its own thread, but the transgender bathroom issue strikes me as being an issue that is an inevitable loser for the liberal side and a Pyrrhic victory for the reactionaries. This is an issue of insignificant scale and importance that has suddenly blown up beyond about fifty more pressing issues.
The liberal side here has inexplicably chosen to focus their efforts on a miniscule issue that is one hundred percent guaranteed to make them look, at best, kind of weird to the relatively centrist voters.
The conservative side, as usual, wants to use a sledgehammer to smash in the heads of people weaker than they are.
I think we are in agreement. At least about bathrooms.
I’d characterize your point as being that Factor A (likelihood of the bad thing)–which here is sexual misconduct committed by transgendered people, or persons purporting to be transgendered, in “sex-appropriate” bathrooms–is really low. That seems almost certainly correct. And Factor C (inconvenience to law-abiding citizens) is fairly high (potentially really high). I just think it’s useful framework in response to the argument that Factor B (the bad thing) is already illegal.
My point, really, is that you can be perfect consistent on the principle and reach different conclusions based on the situation. It’s not that the existing crime is extra illegal. It’s that making the preparatory conduct illegal can prevent the existing crime from happening. And that might be worth it, depending on a number of factors. But it might not. But in either case, I don’t think that the point is to make more criminals.
If I’m understanding what you’re saying, there still may be a missing point: will the law have any effect on the number of incidents of Factor B?
The OP’s scenario has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of transgender access to bathrooms. Dishonest people have always been able, and probably always will be able, to gain access to the bathroom for the opposite gender, incredibly easily with the slightest bit of effort. This won’t change at all if transgender people are guaranteed access to bathrooms that match their gender identity. The political issue is ensuring that transgender people don’t have to be dishonest, and have less risk to their safety, in order to gain access to the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
I think you’re suggesting that good, tolerant people should just stand aside when the bigots want to smash in the heads of people weaker than they are, just because other bigots won’t join in if the tolerant people decide to fight it? Is that right?
:dubious: Well, this guy seemed to understand the generally accepted meanings of those terms as currently used in discussions of transgender and gender identity. Maybe you should try asking him.
In the context of current discussions of gender-identity issues, terms such as “transgender man” make sense, but AFAIK the phrase “transgender men who identify as women” does not. Which is why I asked the OP for clarification.
That’s a fair point. You’re right. So you’ve got: likelihood of the bad thing happening; the severity of the bad thing; likelihood that the law will reduce the instances of the bad thing; and the degree of harm caused to law-abiding citizens.
(I don’t focus much on “severity of the bad thing”, because murder and sexual assault are very bad. But one can imagine that factor altering the balance in some situations).
Agreed; neither side looks “good” in this fight.
I’d say you haven’t thought this through. Right now we have a convention, women’s rooms are full of people who look like women. This is helpful.
Let’s say you own a store and a customer complains that there’s a man in the ladies room. You walk in and sure enough, there’s a man. “I’m really a transgender woman,” he says. Now you have options. You can believe her and let her use this restroom. Or you can not believe him, and throw him out of the store for being a skeeve. Or you can respectfully ask her to use the men’s room until she looks less like a man. I’m not a king of tact and I don’t know what protocol would be, but the option is yours.
Now let’s say there’s a bathroom bill on the books. You walk in and the man says, “I know I look like a man but I was born a woman and I’m legally required to use this restroom.” Now what? If you throw him out and later find that he’s telling the truth, you’re opening yourself up to a lawsuit. The only safe option is to let people who look like men use the ladies room if they want to. You’ve removed your own options for dealing with the situation in a common sense manner.
If ever there was a time a woman deserved an unexpected shot of jizz in the eye, this was it.
Also, in the rare event a man assaults a woman in the restroom, the store isn’t legally liable since the store was required to let the man in. If the store had choice/options, it would be liable.
You’ll have to pry my plunger out of my cold, dead hands! 
I have a casual acquaintance / drinking buddy who is a trans man. He’s married to a cisgender female, and looks like a short, chubby (sorry dude), bearded, balding lumberjack with ear plugs and a bunch of tattoos.
I’m a little dumbfounded that anybody would feel more comfortable if he used the ladies’ room.