This Bathroom Law Confusion

The one that does not risk her getting the shite kicked out of her in a situation where there are next to no protections whatsoever for LGBT individuals?And not that you've mentioned it but...As for the privacy issue, I thought women's bathrooms provided privacy even from other women, but perhaps my impression is naive. Do women actual see each others' naughty bits when they are in the ladies room?

She may be too young for the operations. She may still be physically male.And, frankly, it really doesn't matter what you consider her to be. The whole point is what she considers herself to be.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

When I was a girl not a lot of the other girls used the open urinals in the girl's room. Come to think of it, there weren't any open urinals in the girl's room. Come to think of it, I was never a girl.I should imagine a trans girl in the girl's room wouldn't be interested in the other girls. Like all the other girls there she is probably more interested in what's happening on the other side of the wall in the boy's room.

I've been thinking more of the laws that favor the LGBTs rather than the laws trying to stop it. The pictures Rhain posted show people anyone would take for the sex they WANT to be so why do you need a law to give them permission to use the restroom of their choice? This is part of what I'm having a problem with. If you LOOK male why would there be a problem with using the men's room, and same if you LOOK female using the women's room?The transgender question Moose raised does seem to be the only real gray area and in that case what interests me is the fact that they remain heterosexual but because of looking like the biologically opposite sex they would now be using the restroom of the sex to whom they are attracted. There may not be a problem here either except that it's not the same thing as being gay where there is no attraction to the biologically opposite sex.I don't think it's bigotry that promotes the laws against the LGBT law, I think it's confusion and not understanding the actual situation. The law attempting to oppose the LGBT laws shows a complete lack of understanding the actual situation. I do think there may be a more rational objection among conservatives, though, that I need to find out about, and even if it's more rational it may still not address the actual situation well enough.Again, though, I don't see any need to HAVE a law permitting someone who LOOKS male to use the men's restroom, same for the one who looks female to use the women's room, and it's THAT law that is freaking out the right. Why not just leave well enough alone? Use the restroom where you'd fit in best.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think there is finally something you and I agree about. I think it is really, really stupid for a group of people making any laws what so ever about which bathroom other people use. AND the laws they have passed don't make any sense at all and are ass backwards, forcing people who look like men to use women's restrooms and people who look like women to use men's restrooms.It is completely daft.

But these laws are coming AFTER the pro-LGBT laws, right? They are a reaction to them, and I'm agreeing that they don't address the actual situation. But what I'm also saying is that I don't see a need for the PRO-LGBT laws in the first place if, as Asgara said, transgenders have used the restroom they look like they fit into without a problem anyway. And why should there ever be a problem for someone who looks like the sex that is on the door to the restroom? And beyond that, there are lots of women who are recognized as women who don't look particularly feminine, who also wouldn't be kicked out of the women's room, and the same for men who aren't particularly masculine looking using the men's room. I mean there are degrees and gradations that aren't a problem either.BUT there is felt to be a need for these LGBT laws, which as I say are the reason the right is getting all freaked out. Why is there a need felt to have such laws if it's just a matter of looking like you fit into the restroom of your choice, which doesn't ruffle any feathers anyway?There is more to this than meets the eye.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But what you call pro-LGBT laws are laws that only PROtect LGBT folk from discrimination; laws that say you can't refuse service or fire someone simply for being LBGT.

I thought there were laws specifically about the use of restrooms. I know one was proposed in Texas, so I thought that's what all this is about.

Fear -> Anger -> Hatred Because rapists might dress in a skirt to access the women's showers and perverts might film the women. And children, won't somebody think of the children? This is on the best points I've seen made on this topic. Bravo.I understand what you've been through here so I assure you that that was sincere, it was not sarcasm. That is a great point, well made. Depends who 'they' are.The politicians aren't. They want to convince their voters of this, and it is working a bit. But it is a bit of a misfire, especially based on the evidence of your perspective.It's the same plays the hateful have used against blacks and gays but which have been defeated. The same as when gay men use the men's bathroom and gay women use women's bathroom and bisexual people use either.Nothing needs sorting because most people don't think public toilets are sexy. Your astonishment is equal to the astonishment you have seen from the left regarding refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.I'm not trying to persuade you, but maybe you can use this to build empathy with your opponents? It's not being imposed though is it? It's just a fact about humans that we have to learn how to deal with. Most of the burden of dealing with it has historically been placed on the transgendered.They were ostracized, denied lifesaving medical care, attacked, raped etc., etc., with little consequences to the perpetrators.Now people are increasingly agreeing that this is a terrible way to deal with the facts. This terrifies the right who want to codify laws as a way to extend the hate. Empathy mode. Let's imagine you are transgender and you and your friends spontaneously visit a restaurant, cafe or bar. You go to use the toilet that matches your gender, but is at odds with the sex you were assigned at birth. The manager says you can't. Now you have to use a toilet that feels wrong or leave.You've been embarrassed, been personally insulted (if someone denied you service because they questioned your femininity, you'd be upset), and now you have to cut the social event short or potentially put your safety at risk (I can tell you from personal experience that going into a man's restroom when you look like a girl is a terrifying experience in some places).Wouldn't it make life better if people could go to new places without having research their policy towards irrelevant personal details about them? These 'pro-LGBT' laws are about providing security, confidence, and remedy against hate and bigotry and simple ignorance based discrimination which are harmful to society as a whole. As you know, not all transgendered people 'fool' all of the people all of the time. Some transgendered people are clearly gendered differently than their sex.Sex hormones are powerful, and they leave many clues. Clues that humans are very very adept at spotting. A person that transitions during puberty may be utterly indistinguishable from a person of that sex from birth. A poor person who transitions in their late 30s? That's a big clue. And not all transgendered people opt for sex reassignment, and avoid hormone treatment even if they can afford it.There's quite a lot of late transitioners, because deciding to transition is a huge decision that many people resist taking until they can't handle it any more when they live in a society that won't even let transgendered people take a piss in peace. Yeah, bigotry *is* confusion and misunderstanding.They hate 'Queerness'. I identify as queer, and some people simply hate it. It's bigotry. Another fact about humans. I don't intend to inhibit the bathroom usage of bigots, however. Except you can't be sure that you will be able to, without having to talk to a stranger about the history of your genitals. It *shouldn't* be necessary, but there are enough massive asshats who want to deny service to queerfolk relying on the ambiguity of it not being explicitly illegal....that making it explicitly illegal is seen as a necessary step.Transgender folks are relatively rare, so most people don't encounter this situation regularly. Transgender folk on the other hand - have to stress and angst and worry every single time they use a public convenience. Transgendered people haven't caused any particular problems historically from their bathroom usage.
But cisgendered people HAVE caused problems.Hence the need for the laws. Who decides whether someone 'looks like' the sex that is on the door? Some people look female, but maybe their hands are a little big, their chin a little chiselled, a touch of stubble is visible, an Adam's apple is poorly hidden....or maybe conversation reveals the trans nature of the individual. Cross dressing is made illegal - 1848Christine Jorgensen tried to marry a man, but this was denied. The man she wanted to marry lost his job because he wanted to marry her. - 1959Dewey's Coffee Shop refused to serve transgendered people - 1965Compton's Cafeteria riot, owners called the police on transgendered customers, the police attempted to arrest on grounds that cross dressing was illegal, protests and rioting followed. 1966The courts denied changing sex information on birth certificates (1966, 1968), meaning straight transsexual women could still not marry men.

quote:

---

Ulane is entitled to any personal belief about her sexual identity she desires. After the surgery, hormones, appearance changes, and a new Illinois birth certificate and FAA pilot's certificate, it may be that society, as the trial judge found, considers Ulane to be female. But even if one believes that a woman can be so easily created from what remains of a man, that does not decide this case...Since Ulane was not discriminated against as a female, and since Title VII is not so expansive in scope as to prohibit discrimination against transsexuals, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Eastern on Count I and dismissal of Count II.

---

Ulane lost her job. 1984mid 70s through to mid 80s - laws prohibiting cross dressing began to get struck down by the courts. Schools remain a cross dressing free zone for the most partNancy Burkholder was removed from a women's festival when she was identified as being transgendered. 1991Karen Kopriva transitioned as a teacher causing much controversy. 1998The Rita Hester murder. 1998The Sixth Circuit rules that Title VII of the civil rights act, the one at the heart of Ulane's case, should be interpreted as allowing trangendered women to claim discrimination due to their sex. 2004Gender identity-based discrimination on the federal jobs web site USAJobs is banned by Obama, 200811th Circuit court concurs that firing Vandy Beth Glenn for transitioning was wrongful. 2011Mia Macy is denied a job. Title VII of the Civil Rights act, is interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as prohibiting discrimination of transgendered individuals - 2012.Executive Order 13672 - adding 'gender identity' and 'sexual orientation' to the list of individuals protected against hiring discrimination for federal contractors and sub contractors. 2014Instant dismissal from the military for being transgendered is apparently no longer a thing. 2015 Tamara Lusardi transitioned, but was forced by her superiors to use the male bathroom. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled this was not legal, April 2015Transgendered teens (who are too young for sex reassignment surgery) start fighting for the right to use the bathroom and locker room etc., of their gender identity. Summer 2015Bathroom Bills start popping up...spring 2015 - 2016.The idea that Conservatives are freaking out in response to liberal lawmaking may be true, but liberal law making is because of the impacts to real people that Conservative law making and conservative social views being enacted with those with power against others were having.If society had not been historically and apparently contemporarily so shitty towards these people there'd be no need for the laws, you are right. But they have and they are so laws are needed.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Two subjects, the LBGT laws related to bathrooms and the other subject the earlier LBGT laws related to protection.

Answer - whenever and whichever they want, respectively. To the first: usually very early into the process, meaning the answer to the second is typically 'female' once the path to transition has started.Typically transitioning occurs as part of a psychological plan. The first question is still often 'when do I make the transition from 'in the home' to 'out and about'?'. The answer: As soon as you are comfortable doing so. Let's work on confidence and understanding your expectations.The bathroom switch is another big one, a time which should be mundane but at which you are often socially forced to declare to idle observers what sex/gender you are. Do I look feminine enough to use the ladies without suffering sniggers, malicious comments or even vociferous outrage?Then, am I too feminine to use the men's room? Will I be mocked, assaulted,sexually assaulted or worse?Ah screw it, I'm going home to watch Mulan and cry.A good strategy for confidence issues the these days is start at gay bars, then at some of the satellite businesses, then try out some 'hipster' or other liberalesque subcultures before going somewhere mainstream. However, if you are working in an office environment or are at school, going mainstream may be thrust upon you early...Then again, it depends on the speed and nature of the transition. At some point it feels utterly preposterous to go into a male bathroom. Not just because you feel you are a woman, but because you are clearly and wildly out of place there and its more embarrassing to simply be there than to tolerate any potential sniggers from using the other.It's an early part of the process, and psychologists/therapists will use this difficult decision to assist getting comfortable with living the transition full time long before genitals start being surgically altered.

This thread is about bathrooms. Is this included in the general antidiscrimination laws or a separate thing? I'm not sure it really matters but I'd like to know what the anti-LGBT bathroom laws are aimed at.Sorry, I really haven't been keeping up with this, just enough to be aware that some states are formulating laws to stop LGBT laws permitting them to choose whatever restroom suits them. When I read that your biological sex must determine which room you can use I knew there was some kind of confusion and misunderstanding involved. As Rrhain points out, it's not reasonable to demand that your biological sex determine which room you can use because it's how you look that people react to.My impression is that the reactive laws are based on fears about some kind of trouble or danger that would result from allowing people to choose whatever restroom they feel suits them, and I believe those fears are not justified from what I've read about them. As I've been saying, if people are able to use a restroom without looking out of place why is there a problem at all?As for fears that are likely not reasonable, what's the point of accusing people of bigotry when they just need to be better informed about the actual situation? There are a lot of people who have no experience of these things AT ALL, you can't suddenly impose a completely unfamiliar situation on them, change their familiar experiences into something that sounds strange and dangerous, and demand that they conform to your understanding, especially in this militant strident accusatory tone that is in itself threatening.So far I see no REAL danger in letting people choose which restroom to use. If there is more to it than that I'll need to find out about it later.

Why do you have to write such long posts, Mod? They risk getting unread you know. Thank you. It seems obvious to me and an indicator that there is a lot of confusion on this subject. I'd really like to see more understanding of the perspective of ordinary people who are freaked out by militant campaigns to change their familiar experiences. Even the politicians who are making these new laws don't seem to have a real grasp of the realities. I don't think it's about hate and bigotry, I think it's about feeling forced to accept something totally strange that seems threatening. Yes, that's true, and I realized it later. No issue there. From my point of view the situations are completely different. The status of marriage in the Bible is sacrosanct, it's not just a matter of sinners being sinners, it's a matter of forcing us to oppose God's law by actively supporting a social structure the Bible condemns. It isn't about homosexuality as such at all, it's about marriage, and if nobody understands it but a certain group of Bible believers, still we have to refuse to serve gay marriage according to our understanding of the Bible.But we are not required to oppose sin because we're all sinners. Cross-dressing is sin, homosexual acts are sin, but so are heterosexual acts outside of marriage, so is divorce etc., so are all kinds of things people do all the time that would break the system if you tried to make them into crimes. Everybody would be in prison or hung on the scaffold.So the question about restrooms from the Christian or conservative point of view isn't about violating a Biblical ordinance, it's about whether there is any actual problem or danger to society in general, or to nonLGBTs, by allowing people to use whatever facility they fit into, which seems to be the reason for the laws attempting to prevent it. I think the general peace of society would be better served by backing off this one. There is no real threat, no real danger, and it's just a matter of this being recognized. If I'm wrong I guess I'll find out eventually. All I can do is express my opinion. If it builds empathy, great, if it doesn't I can't help it. But people who have no experience of these things do experience it as having something strange and dangerous imposed on them out of the blue. In the case of gay marriage the law IS imposing on Christians and putting us in an untenable position. I don't think the restroom situation is similar but nevertheless people who are unfamiliar with all these things do feel it as something alien being forced on them. Those who have lived with the social ostracism have no sympathy for them, don't really care what they do to the rest of society because they consider themselves unjustly treated, but it would help a lot to try to get a bigger picture in spite of all that. Yes, and now you are out for blood and don't care what you do to society as a whole. It is very few who express that sort of hatred, the rest are confused and fearful. I do understand this, and I think it is mostly a matter of getting it across. When all we hear is that there is a law proposed that wants to change who can use what restroom, and have no understanding of what that would entail in reality, and nobody is bothering to try to explain it, just getting all accusatory about bigotry and hate and discrimination, you ought to recognize that a lot of people are likely to freak out and for good reason. Again, I think you are blinded by your own personal experience and need to see things more from the other side, which does NOT experience these laws as about a necessary security for some people that does not threaten anybody, and are reacting understandably to being called names and vilified about something they've never given half a thought to before. Well, mount a campaign to clarify all this and stop calling people who don't understand such things bigots and haters.Your lengthy post is too much for me. If there's more in it I want to respond to I'll have to come back to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is lots more to it than just which bathroom to use. For example the issue of refusing services based on things like LBGT. In Tennessee there is a law that passed in the House and is now going to the Senate (that passed a similar earlier) that specifically allows Therapists to refuse treatment and counseling to gays. There is a similar situation in Mississippi. Florida is also pushing through similar legislation.This attack on LBGT citizens is wide spread and pernicious.AbE: Here is a pretty good summary of just how wide-spread the anti LBGT legislation effort is.Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleEdited by jar, : see AbE.Edited by jar, : fix link

OK, well I agree that conservatives are overreacting and need to see things from the other side. There are certainly hills we are called to die on but I don't think this is one of them, and I can continue to give this opinion. It would help, however, as I keep saying, for those on your side to stop treating ordinary people whose fears are based on lack of familiarity with these things, as some kind of monsters.