The “Transgender in the wrong bathroom” is the biggest BS argument and anyone who thinks that hairy men in bad wigs are sneaking into women’s rooms for the lulls is either fearful or ignorant.
Non Cis-gendered people basically spend their whole life not quite fitting in; many suffer from anxiety or depression. How much attention do they want to draw on themselves in a bathroom?
Non Cis-gendered people just want to freaking go to the bathroom. Now they get to put up with this bullshit too. They’re not there to perv on you or your little daughter. How are they going to see your daughter anyway? Is she locked in a stall or peeing in a sink?
2.5. The actual number of transgender people arrested for perving in bathrooms compared to “family value” conservatives? The numbers may (not) shock you:
North Carolina’s law isn’t just aimed at transgender people. It’s affects LGBT, women, and veterans. North Carolina is a big military state, what the hell are they thinking?
North Carolina’s law is specifically created to benefit rich, white, Christian males. If you’re not one of those, them’s the breaks.
I can appreciate the hubbub, but it’s entirely overblown, if not a downright sham. Men have always been able to dress as the opposite sex, to try and get away with whatever they wanted to get away with in women’s facilities. I don’t recall countless instances of this happening, are arrest warrants stacking up like cordwood? Please enlighten me if I am mistaken. The hue and cry FOR these laws is just to up the “Ick Factor.” If ANYONE tries anything dodgy then they should be arrested, but don’t make it a condition of their genitals.
Honestly, I feel like many trans folk would have similar experiences in either restroom. Caitlin Jenner would make either gender uncomfortable (for those who express discomfort with the opposite sex using the same restroom), as men would not regard her as a real man and women would not recognize her as a real woman. Bigotry knows no gender.
So what’s the wife’s strategy when she sees what she thinks is a man in the ladies room? Is she going to be cool, knowing he must have a vagina in his pants? Is she going to ask him? Or just freak out because there’s a man in the ladies room? If he says he’s got a vagina in his pants, is that enough for her? Is she going to ask to see it? Is she honestly going to be cool with any of this?
To be fair, my wife pointed out that when she was working at Dayton-Hudson about 20 years ago, they were notified that there were several transgender women on their floor, and it was pretty obvious when the person in the next stall walked in and peed standing up, no “peeking under the stalls” was required.
Obviously, immediately fixable by the women (sit down), but still.
I have a pretty androgynous appearance, and have been often mistaken for a male my entire life. I am 100% woman, and I identify as a woman. I am now worried about stopping in NC to use the restroom, for fear of there being an incident.
First of all, men all turn into 14-year-olds as soon as they cross the threshold of the men’s room, so woe be it unto any vaginas that walk in. It’s not the guys who should be worried.
As for the women, I can see that there might be some concern about being in an enclosed place with no security visible, no security cameras (obviously) but with just you and someone who obviously has a male body. It’s not about someone seeing you pee or being in your private space. It’s you bing in a place where you feel unsafe.
Indeed, though not QUITE in the way some may think. As pointed out elsewhere on this board, I believe, the goal is to societally discourage, maybe eventually outlaw, transitioning. Because conservative lawmakers think that the people in your links need to be treated for mental illness, not “coddled” and “having their parts chopped off” and “deceiving” others.
The bathroom part is, in one sense, beside the point. The actual goal is to tell transgender people of any stage that they’re crazy and sick.
I agree that the laws in question are misguided and should be repealed.
But that does not mean I should let falsehoods pass unremarked.
Or does it? This particular falsehood that your link contains supports a view that I also support. On a message board that purports to fight ignorance, should I call out the falsehood?
To answer the question: I’m not concerned about the world, since the world’s mission is not fighting ignorance. Different rules apply to the world.
On the SDMB, the scope of falsehoods is smaller. Here we have a falsehood that appears in a cited source, as opposed to a poster’s own prose. But as a general rule, my approach has been if I see one, and no one else has highlighted it, I do.
The response to that is different depending on the subject. If someone accuses Ted Cruz of being an arsonist, and I correct that claim, I am accused of wanting to defend Ted Cruz. I am advised that, if I must correct such claims, I should take pains to point out my distaste for Cruz at the same time, so that no one believes my rebuttal of the arson claim arises from Cruz-love.