More info for anyone interested:
http://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm
http://www.ilrdb.com/ten-things-people-believe-about-service-dogs-that-simply-are-not-true/
The comparison of transgender people to service dogs seems completely illogical in the first place. It doesn’t matter if a service dog has papers or doesn’t when it comes to transgender people using either restroom with or without “certified authentic transgender documentation”. In fact the very premise of the argument, whether or not they can use the bathroom of their identity is 2 steps in the same direction. Who’s to say that a transgender man being forced by law to use the women’s bathroom isn’t secretly a biological male? Well then any man could just claim to be a transman, walk straight into a woman’s bathroom, he wouldn’t even have to go to the trouble of dressing like a woman, and just start raping everybody in there. Isn’t that the fear? So wouldn’t everyone need to carry these papers with photographic proof of their genitalia in order to use any public bathroom in this scenerio?
I don’t think this is nearly as difficult a problem as the op seems to think. Also after hearing una’s post, i don’t believe transgender people have any other motive for using the restroom than anyone else does, they just get the added bonus of it being potentially dangerous for them.
I used to work at a museum and would occasionally deal with people trying to bring their pets in. I shared the same attitude as you. If someone told me it was a service animal I just let it go. It rarely happened that anyone would try to bring an animal into the building and of the few times it did I only suspected one person of bullshitting me about it being for a medical need. But it’s not like I could be sure, right? Better to let her go then risk bad publicity or denying someone with a legitimate need entry into the establishment.
People who own pets are not protected under the Fair Housing Act, therefore landlords can and do refuse rental applications solely because they have a pet.
A service animal is an animal needed for the well-being and health of a patient, and is never considered a pet. Thus any “no pets allowed” rules do not apply to service animals.
Under the laws here, landlords are allowed to require a written statement from the patient’s doctor stating that the animal is indeed a service animal needed for the patient’s well-being and health. It is common place and doctor’s are generally very quick to provide this statement to the landlord.
It appears the local Wal-Mart just flat gave up and allows pets of any kind into their store.
I don’t care who shares the public bathroom with me.
Honestly, do some think that a potential rapist would care that the toilet is meant for females if they are willing to rape in the first place.
Most rapists would avoid a public toilet like the plague as well. Rapists do not like high-traffic areas where they can be surprised. They like solitary, isolated, out of the way locations where they have privacy.
Most women are raped in low-traffic, out of the way locations that offer privacy (if they don’t know the rapist, which is itself rare), or in their own home/rapist’s home (if they do know the rapist).
Public restrooms are high traffic areas by nature, where literally anyone can walk in and interrupt at any time. NOT the ideal hunting ground for rape.
Do you care that other people might care who they share a restroom with? Or should we abolish gendered restrooms? Do you think that would be an unpopular decision? If so, does that mean people hate those they don’t want to share a restroom with and therefore their wishes should be ignored?
Not especially, no.
Not especially, no.
Probably, yeah. We shouldn’t do it.
No, it doesn’t mean that.
When there’s some sort of serious injustice done to folks, it’s generally done because people who aren’t the victims of the injustice prefer the unjust system to remain in place. Those systems don’t maintain themselves. In order to get rid of that injustice, feathers must get ruffled.
I don’t really want to ruffle feathers, but I’m not especially worried about their ruffling. I do think that social changes that solve the injustice are better when they’re small changes.
Abolishing gendered restrooms is a bigger social change than allowing people to use the restroom of their identified gender. And if that bothers some people, let them suggest a smaller social change that rectifies the problem.
I’m sure some people don’t want to share a restroom with transgender people, and some people also don’t want to share a restroom with black people or Jews. Why is one more preference more legitimate than the other? Why should policy treat these two preferences any differently?
If it’s reasonable for society at large, and public policy, to ignore that some people are uncomfortable peeing around black people, then I put forward that it’s reasonable for society at large, and public policy, to ignore that some people are uncomfortable peeing around transgender people.
Who the hell do you think you are to force people to use unisex bathrooms? Do you think you are entitled to override other people’s long-held desire to do that?
Well, that’s a relief. At least you know you won’t succeed.
Of course it does.
This has nothing to do with transgender issues. We’re talking about gendered restrooms as a whole. Is it “injustice” that men and women don’t share the same public restrooms?
Well, no, the burden is on you.
I didn’t ask that. I asked if people should be forced to share a restroom with people of the opposite gender. You know, unisex bathrooms.
To say they should be forced to do that is entirely inconsistent with the claims of transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice.
That’s not my question. Is it reasonable to ignore that some people are uncomfortable peeing around those of the opposite gender? You know, men and women in the same restroom? Forget transgender people for a moment (though by saying that we should insist that transgender people not be forced to use the restroom not of their gender, you are basically saying we should have gendered restrooms, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense).
In the long run, I’m in favor of unisex bathrooms (which are already common in parts of Europe and perhaps elsewhere). In the short run, I don’t think this is going to happen, and I don’t think instituting it would make things better.
If we’re going to have gendered bathrooms (and we will at least for a while), then transgender people must be allowed to use them. In the long run I would expect the ‘need’ for gendered bathrooms to lessen, and they would become more common, and issues like this would go away.
Do you think it is an injustice that we have gendered restrooms?
If a transgender person must be allowed to use the bathroom of his/her gender (the opposite of his/her physical sex), this must mean that he or she must be forbidden from using the other one.
So a transgender male who is biologically female may not use the women’s room.
But a woman who dresses and looks very much like a man, but who does not consider herself to be male, can use the women’s room and may not use the men’s room, even if some women may think she’s actually a man, because she is not transgender and doesn’t consider herself to be a man. And vice versa.
Just throwin’ more stuff out there.
Probably not; if so, it’s a miniscule injustice.
Okay, but so what?
You don’t see the possibility of someone complaining that they are uncomfortable because someone appears to be male but is using the women’s room?
How is that different from a transgender person complaining about having to use a restroom with people who look different, but are of the same sex?
If restroom use is not defined by genitals but by appearance - but only for some people - see how that’s a can of worms?
If the point is to make transgender people comfortable, the very same policy could make it mighty hard to make everyone else comfortable even in the absence of transgender people.
You can’t get around the possibility that you’ll be forced to confront someone to assure they are entitled to use a certain restroom.
How would this be new? This possibility has always existed and will still exist.
It’s not, but so what (and do you mean sex or gender)?
It’s not defined by either – it’s defined by gender/gender identity.
That’s not the point – the point is to not discriminate against transgender people, and allow them to use the bathroom, like everyone else does.
I don’t plan to ever do this in any situation. Why would I? No one would be “forced to confront someone to assure they are entitled to use a certain restroom” any more than in the past.
But now you can’t just do a genital check. You have to make sure they really are transgender (assuming this ever came up).
So what? So if a transgender person is uncomfortable using a restroom of the opposite gender, that’s wrong, but if a person is uncomfortable using a restroom with someone who appears to be the opposite gender, it’s okay? How is it different?
No, it’s defined by appearance - because we have yet to consider the idea that someone can have a gender identity that doesn’t match the accepted appearance.
By your logic, a biological male could dress, look and act entirely like a typical male yet claim to be be female in gender, and use the women’s room. And I’m not saying that’s wrong - I’m saying it’s not what those who want to accomodate transgender people expect. But who are they to say a “woman” dresses a certain way, if they can’t even say a woman is someone who is biologically female?
I know, but MY POINT is that this comes with unintended consequences and isn’t as easy as it sounds.
Like hell. If a man - or someone who appeared to be a man - used the women’s room, and your wife or daughter complained, would you tell your wife or daughter to just not worry about it? Would their feelings not matter? And if you said that, why would you not feel the ability to say the same thing to a transgender person who is forced to use the restroom not of their choice?
My point is that this can bring up situations in which any person could face the exact same lack of respect for their feelings as a transgender person could face - even in the absense of a transgender person and even if nobody is complaining about a transgender person.
If I worked very hard, for many days and nights, without taking a break, perhaps eventually I could come up with more of a non sequitur answer to a post than yours. But only if I didn’t break for sleep.